Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Variable-size Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms for image compression

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Variable-size symmetry-based graph Fourier transforms beat VVC's explicit multiple transform selection on intra residuals, cutting bit rate by 6.23–9.29% at comparable complexity.

desk verdict The N×N SBGFT construction is real and worth taking seriously, but the headline BD-rate savings are measured in an entropy-based residual simulation without transform-index bits, so expect the gains to shrink in a real VVC integration. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15824 v1 pith:VG7TCCL7 submitted 2024-11-24 eess.IV cs.CV

Alessandro Gnutti , Fabrizio Guerrini , Riccardo Leonardi , Antonio Ortega This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords graphFouriertransformimagecompressionvideomultipleselectionVVCsymmetricgraphsintrapredictionresidualsrate-distortionoptimization
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 paper claims that a fixed, data-independent family of non-separable graph Fourier transforms can compete with and beat the transform choices engineered into the VVC video standard. The authors generalise their earlier $8\times8$ Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms (SBGFTs) to any square block size $N \times N$, building symmetric graphs on the image grid and using the graph Laplacian's eigenvectors as transform bases. Because the graphs are symmetric, the transforms have fast butterfly implementations, so no training data is needed and decoding complexity stays at the baseline. In a VVC-like framework acting on intra-prediction residuals, the full variable-size SBGFT set saves 9.29% bit rate against VVC's Explicit Multiple Transform Selection, and a restricted per-prediction-mode set of five transforms still saves 6.23% with essentially no extra encoding cost. If these numbers survive integration into a real codec, they would justify replacing or supplementing standard sinusoidal transforms with symmetry-based graph transforms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transform (SBGFT): a GFT whose graph is a 2D grid graph augmented with weight-1 edges connecting node pairs that are symmetric about a reflection axis. For each block size $N$, the construction enumerates all valid horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and anti-diagonal axes, yielding $8N-24$ graphs, and the eigenvectors of each graph's Laplacian matrix $L = D - W$ form the transform basis. Two symmetry properties do the work: edge symmetry (ES) makes the Laplacian bisymmetric, enabling fast butterfly implementations, and node symmetry (NS) around the reflection axis makes low-frequency basis vectors take similar values on connected symmetric nodes. The paper quantifies this match with a symmetry ratio $S_s$, defined on a graph's support, and shows both that residual blocks have high symmetry along these axes and that SBGFT eigenvectors have nearly perfect symmetry ratios. This combination — sparse, structure-matching bases plus fast computation without any training data — is what carries the compression gain.

What would settle it

Run the per-prediction-mode top-5 SBGFT sets inside a full VVC encoder on the same test sequences and QPs, and measure BD-rate against the Explicit MTS mode; if the simplified rate model in this paper overstates the real codec's behavior, the measured saving will fall below 6.23% or become negative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the eigenvectors of symmetric grid graphs are naturally matched to the structure of intra-prediction residuals, so a Graph Fourier Transform built from them compacts those residuals more tightly than the DCT-II, DCT-VIII, and DST-VII transforms used in VVC's Explicit MTS. A Symmetry-based Graph is constructed by taking the $N \times N$ grid graph — whose Laplacian eigenvectors are exactly the DCT basis — and adding unit-weight edges between every pair of nodes that are mirror images across a reflection axis in one of four directions (horizontal, vertical, diagonal, anti-diagonal). Each valid axis yields one graph, giving $8N-24$ transforms per block size; the added edges force low-frequency eigenvectors to be locally symmetric, which matches the symmetry found in real residual blocks. The resulting non-separable transforms retain fast implementations because their Laplacians are bisymmetric, and the paper reports BD-rate reductions of 9.29% for the full set and 6.23% for a five-transform-per-mode subset over the VVC baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The reported savings come from an experiment that approximates bit rate by the entropy of quantized coefficients and picks each block's transform independently; if that approximation does not track how a real VVC encoder spends bits, the savings could shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The primary transforms used in VVC's Explicit MTS can be replaced by SBGFTs for every square block size from $4\times4$ to $64\times64$ while improving rate-distortion performance.
  • Restricting each prediction mode to its five most frequently optimal SBGFTs recovers most of the gain, so the transform set size need not grow with block size.
  • Variable-size SBGFTs roughly double the gain of $8\times8$-only SBGFTs, so the extension to larger blocks is where most of the benefit lies.
  • Since decoding time is unchanged and encoding time for the restricted set matches the baseline, the approach is feasible as a practical codec component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A full VVC integration test would settle whether the entropy-based rate estimate used here under- or over-states the real coding cost; the 9.29% and 6.23% figures are the paper's main claims to reproduce.
  • The same symmetry-based construction might transfer to chroma residuals or inter-prediction residuals, where directional structure is also common, although the paper does not test those cases.
  • The per-mode histograms suggest a lightweight signaling scheme could encode the transform index implicitly from the prediction mode, reducing side-information overhead beyond what the paper measures.
  • The paper's symmetry-ratio data imply that residual blocks are most symmetric along sub-diagonal axes close to the grid center; a codec using rotated prediction directions might shift which reflection axes are optimal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the authors' earlier 8x8 Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms (SBGFTs) to arbitrary NxN blocks. The construction adds symmetric connections to a 2D grid graph along horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and anti-diagonal reflection axes, yielding a deterministic dictionary of 8N-24 non-separable transforms with fast implementations based on edge/node symmetry. The authors evaluate the transforms in a multiple-transform RDOT framework, first in the pixel domain against a DCT baseline and then on VVC intra-prediction residuals against the explicit Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) baseline. In the residual-domain simulation, the full variable-size SBGFT set reports a 9.29% BD-rate saving, and a low-complexity configuration using only the top-5 SBGFTs per prediction mode reports a 6.23% saving with roughly unchanged encoding complexity. The paper also analyzes residual symmetry statistics and uses a held-out dataset to select mode-dependent transform subsets.

