Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Emerging Advances in Learned Video Compression: Models, Systems and Beyond

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that learned video compression now matches the latest conventional codecs and is poised to be the next major advance in video coding.

desk verdict Competent survey with a useful map of the field; the experimental section overclaims on the strength of one author-affiliated model and a nonstandard MS-SSIM comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21445 v1 pith:KO2KOS5D submitted 2025-04-30 eess.IV

Chuanmin Jia , Feng Ye , Siwei Ma , Wen Gao , Huifang Sun , Leonardo Chiariglione This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV
keywords learnedvideocompressionend-to-endneuralcodecrate-distortionoptimizationbi-directionalpredictionconditionalcodingstandardizationhardwareaccelerationperceptualquality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey reviews end-to-end learned video compression and argues that the field has reached competitiveness with the latest conventional codecs. Its own experiments back the claim: on standard test sequences, bi-directional prediction based learned codecs score slightly below the VVC reference encoder (VTM-23.0) in PSNR but clearly above it in MS-SSIM, a perceptually motivated quality metric. The survey also documents optimization techniques, standardization efforts, and hardware implementations, and concludes that learned video compression is poised to be the next major advancement in video coding.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the end-to-end jointly optimized neural video codec, in which learned motion estimation, motion compensation, and entropy-coded latent transforms are trained together against a rate-distortion objective, in contrast to the locally optimized modules of conventional hybrid codecs. Within this design space, the survey identifies conditional coding in feature space as a key architectural shift: instead of transmitting pixel or feature residuals, the decoder conditions reconstruction on learned contextual features, which the survey reports as more efficient than residual coding. Combined with bi-directional prediction and hierarchical GoP structures, this is the architecture behind the models that outperform VTM on MS-SSIM.

