Robust Multilingual Text-to-Pictogram Mapping for Scalable Reading Rehabilitation

Soufiane Jhilal, Martina Galletti · Mar 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

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

Reading comprehension presents a significant challenge for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), often requiring intensive one-on-one reading support. To assist therapists in scaling this support, we developed a multilingual, AI-powered interface that automatically enhances text with visual scaffolding. This system dynamically identifies key concepts and maps them to contextually relevant pictograms, supporting learners across languages. We evaluated the system across five typologically diverse languages (English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Arabic), through multilingual coverage analysis, expert clinical review by speech therapists and special education professionals, and latency assessment. Evaluation results indicate high pictogram coverage and visual scaffolding density across the five languages. Expert audits suggested that automatically selected pictograms were semantically appropriate, with combined correct and acceptable ratings exceeding 95% for the four European languages and approximately 90% for Arabic despite reduced pictogram repository coverage. System latency remained within interactive thresholds suitable for real-time educational use. These findings support the technical viability, semantic safety, and acceptability of automated multimodal scaffolding to improve accessibility for neurodiverse learners.

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 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

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

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

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

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.