Significance. If the reported coding gains survive integration into a real VVC-like codec, this would be a meaningful contribution to transform coding: the transform family is deterministic and data-independent, avoids training-set dependence, exploits symmetry for fast non-separable transforms, and includes a practical complexity-reduction strategy. The authors provide a MATLAB implementation, and the low-complexity subset selection is evaluated on separate training and test sequences, which is a methodological strength. The mathematical construction and symmetry-based complexity analysis are clearly presented and appear sound. However, the headline performance claims are currently based on a simplified residual-domain simulation that estimates rate with Shannon entropy and omits transform-index signaling, so the practical significance is contingent on closing that evaluation gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV-C, Eq. (10), Table IV] The headline BD-rate savings (9.29% for configuration F and 6.23% for F5) are computed in a residual-domain simulation where the rate term R_Gi in Eq. (10) is the Shannon entropy of the quantized transform coefficients only. No transform-index bits are charged for the SBGFT dictionaries, even though the full set has 8N-24 transforms (488 for 64x64 blocks) and the F5 configuration still needs a per-block index among its 5 transforms. The baseline MTS set has only 5 transforms, so omitting side information systematically favors the proposed large dictionaries. Please add the transform-index overhead to the RD cost or, preferably, integrate the transforms into a full VVC-like encoder with arithmetic coding and index signaling, and revise the abstract's claim that SBGFTs 'outperform the primary transforms integrated in the explicit MTS' accordingly.
  2. [Sec. IV-C, Fig. 10] The experimental protocol operates on residual blocks pre-extracted from VVC intra prediction and then selects transforms independently per block using the RD cost in Eq. (10). This setup does not include CABAC context modeling, coefficient scanning, or a reconstruction/prediction loop, so it cannot capture how transform choices affect subsequent intra prediction or how the true coded rate responds to different transform dictionaries. Because the entropy proxy is used to select among a much larger set of candidates than the MTS baseline, the reported BD-rate curves in Fig. 10 may be optimistic. I request either a VTM-based evaluation for at least a subset of the test sequences, or an explicit analysis quantifying the gap between the Shannon-entropy rate and the actual arithmetic-coded rate in this setting.
  3. [Sec. IV-D, Sec. IV-E, Table IV] The claim that configuration F5 matches the MTS baseline encoding complexity (Delta_TE approximately 0.0%) is not established by the reported methodology. The paper argues that using C=5 candidate transforms matches the number of MTS candidates, but the cost per candidate is not comparable: the proposed SBGFTs are non-separable and require O(N^4) multiplications according to Table I, whereas MTS primary transforms are separable and cheaper. Please report measured encoding times for F5 using the same timing protocol applied to configurations E and F in Sec. IV-D, or explain why the transform search cost is negligible relative to other encoder tasks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I and reference list] The manuscript contains unresolved citation markers '[?]' in Sec. I and an extraneous block from another paper (IEEE TSP 2024, references [59]-[76] and unrelated author biographies) after the reference list. These must be removed or completed before submission.
  2. [Table II and Sec. IV-E] The notation for the low-complexity configuration is inconsistent: Table II uses 'FC', while the text and Table IV use 'F5'. Please unify the notation and state explicitly that F5 is the C=5 instance of FC.
  3. [References [24] and [28]] References [24] and [28] are the same paper (Lu and Ortega, ICASSP 2017). Please merge them and correct the in-text citations.
  4. [Fig. 6] The caption mentions a red dashed line indicating the percentage of blocks with S_s > 0.7 in at least one symmetry, but this line is not visible in all panels. Please make the plot consistent across block sizes.
  5. [Sec. III-A, Algorithms 1-2] Please clarify how the counts in Eqs. (4)-(7) sum to 8N-24, especially the handling of the duplicate at n=1 in Algorithm 2 and the behavior for the smallest supported size N=4.
  6. [Sec. IV-C] Only four test sequences are used and BD-rate is reported as a single aggregate number. Per-sequence results would help assess the variability of the reported 6.23% and 9.29% savings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SBGFT construction is deterministic and parameter-free, and the F5 subset selection is validated on a separate test set rather than being fit to the reported outcome.

