Authors: Zengji Tu, Xingye Zhu, Ningjing Wang, Tingyi Huang, Yangjunfeng Zhu, Dai Wan
Organizations: Peking University, Beijing 100871, China · Sign Language Department, Loving Heart Society, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China · Institute of Population Research, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Identifying an unfamiliar sign is difficult when a learner remembers its movement but does not know its meaning or formal feature codes. SignTrace addresses this longstanding reverse-lookup problem through natural-language access to a Chinese sign-language dictionary. The system integrates LLM-based dictionary enrichment, action extraction, dictionary-style rewriting, seven-channel retrieval, and candidate reranking over 6,699 entries. It has been deployed for user trials and has received positive informal feedback. Evaluation on a dictionary-derived benchmark of 500 movement-description queries yields 94.0% Hit@1, 97.4% Hit@9, and a mean reciprocal rank of 0.9540. Reranking increases Hit@1 from 71.8% to 94.0%, while component analyses show the contribution of enriched entry descriptions. Median query-processing time is 13.37 seconds with six concurrent queries. By connecting everyday movement descriptions to documented signs and meanings, SignTrace provides a practical tool for identifying unfamiliar signs. Dictionary-derived wording and prior selection within the benchmark limit generalization to descriptions independently produced by users.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The SignTrace architecture: dictionary enrichment, parallel query transformations, seven-channel candidate retrieval, and action-based reranking. The dashed path supplies the extracted observation directly to the reranker.
Figure 2: Complementary retrieval representations for example query 81. The input and selected fields are translated from the recorded Chinese query and extraction. Hand count, fingertip state, movement, location, and contact support complementary query representations; the unreported orientation remains unspecified.
Figure 3: Recorded target votes for query 490. Bars show contributions after channel cutoffs; an absent vote is zero. The target moves from recall rank 13 to final rank 1.
Property
Value
Query source
Dictionary action descriptions and annotations
Queries and target entries
500 / 500
Query identifiers
1–500
Description length, including punctuation
13–64 characters; median 35
Attempted / scored / excluded
500 / 500 / 0
Table 1: Table 1. Characteristics of the evaluation dataset.
ID
Movement description
Target meaning
Rank
1
Hold the left thumb upright. Stroke its back with the right hand, then hold the right hand across its front and lower both hands together.
Care for; protect
1
81
Gather the fingertips of one hand against the mouth, then draw the hand downward while spreading the fingers.
Experience; try
1
201
Raise the left thumb. Move the curved fingers of the right hand from the left shoulder onto the thumb. Then form a ring with the left thumb and index finger and flick the bent right index and middle fingers outward twice at its opening.
Supported care
1
343
Hold the left hand open and upright, palm outward. Bend the right index and middle fingers and tap their tips against the left palm.
Numeral; classifier
13
489
Point both hands downward and rotate the wrists in front of the body. Then curve the fingers slightly and cup one hand over each ear.
Audiometry
1
490
Hold the index, middle, and ring fingers apart and upright, pressing the bent little finger with the thumb. Then hold the index finger horizontally in front of the mouth and rotate it back and forth twice.
Predicate
1
Table 2: Table 2. Example evaluation queries and final target ranks, including a retrieval error and a successful fallback case. English descriptions and glosses translate the Chinese queries and reference meanings. Only movement descriptions are submitted as input.
Metric
Hits / total
Rate (%)
95% Wilson CI (%)
Hit@1
470/500
94.0
91.6–95.8
Hit@9
487/500
97.4
95.6–98.5
Pool@60
497/500
99.4
98.3–99.8
Table 3: Table 3. Final performance on the complete dictionary-derived benchmark. All proportions use a denominator of 500; no attempted query is excluded.
Figure 4: Retrieval hit rates on the evaluation dataset (n = 500). All curves use the same maximum depth of 60. Line styles and markers distinguish raw-query BM25, seven-channel recall, and the final ranking. Vertical guides mark the nine-result cutoff and the 20-candidate reranking window.
Method
Hit@1
Hit@9
Hit@20
Pool@60
MRR
Raw-query BM25
331
445
465
485
0.7446
Seven-channel recall
359
475
488
497
0.8002
SignTrace + Gemini
470
487
488
497
0.9540
Table 4: Table 4. Stage comparison on the same 500 inputs and enriched dictionary. All hit columns are counts. Only the SignTrace candidate lists received Gemini reranking.