What would settle it

Re-run the same rate-distortion comparison on all frames of the JCT-VC, UVG, and MCL-JCV sequences, with the conventional codecs fed RGB directly (or both sides in the same color space), matching GoP sizes (e.g., 32 for both) and using both PSNR and MS-SSIM; if bi-directional learned models no longer beat VTM-23.0 on MS-SSIM under this configuration, the survey's central comparative claim would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that end-to-end learned video compression has matured into a practical alternative to block-based hybrid codecs. Concretely, its rate-distortion benchmark on JCT-VC, UVG, and MCL-JCV sequences shows that bi-directional predictive NVC models are slightly behind VTM-23.0 in PSNR but significantly ahead in MS-SSIM, meaning their reconstructions are perceptually preferable at equal bitrates. Uni-directional models trail VTM in PSNR but are competitive in low-latency settings and benefit from larger GoP sizes. From this the paper concludes that LVC is the next major advancement in video compression, a conclusion reinforced by ongoing standardization activity and demonstrations of real-time decoding on FPGA and mobile devices.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark comparisons assume the chosen test configuration is fair and representative: conventional codecs are fed YUV444 converted from RGB and evaluated on the first 96 frames with a GoP of 16 or 32, while learned models operate directly in RGB with GoP 32; if this mismatch systematically favors the learned models, the reported perceptual advantage would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If LVC is truly competitive, next-generation video coding standards will absorb neural tools, and future standardization will focus on interoperability and complexity rather than raw rate-distortion gains.
  • Perceptual metrics like MS-SSIM will gain weight in codec evaluation, potentially changing how bitrate savings are reported and optimized.
  • The low-latency strength of uni-directional models makes LVC a plausible candidate for interactive and real-time video services once hardware acceleration matures.
  • Deployment requirements such as fixed-point quantization and cross-platform bitstream compatibility will shape the next wave of LVC model design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported MS-SSIM advantage survives a matched comparison (same color space, same GoP length, full-length sequences), the practical role of PSNR as the default codec benchmark would weaken, and learned codecs could be adopted first in applications where perceptual quality matters more than pixel fidelity.
  • The benchmark's use of the first 96 frames leaves drift behavior unmeasured; longer sequences and varied content would test whether the perceptual edge persists under error propagation.
  • The taxonomy suggests a convergence hypothesis: future LVC models will combine bi-directional hierarchical prediction with conditional coding and quantization-aware hardware design, making robustness and adaptation speed the main differentiators.
  • A direct RGB-to-RGB comparison with VTM, rather than conversion to YUV444, would clarify whether the PSNR gap is a color-space artifact or a genuine coding-efficiency difference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of end-to-end learned video compression (LVC), organizing the literature into uni-directional and bi-directional prediction architectures, reviewing optimization techniques (online encoder adaptation, decoder-side adaptation, variable bitrate, rate control, perceptual quality, quantization), discussing system and hardware deployment (FPGA, mobile, semantic communications), reporting standardization efforts (MPAI-EEV, AVS-EEM), and presenting an experimental comparison of selected LVC models against HM-16.20 and VTM-23.0 using PSNR and MS-SSIM BD-rates. The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that LVC models demonstrate superior compression performance over conventional codecs and are poised to be the next major advancement in video compression.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the survey would be a useful systematization of a fast-moving field, and its sections on model taxonomies, optimization methods, and hardware/system deployment are genuinely informative. The paper also provides a valuable service by documenting MPAI-EEV standardization progress and connecting learned coding to system-level considerations. The experimental section, however, does not substantiate the headline claim of 'superior compression performance': on PSNR, VTM-23.0 clearly outperforms every evaluated LVC model on average, and the MS-SSIM advantage attributed to bi-directional LVC is dataset-dependent and rests on a single author-affiliated model. The paper ships no code, no error bars, and no significance testing, so the quantitative evidence is not reproducible at the level the abstract's claim requires. The survey content alone could still be a useful contribution, but the experimental overclaim must be corrected.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5, Tables 3 and 4] The abstract's claim of 'superior compression performance of LVC models' and Section 5's statement that bi-directional NVC models 'significantly outperform VTM in MS-SSIM' are not supported by the paper's own tables. In Table 3 (PSNR BD-rate, RGB), VTM-23.0 achieves -37.72% average versus -33.63% for EEV-0.5, -26.19% for DCVC-FM, and -26.45% for DCVC-DC; VTM is better on every dataset class except Class E. In Table 4 (MS-SSIM), EEV-0.5 is ahead of VTM on average (-41.53 versus -37.00), but VTM wins on UVG (-38.77 versus -33.20) and MCL-JCV (-42.07 versus -28.17). The word 'significantly' is also unsupported because no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. The conclusion should be rephrased to state precisely which codec wins on which metric and dataset, or additional evidence must be provided.
  2. [Section 5, Test Conditions] The benchmark configuration is not demonstrably fair for the comparative claim. Traditional codecs are applied to RGB-to-YUV444-converted input with HM randomaccess main rext and VTM randomaccess vtm configurations, while LVC models operate in native RGB with intra-period and GOP set to 32, and only the first 96 frames of each sequence are evaluated. The color-space conversion, the GOP-size mismatch (HM GOP=16, VTM GOP=32, LVC GOP=32), and the truncated sequence length can each systematically affect BD-rate. The paper states that the YUV444 pipeline 'achieve[s] a better compression ratio for the traditional codecs,' but no ablation or sensitivity analysis is given to establish that the reported differences are not artifacts of these choices. At minimum, the authors should report results under matched configurations (e.g., same GOP size, same color space for all codecs) or state clearly that the comparison is configuration-specific.
  3. [Section 5, Experimental Results; Table 4] The MS-SSIM evaluations are reported 'in RGB colorspace,' whereas the standard MS-SSIM index is computed on luminance. Computing MS-SSIM per RGB channel is a nonstandard variant, and its sensitivity to chroma error distribution can favor codecs with different color-space handling. This methodological choice is not justified, and it materially affects the central perceptual-quality conclusion. The authors should either compute MS-SSIM on the luminance channel in a common color space (e.g., YUV444 or YUV420) or provide a validation that the RGB-channel MS-SSIM agrees with luminance MS-SSIM on these codecs.
  4. [Section 5, Tables 3-4; Section 2.2] The only bi-directional LVC model evaluated is EEV-0.5 (Ye et al., 2024), whose first-listed author is also an author of this survey and which is the product of the MPAI-EEV standardization effort in which several co-authors participate. The paper's claim that 'bi-directional predictive NVC models... significantly outperform VTM in MS-SSIM' therefore rests on a single model with direct author affiliation, and no independent bi-directional baseline (e.g., DCVC-B, B-CANF, or TLZMC) is included. To support the general statement about bi-directional LVC, the authors should evaluate at least one additional bi-directional model from a different group, or explicitly restrict the claim to EEV-0.5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'visual intelligence' is used repeatedly but never defined; consider replacing it with a precise term such as 'visual signal processing' or defining it at first use.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The table cells use '!' and '%' symbols without a legend explaining their meaning (presumably checkmark/not-applicable). Please add a caption legend for these symbols.
  3. [Section 5, Test Conditions] The paper mentions that MPAI-EEV released 'a public benchmark for UAV video coding' but this benchmark is not used in the experiments; either clarify why it is omitted or cite it explicitly as future work.
  4. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'the author borrowed the knowledge' should be 'the authors borrowed'; there are several similar grammatical issues throughout (e.g., 'emphasizing their technical innovations, advantages' in the abstract) that need copyediting.
  5. [References] Several cited works appear in the reference list but are not discussed in the text (e.g., Feng et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Ladune et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2022; Yılmaz and Tekalp, 2021). Please either cite them in the relevant sections or remove them.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The paper's strongest perceptual-competitiveness claim rests on a single self-authored model, EEV-0.5, but the survey's taxonomy and most benchmark content are independent, so circularity is minor.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5, 'Test Conditions' and 'Experimental Results'; Table 4]
    "For bi-directional NVC, EEV-0.5 [Ye et al. , 2024] is evaluated. ... bi-directional predictive NVC models exhibit slightly lower PSNR performance than VTM but significantly outperform VTM in MS-SSIM, highlighting their superior perceptual quality."

