Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Finnur Ágúst Ingimundarson

Publications and source records attributed to Finnur Ágúst Ingimundarson.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Isolated Sign Language Recognition for Icelandic Sign Language: Experiments in a Low-resource Setting

We present the first experiments on isolated sign language recognition (ISLR) for Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM). We use ÍTM SignWiki, a dataset derived from a bilingual Icelandic--ÍTM online dictionary. It is genuinely low-resource: 1,845 videos cover 849 classes, 86% of which have only two examples, making the full task effectively one-shot recognition across signers. We compare two open-source ISLR frameworks, OpenHands and SPOTER, on three tasks of increasing vocabulary size (22, 117 and 849 classes), and evaluate three pose estimators and two forms of cross-lingual transfer. With ÍTM data alone, SPOTER outperforms OpenHands on all three tasks, and MediaPipe poses give better results than AlphaPose or SDPose. Cross-lingual transfer brings the largest gains: pretraining SPOTER on American Sign Language data before finetuning on ÍTM raises accuracy by 14--24 percentage points, to 72.7%, 47.9% and 22.6% on the three tasks, and multilingual training with data from six other sign languages lifts OpenHands from 1.41% to 28.86% on the full task. Although far from practical use, the results suggest that transfer from better-resourced sign languages is promising for very low-resource ones. We release our adapted versions of both frameworks.

cs.CL↗

Who Benchmarks the Benchmarks? A Case Study of LLM Evaluation in Icelandic

This paper evaluates current Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarking for Icelandic, identifies problems, and calls for improved evaluation methods in low/medium-resource languages in particular. We show that benchmarks that include synthetic or machine-translated data that have not been verified in any way, commonly contain severely flawed test examples that are likely to skew the results and undermine the tests' validity. We warn against the use of such methods without verification in low/medium-resource settings as the translation quality can, at best, only be as good as MT quality for a given language at any given time. Indeed, the results of our quantitative error analysis on existing benchmarks for Icelandic show clear differences between human-authored/-translated benchmarks vs. synthetic or machine-translated benchmarks.

cs.CL↗