Comparison
k
Gain, pp [95% CI]
Wins/losses
p
Holm p
Final vs. recall
1
22.2 [16.8, 27.2]
114/3
3.21e-30
1.29e-29
Final vs. recall
9
2.4 [0.3, 4.4]
12/0
4.88e-04
9.77e-04
Recall vs. BM25
20
4.6 [1.6, 7.4]
24/1
1.55e-06
4.65e-06
Recall vs. BM25
60
2.4 [0.3, 4.4]
12/0
4.88e-04
9.77e-04
Table 5: Table 5. Paired comparisons on the evaluation dataset (n = 500). Gains are percentage points. Difference intervals are conservative simultaneous-binomial intervals; exact p-values use discordant pairs. Holm correction applies to the four displayed comparisons.
Lexical document layers
Hit@1
Hit@9
Hit@20
Pool@60
1: Source description
249
369
403
434
1+2: Visual re-description
265
390
419
451
1+2+3: Structured summaries
333
446
465
485
1+2+3+4: Sense strings
331
445
465
485
Table 6: Table 6. Raw-query BM25 with cumulative document enrichment on the evaluation dataset (n = 500). Cells are first-stage hit counts. The query itself is unchanged.
First-stage configuration
Hit@1
Hit@9
Hit@20
Pool@60
All seven channels
359
475
488
497
Without T
353
469
481
494
Without Td
357
474
484
495
Without Tmv
359
472
488
498
Without Traw
360
474
485
498
Without Tq2d
324
459
479
494
Table 7: Table 7. Retrieval-channel and fusion ablations on the evaluation dataset (n = 500). Cells are hit counts. Removing Tq2d retains its meaning guesses in G. All configurations share the same model outputs; changed candidate lists are not reranked.
Figure 5: Component analyses on the evaluation dataset (n = 500). Left: first-result accuracy of unmodified-query BM25 as entry text is enriched. Right: changes in first-20 hit counts after removing individual channels, relative to 488 hits with all seven channels. The shared query representations are fixed, and no altered candidate list is reranked.
Timed scope
Median (s)
90th percentile (s)
95th percentile (s)
Parallel preparation and recall
2.69
3.30
3.56
Gemini reranking
10.68
14.32
16.39
Complete query processing
13.37
17.14
19.36
Table 8: Table 8. Processing durations for 500 evaluation queries, including the three parsing-fallback cases. Each row summarizes independently measured per-query intervals. Batch scheduling wait and browser/network overhead outside the experimental pipeline are excluded.
Figure 6: Empirical cumulative distributions of processing time for 500 evaluation queries. No observations are filtered or smoothed. Preparation includes parallel extraction and rewriting plus local recall; the full interval also includes reranking and local recording.
Component
Recorded setting
Execution date
2026-09-13; 500 queries evaluated
Dictionary
6,699 entries; 8,687 listed meanings
Text retrieval
BM25; Chinese characters and adjacent character pairs; k1=1.5 , b=0.75
Fusion
T, Td, Tmv, Traw, Tq2d, S, G; c=300 , m=3 , w=1.5
Channel voting limits
Positive scores for T/Td/S; first 20 for Tmv/Traw/Tq2d; first 10 for G
Candidate pool and window
60 retrieved entries; first 20 reranked
Table 9: Table B1. Experimental configuration for the 500-query evaluation. Unspecified model sampling parameters retain the endpoint defaults. The requested and returned strings are recorded identifiers, not independent verification of underlying model weights.
Model role
Calls
Input tokens
Output tokens
Total tokens
DeepSeek: two query transformations
1000
638,068
225,223
863,291
Gemini: candidate reranking
500
2,242,676
723,172
2,965,848
Table 10: Table B2. API-reported token usage for all 1,500 calls. Output counts already include any reasoning tokens counted within completion usage. No monetary conversion is applied.
Stage
Hit@1
Hit@3
Hit@5
Hit@9
Hit@20
Pool@60
Recall
359 (71.8)
427 (85.4)
453 (90.6)
475 (95.0)
488 (97.6)
497 (99.4)
Final
470 (94.0)
482 (96.4)
484 (96.8)
487 (97.4)
488 (97.6)
497 (99.4)
Table 11: Table C1. Recall and final target-hit counts and percentages at all recorded cutoffs. Every cell uses the complete 500-query denominator.
ID
Target meaning
Recall rank
Final rank
14
Cauliflower
27
27
17
Dismantle
49
49
18
Exceed a production target
50
50
38
Regular; periodic
56
56
58
Bright; light
Absent
Absent
114
Shallow
33
33
Table 12: Table C2. All 13 queries whose final target rank exceeds nine. Absent means the target does not occur in the 60-entry candidate pool. Targets beyond the 20-entry window retain their recall rank.