    EEV-0.5 is the only bi-directional model in the comparison, and its citation [Ye et al., 2024] is authored by Feng Ye and Chuanmin Jia, two of this survey's authors. The headline 'significantly outperform VTM in MS-SSIM' rests entirely on that self-authored model: the other evaluated models (DCVC-DC, DCVC-FM) do not beat VTM on the average BD-rate in either Table 3 or Table 4. Table 4 itself shows VTM ahead of EEV-0.5 on UVG (-38.77 vs -33.20) and MCL-JCV (-42.07 vs -28.17), so the claim is not an independent external benchmark but an assertion about the authors' own MPAI-EEV standard model. This makes the strongest perceptual-competitiveness claim a load-bearing self-citation rather than an independent derivation.

full rationale

The survey is a taxonomy plus a benchmark; it contains no fitted parameters or equations that reduce to their own inputs. The only self-referential element is EEV-0.5, a model from the authors' MPAI-EEV work, used as the sole bi-directional LVC in Section 5. This affiliation is declared and the comparison is made against independent HM-16.20 and VTM-23.0 baselines, so the central taxonomy content is independent. However, the claim that bi-directional NVC 'significantly outperforms VTM in MS-SSIM' is supported only by this self-authored model, and the paper's own Table 4 shows VTM winning on two of the six datasets, so the overgeneralization is a missing-support issue adjacent to self-citation. No equation-level circularity was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not derive new equations or introduce new entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the fairness and representativeness of the benchmark setup, plus a background information-theoretic claim used to motivate conditional coding. The experimental numbers are taken from external codebases, so the main unverified input is the correctness of the reported BD-rate values.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption BD-rate computed with standard interpolation is a valid measure of coding efficiency across different codecs and color spaces.
    Section 5 uses BD-rate tables and RD curves to compare models; this assumes the metric and the RGB-to-YUV444 conversion pipeline do not systematically favor one codec family.
  • domain assumption The test conditions (first 96 frames, intra-period 32, HM randomaccess main rext, VTM randomaccess vtm, RGB to YUV444 conversion) are representative of normal codec evaluation.
    Section 5 Test Conditions; the comparison results depend on these choices being fair and representative of general video content.
  • standard math The entropy of residual coding is always greater than or equal to that of conditional coding.
    Section 2.1 states this as 'Shannon entropy analysis reveals' without derivation or citation; it is used to motivate the shift from residual coding to conditional coding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emerging Advances in Learned Video Compression: Models, Systems and Beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KO2KOS5D

@misc{pith2026250421445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emerging Advances in Learned Video Compression: Models, Systems and Beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KO2KOS5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21445}
}
read the original abstract

