SyriSign: A Parallel Corpus for Arabic Text to Syrian Arabic Sign Language Translation

Mohammad Amer Khalil, Raghad Nahas, Ahmad Nassar, Khloud Al Jallad · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Sign language is the primary approach of communication for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) community. While there are numerous benchmarks for high-resource sign languages, low-resource languages like Arabic remain underrepresented. Currently, there is no publicly available dataset for Syrian Arabic Sign Language (SyArSL). To overcome this gap, we introduce SyriSign, a dataset comprising 1500 video samples across 150 unique lexical signs, designed for text-to-SyArSL translation tasks. This work aims to reduce communication barriers in Syria, as most news are delivered in spoken or written Arabic, which is often inaccessible to the deaf community. We evaluated SyriSign using three deep learning architectures: MotionCLIP for semantic motion generation, T2M-GPT for text-conditioned motion synthesis, and SignCLIP for bilingual embedding alignment. Experimental results indicate that while generative approaches show strong potential for sign representation, the limited dataset size constrains generalization performance. We will release SyriSign publicly, hoping it serves as an initial benchmark.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.