Characters
n
Hit@1
95% Wilson CI (%)
Hit@9
13–24
45
40 (88.9)
76.5–95.2
45 (100.0)
25–40
307
286 (93.2)
89.8–95.5
297 (96.7)
41–64
148
144 (97.3)
93.3–98.9
145 (98.0)
Table 13: Table C3. Descriptive length strata partitioning all 500 evaluation queries. Length counts Unicode characters including punctuation. Hit columns give counts and percentages; intervals refer to Hit@1. These post hoc strata compare different queries.
Sign language dictionaries are essential resources for sign language learners, yet automatically retrieving a sign from a dictionary, given only a query video, remains a challenging problem due to the natural variability between signers. Existing sign representation learning methods are built for closed-set recognition, producing embeddings that do not generalise to the open-set, signer-independent setting that retrieval demands. SignSeek closes this gap by contrastively learning sign representations with saliency-guided articulator masking. A contrastive objective aligns same-gloss signs across signers, while our Articulator Saliency-Guided Masking (ASGM) pinpoints the single most critical articulator per sign. This drives two complementary objectives, a masked contrastive alignment (MAC) loss that sees the sign through a single articulator and a masked prediction (MAP) loss that reconstructs it in latent space from the surrounding spatio-temporal context. Pretrained on 266K samples (∼5,700 glosses) across multiple sign languages, SignSeek sets a new state-of-the-art performance in cross-corpus retrieval on ASL-Citizen, WLASL, and NMFs-CSL without any downstream fine-tuning. Strikingly, it achieves zero-shot generalisation to an entirely unseen British Sign Language (BSL), surpassing methods explicitly trained on BSL, and transfers seamlessly to isolated sign recognition and subtitle alignment, outperforming prior skeleton-based methods.
Sobhan Asasi, Ozge Mercanoglu Sincan, Richard Bowden
The objective of this paper is to match dictionary sign videos to corresponding signs in continuous signing videos, where a match is defined by the visual similarity alone - the handshape and motion relative to the body. To achieve this, we learn a prototype-structured sign embedding space from continuous video annotated with signs, where each learnable prototype corresponds to a sign class. Isolated dictionary videos are then mapped into this sign space, enabling the matching between dictionary exemplars and continuous sign instances. This design supports direct dictionary-guided sign matching through embedding similarity and naturally extends to unseen signs using only dictionary exemplars. Experiments on ASL-Citizen dictionary retrieval, ChaLearn OSLWL dictionary-to-continuous sign matching, and using BOBSL's CSLR2 evaluation for automatic sign annotation demonstrate strong generalisation across datasets, tasks and sign languages. Without benchmark-specific supervision, the learned representation transfers effectively across American, British, and Spanish Sign Languages, outperforming prior methods on all three benchmarks. Project page: https://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/research/signmatch/
Ryan Wong, Youngjoon Jang, Liliane Momeni +2
Visual Geometry Group Department of Engineering Science University of Oxford UK · LIGM, École des Ponts, IP Paris, Univ Gustave Eiffel, CNRS France
Isolated Sign Language Recognition (ISLR) is conventionally cast as closed-set classification over gloss labels, which cannot generalize to signs unseen in training and ties every deployment to a gloss-annotated lexicon. We instead recognize signs extracted from continuous signing by (1) captioning a sign-level clip into a free-form procedural description of the articulation with an open-weight vision-language model, and (2) retrieving the closest entry from a vocabulary of target descriptions with a multilingual sentence encoder: a reverse sign language dictionary that needs no gloss supervision and admits an open vocabulary. On 1,300 sign-level segments from a Japanese Sign Language (JSL) dialogue corpus annotated with procedural descriptions (against a 2% top-10 chance floor over the 503-entry target vocabulary), fine-tuning the captioner substantially improves seen-class retrieval: language and vision tower fine-tuning raises top-10 retrieval on seen classes from 4.5% (untrained) to 49%, becoming statistically indistinguishable from a standard supervised closed-set classifier (I3D) on two of the three test sets where a closed-set classifier can be evaluated at all. More importantly, unseen-class retrieval also improves significantly over the untrained pipeline (11.5% -> 21.0% top-10, p=0.0094), a regime in which the closed-set classifier cannot participate. A matcher-side empirical upper-bound analysis shows the sentence encoder already recovers close to 100% of paraphrased gold descriptions, locating a gap in captioning quality that we aim to address in future work. To our knowledge this is the first description-based, open-vocabulary sign lookup from continuous signing without gloss supervision, and the first for JSL.
Santiago Poveda-Gutiérrez, Hideki Nakayama, Mayumi Bono
Grad. School of IST The University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan · Information and Society Research Division National Institute of Informatics Tokyo, Japan