Video compression is a fundamental topic in the visual intelligence, bridging visual signal sensing/capturing and high-level visual analytics. The broad success of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has enriched the horizon of video compression into novel paradigms by leveraging end-to-end optimized neural models. In this survey, we first provide a comprehensive and systematic overview of recent literature on end-to-end optimized learned video coding, covering the spectrum of pioneering efforts in both uni-directional and bi-directional prediction based compression model designation. We further delve into the optimization techniques employed in learned video compression (LVC), emphasizing their technical innovations, advantages. Some standardization progress is also reported. Furthermore, we investigate the system design and hardware implementation challenges of the LVC inclusively. Finally, we present the extensive simulation results to demonstrate the superior compression performance of LVC models, addressing the question that why learned codecs and AI-based video technology would have with broad impact on future visual intelligence research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The direct architecture comparisons among different video compression methods. (a) Conventional hybrid video codec, (b) Uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rate-distortion curves for PSNR metric (RGB colorspace). HM/VTM indicates HEVC/VVC standards respectively. Four advanced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hierarchical b-frame video coding using two-layer canf without motion coding

    [Alexandre et al., 2023] David Alexandre, Hsueh-Ming Hang, and Wen-Hsiao Peng. Hierarchical b-frame video coding using two-layer canf without motion coding. In CVPR,

    work page 2023

  2. [4]

    Overview of the versatile video coding (vvc) stan- dard and its applications

    [Bross et al., 2021] Benjamin Bross, Ye-Kui Wang, Yan Ye, Shan Liu, Jianle Chen, Gary J Sullivan, and Jens-Rainer Ohm. Overview of the versatile video coding (vvc) stan- dard and its applications. IEEE TCSVT,

    work page 2021

  3. [7]

    Asymmetric gained deep image compression with continuous rate adaptation

    [Cui et al., 2021] Ze Cui, Jing Wang, Shangyin Gao, Tian- sheng Guo, Yihui Feng, and Bo Bai. Asymmetric gained deep image compression with continuous rate adaptation. In CVPR,

    work page 2021

  4. [8]

    Non- linear transform source-channel coding for semantic com- munications

    [Dai et al., 2022] Jincheng Dai, Sixian Wang, Kailin Tan, Zhongwei Si, Xiaoqi Qin, Kai Niu, and Ping Zhang. Non- linear transform source-channel coding for semantic com- munications. IEEE JSAC,

    work page 2022

  5. [11]

    Learned video com- pression with feature-level residuals

    [Feng et al., 2020] Runsen Feng, Yaojun Wu, Zongyu Guo, Zhizheng Zhang, and Zhibo Chen. Learned video com- pression with feature-level residuals. In CVPRW,

    work page 2020

  6. [13]

    Canf-vc: Conditional augmented normalizing flows for video com- pression

    [Ho et al., 2022] Yung-Han Ho, Chih-Peng Chang, Peng-Yu Chen, Alessandro Gnutti, and Wen-Hsiao Peng. Canf-vc: Conditional augmented normalizing flows for video com- pression. In ECCV,

    work page 2022

  7. [14]

    Efficient neural image decod- ing via fixed-point inference

    [Hong et al., 2020] Weixin Hong, Tong Chen, Ming Lu, Shiliang Pu, and Zhan Ma. Efficient neural image decod- ing via fixed-point inference. IEEE TCSVT,

    work page 2020

  8. [15]

    Improving deep video compression by resolution-adaptive flow coding

    [Hu et al., 2020] Zhihao Hu, Zhenghao Chen, Dong Xu, Guo Lu, Wanli Ouyang, and Shuhang Gu. Improving deep video compression by resolution-adaptive flow coding. In ECCV,

    work page 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [16]

    Fvc: A new framework towards deep video compression in feature space

    [Hu et al., 2021] Zhihao Hu, Guo Lu, and Dong Xu. Fvc: A new framework towards deep video compression in feature space. In CVPR,

    2021

  2. [17]

    Coarse-to-fine deep video coding with hyperprior-guided mode prediction

    [Hu et al., 2022] Zhihao Hu, Guo Lu, Jinyang Guo, Shan Liu, Wei Jiang, and Dong Xu. Coarse-to-fine deep video coding with hyperprior-guided mode prediction. InCVPR,

    2022

  3. [18]

    Fpx-nic: An fpga-accelerated 4k ultra-high-definition neural video coding system

    [Jia et al., 2022] Chuanmin Jia, Xinyu Hang, et al. Fpx-nic: An fpga-accelerated 4k ultra-high-definition neural video coding system. IEEE TCSVT,

    2022

  4. [19]

    Mpai-eev: Standardiza- tion efforts of artificial intelligence based end-to-end video coding

    [Jia et al., 2023] Chuanmin Jia, Feng Ye, Fanke Dong, Kai Lin, Leonardo Chiariglione, et al. Mpai-eev: Standardiza- tion efforts of artificial intelligence based end-to-end video coding. IEEE TCSVT,

    2023

  5. [20]

    Neural video compression with temporal layer- adaptive hierarchical b-frame coding

    [Kim et al., 2023] Yeong-Chun Kim, Suyong Bahk, Se- ung Hwan Kim, Won Hee Lee, Dokwan Oh, and Hui- Yong Kim. Neural video compression with temporal layer- adaptive hierarchical b-frame coding. arXiv preprint: 2308.15791,

    2023 arXiv

  6. [21]

    Optical flow and mode selection for learning-based video coding

    [Ladune et al., 2020] Th´eo Ladune, Pierrick Philippe, Was- sim Hamidouche, Lu Zhang, and Olivier D´eforges. Optical flow and mode selection for learning-based video coding. In MMSP,

    2020

  7. [22]

    Con- ditional coding for flexible learned video compression

    [Ladune et al., 2021] Th´eo Ladune, Pierrick Philippe, Was- sim Hamidouche, Lu Zhang, and Olivier D ´eforges. Con- ditional coding for flexible learned video compression. In ICLRW,

    2021

  8. [23]

    Mobilecodec: neu- ral inter-frame video compression on mobile devices

    [Le et al., 2022] Hoang Le, Liang Zhang, Amir Said, Guil- laume Sautiere, Yang Yang, Pranav Shrestha, Fei Yin, Reza Pourreza, and Auke Wiggers. Mobilecodec: neu- ral inter-frame video compression on mobile devices. In ACM MMSys,

    2022

  9. [24]

    Deep contex- tual video compression

    [Li et al., 2021] Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Deep contex- tual video compression. In NeurIPS,

    2021

  10. [25]

    Hybrid spatial-temporal entropy modelling for neural video com- pression

    [Li et al., 2022] Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Hybrid spatial-temporal entropy modelling for neural video com- pression. ACM MM,

    2022

  11. [26]

    Neural video compression with diverse contexts

    [Li et al., 2023] Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Neural video compression with diverse contexts. In CVPR,

    2023

  12. [27]

    Neural video compression with feature modulation

    [Li et al., 2024] Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Neural video compression with feature modulation. In CVPR,

    2024

  13. [29]

    Modulated variable-rate deep video compression

    8 [Lin et al., 2021] Jianping Lin, Dong Liu, Jie Liang, Houqiang Li, and Feng Wu. Modulated variable-rate deep video compression. In DCC,

    2021

  14. [30]

    Content-adaptive motion rate adaption for learned video compression

    [Lin et al., 2022] Chih-Hsuan Lin, Yi-Hsin Chen, and Wen- Hsiao Peng. Content-adaptive motion rate adaption for learned video compression. In IEEE PCS,

    2022

  15. [31]

    Deep learning-based video coding: A review and a case study

    [Liu et al., 2020] Dong Liu, Yue Li, Jianping Lin, Houqiang Li, and Feng Wu. Deep learning-based video coding: A review and a case study. ACM CSUR,

    2020

  16. [32]

    Neural video cod- ing using multiscale motion compensation and spatiotem- poral context model

    [Liu et al., 2021] Haojie Liu, Ming Lu, Zhan Ma, Fan Wang, Zhihuang Xie, Xun Cao, and Yao Wang. Neural video cod- ing using multiscale motion compensation and spatiotem- poral context model. IEEE TCSVT,

    2021

  17. [33]

    Dvc: An end-to- end deep video compression framework

    [Lu et al., 2019] Guo Lu, Wanli Ouyang, Dong Xu, Xiaoyun Zhang, Chunlei Cai, and Zhiyong Gao. Dvc: An end-to- end deep video compression framework. In CVPR,

    2019

  18. [34]

    Content adaptive and error propagation aware deep video compression

    [Lu et al., 2020] Guo Lu, Chunlei Cai, Xiaoyun Zhang, et al. Content adaptive and error propagation aware deep video compression. In ECCV,

    2020

  19. [35]

    An end-to-end learning framework for video compression

    [Lu et al., 2021] Guo Lu, Xiaoyun Zhang, Wanli Ouyang, Li Chen, Zhiyong Gao, and Dong Xu. An end-to-end learning framework for video compression. IEEE TPAMI,

    2021

  20. [36]

    Image and video compression with neural networks: A review

    [Ma et al., 2019] Siwei Ma, Xinfeng Zhang, Chuanmin Jia, Zhenghui Zhao, Shiqi Wang, and Shanshe Wang. Image and video compression with neural networks: A review. IEEE TCSVT,

    2019

  21. [37]

    Evolution of avs video coding standards: twenty years of innovation and development

    [Ma et al., 2022] Siwei Ma, Li Zhang, Shiqi Wang, Chuan- min Jia, Shanshe Wang, Tiejun Huang, Feng Wu, and Wen Gao. Evolution of avs video coding standards: twenty years of innovation and development. Science China In- formation Sciences,

    2022

  22. [38]

    Neural rate control for video encoding using imitation learning

    [Mao et al., 2021] Hongzi Mao, Chenjie Gu, Miaosen Wang, Angie Chen, Nevena Lazic, Nir Levine, et al. Neural rate control for video encoding using imitation learning. In ICMLW,

    2021

  23. [39]

    Uvg dataset: 50/120fps 4k sequences for video codec analysis and development

    [Mercat et al., 2020] Alexandre Mercat, Marko Viitanen, and Jarno Vanne. Uvg dataset: 50/120fps 4k sequences for video codec analysis and development. In ACM MM- Sys,

    2020

  24. [40]

    Pim: Video coding using perceptual importance maps

    [Pergament et al., 2022] Evgenya Pergament, Pulkit Tandon, Oren Rippel, et al. Pim: Video coding using perceptual importance maps. arXiv preprint: 2212.10674,

    2022 arXiv

  25. [41]

    Extending neural p-frame codecs for b-frame coding

    [Pourreza and Cohen, 2021] Reza Pourreza and Taco Cohen. Extending neural p-frame codecs for b-frame coding. In ICCV,

    2021

  26. [42]

    Elf-vc: Efficient learned flexible-rate video cod- ing

    [Rippel et al., 2021] Oren Rippel, Alexander G Anderson, Kedar Tatwawadi, Sanjay Nair, Craig Lytle, and Lubomir Bourdev. Elf-vc: Efficient learned flexible-rate video cod- ing. In ICCV,

    2021

  27. [43]

    Temporal context mining for learned video compression

    [Sheng et al., 2022] Xihua Sheng, Jiahao Li, Bin Li, Li Li, Dong Liu, and Yan Lu. Temporal context mining for learned video compression. IEEE TMM,

    2022

  28. [44]

    Bi-directional deep contextual video com- pression

    [Sheng et al., 2024b] Xihua Sheng, Li Li, Dong Liu, and Shiqi Wang. Bi-directional deep contextual video com- pression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08604,

    arXiv

  29. [45]

    Alphavc: High-performance and efficient learned video compression

    [Shi et al., 2022] Yibo Shi, Yunying Ge, Jing Wang, and Jue Mao. Alphavc: High-performance and efficient learned video compression. In ECCV,

    2022

  30. [46]

    F-lic: Fpga- based learned image compression with a fine-grained pipeline

    [Sun et al., 2022] Heming Sun, Qingyang Yi, Fangzheng Lin, Lu Yu, Jiro Katto, and Masahiro Fujita. F-lic: Fpga- based learned image compression with a fine-grained pipeline. In IEEE A-SSCC,

    2022

  31. [47]

    Mobilenvc: Real-time 1080p neural video compression on a mobile device

    [Van Rozendaal et al., 2024] Ties Van Rozendaal, Tushar Singhal, Hoang Le, Guillaume Sautiere, Amir Said, Kr- ishna Buska, et al. Mobilenvc: Real-time 1080p neural video compression on a mobile device. In WACV,

    2024

  32. [48]

    Adversarial distortion for learned video com- pression

    [Veerabadran et al., 2020] Vijay Veerabadran, Reza Pour- reza, et al. Adversarial distortion for learned video com- pression. In CVPRW,

    2020

  33. [49]

    Mcl-jcv: a jnd-based h

    [Wang et al., 2016] Haiqiang Wang, Weihao Gan, Sudeng Hu, Joe Yuchieh Lin, Lina Jin, Longguang Song, Ping Wang, Ioannis Katsavounidis, Anne Aaron, and C-C Jay Kuo. Mcl-jcv: a jnd-based h. 264/avc video quality as- sessment dataset. In IEEE ICIP,

    2016

  34. [51]

    Bit allocation using op- timization

    [Xu et al., 2023] Tongda Xu, Han Gao, Chenjian Gao, Yuanyuan Wang, Dailan He, Jinyong Pi, Jixiang Luo, Ziyu Zhu, Mao Ye, Hongwei Qin, et al. Bit allocation using op- timization. In ICML,

    2023

  35. [52]

    Learning for video compression with hierarchical quality and recurrent enhancement

    [Yang et al., 2020] Ren Yang, Fabian Mentzer, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Learning for video compression with hierarchical quality and recurrent enhancement. In CVPR,

    2020

  36. [53]

    Perceptual learned video compression with re- current conditional gan

    [Yang et al., 2022] Ren Yang, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Perceptual learned video compression with re- current conditional gan. In IJCAI,

    2022

  37. [54]

    Deep video compression with scaled hierarchical bi- directional motion model

    [Ye et al., 2024] Feng Ye, Li Zhang, and Chuanmin Jia. Deep video compression with scaled hierarchical bi- directional motion model. In ACM MM,

    2024

  38. [55]

    End-to-end rate-distortion optimized learned hi- erarchical bi-directional video compression

    [Yılmaz and Tekalp, 2021] M Akın Yılmaz and A Murat Tekalp. End-to-end rate-distortion optimized learned hi- erarchical bi-directional video compression. IEEE TIP ,

    2021

  39. [2016]

    Video compression through image interpolation

    [Wu et al., 2018] Chao-Yuan Wu, Nayan Singhal, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Video compression through image interpolation. In ECCV,

    2018

  40. [2017]

    Learning to compress videos with- out computing motion

    [Chen et al., 2022] Meixu Chen, Todd Goodall, Anjul Pat- ney, and Alan C Bovik. Learning to compress videos with- out computing motion. SPIC,

    2022

  41. [2018]

    Jvet-j1010: Jvet common test condi- tions and software reference configurations,

    [Boyce et al., 2018] Jill Boyce, Karsten Suehring, Xiang Li, and Vadim Seregin. Jvet-j1010: Jvet common test condi- tions and software reference configurations,

    2018

  42. [2019]

    A neural video codec with spatial rate-distortion control

    [Fathima et al., 2023] Noor Fathima, Jens Petersen, Guil- laume Sauti `ere, Auke Wiggers, and Reza Pourreza. A neural video codec with spatial rate-distortion control. In WACV,

    2023

  43. [2020]

    Versatile learned video compres- sion

    [Feng et al., 2021] Runsen Feng, Zongyu Guo, Zhizheng Zhang, and Zhibo Chen. Versatile learned video compres- sion. arXiv preprint: 2111.03386,

    2021 arXiv

  44. [2021]

    Deepcoder: A deep neural network based video compression

    [Chen et al., 2017] Tong Chen, Haojie Liu, Qiu Shen, Tao Yue, Xun Cao, and Zhan Ma. Deepcoder: A deep neural network based video compression. In VCIP,

    2017

  45. [2022]

    Neural inter-frame compression for video coding

    [Djelouah et al., 2019] Abdelaziz Djelouah, Joaquim Cam- pos, Simone Schaub-Meyer, and Christopher Schroers. Neural inter-frame compression for video coding. In ICCV,

    2019

  46. [2023]

    Integer networks for data compression with latent-variable models

    [Ball´e et al., 2018] Johannes Ball ´e, Nick Johnston, and David Minnen. Integer networks for data compression with latent-variable models. In ICLR,

    2018

  47. [2024]

    M-lvc: Multiple frames prediction for learned video compression

    [Lin et al., 2020] Jianping Lin, Dong Liu, Houqiang Li, and Feng Wu. M-lvc: Multiple frames prediction for learned video compression. In CVPR,

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.