full rationale

The paper's transform design is not fitted to the evaluation data: the abstract states that SBGFT design 'does not require any data-dependent adaptation,' and Algorithms 1 and 2 in Sec. III construct all SBGs from fixed reflection axes (4)-(7) with no learned parameters. The residual-domain comparison in Sec. IV-C uses the same RD cost Eq. (10) with an entropy-based rate proxy for both the VVC Explicit MTS baseline and the SBGFT configurations, so the comparison is internally consistent even though the proxy omits transform-index overhead and context modeling, which is a validation concern rather than a circularity. The low-complexity F5 configuration in Sec. IV-E selects top-5 SBGFTs per prediction mode using a secondary dataset (PartyScene, RaceHorsesC, Traffic) and then evaluates on different sequences (BQMall, BasketballDrill, Mobcal, Shields), explicitly 'to exclude bias in the subsequent validation'; the 6.23% BD-rate saving is therefore an out-of-sample result, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to prior SBGFT work ([20]-[22]) and to fast symmetric-GFT implementation ([24], [25]) are not load-bearing for the headline compression gains; the speed/multiplication claims rely on externally established bisymmetric eigenvector structure (Cantoni and Butler [27]) and the paper also provides its own complexity measurements in Table IV. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no central result is reduced to an input by construction. The skeptical concern that the entropy-residual simulation may not reflect real VVC CABAC or transform-index signaling is a legitimate correctness/external-validity issue, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numbers are the subset cardinality C=5 and the design rule for minimum added edges. The main assumptions are standard GSP background, prior symmetry theorems, and the fidelity of the simplified RDOT simulation.

free parameters (2)
  • CPM (subset cardinality) = 5
    Chosen by hand to match the number of primary transforms in VVC Explicit MTS; the F5 result (6.23% BD-rate saving) depends on this choice.
  • Minimum added edges for diagonal/anti-diagonal SBGs = 6
    The axis definitions in (6)-(7) exclude axes through the last 3 corner nodes so the support has at least 6 added edges; this ad hoc design choice affects the transform set size and performance.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The graph Laplacian eigendecomposition gives orthonormal bases ordered by variation (GSP theory, Sec. II-A).
    Standard result, not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Bisymmetric Laplacian matrices yield symmetric eigenvectors and butterfly-based fast implementations (Prop. II.2, Lemma II.1, citing [25], [27]).
    Relies on prior published theorems.
  • domain assumption Residual blocks from VVC intra prediction exhibit high symmetry along the constructed reflection axes (Sec. III-C, Figs. 5-6).
    Empirically shown on a limited dataset; this motivates the transform family but is not used to fit transform coefficients.
  • ad hoc to paper A per-block RDOT search with MSE distortion and Shannon entropy rate (Eq. 10) predicts coding performance of a full VVC pipeline.
    The paper's simulation omits full VVC entropy coding, secondary transforms, and joint encoder decisions; this equivalence is assumed, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variable-size Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms for image compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VG7TCCL7

@misc{pith2026241115824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variable-size Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms for image compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VG7TCCL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15824}
}
read the original abstract

Modern compression systems use linear transformations in their encoding and decoding processes, with transforms providing compact signal representations. While multiple data-dependent transforms for image/video coding can adapt to diverse statistical characteristics, assembling large datasets to learn each transform is challenging. Also, the resulting transforms typically lack fast implementation, leading to significant computational costs. Thus, despite many papers proposing new transform families, the most recent compression standards predominantly use traditional separable sinusoidal transforms. This paper proposes integrating a new family of Symmetry-based Graph Fourier Transforms (SBGFTs) of variable sizes into a coding framework, focusing on the extension from our previously introduced 8x8 SBGFTs to the general case of NxN grids. SBGFTs are non-separable transforms that achieve sparse signal representation while maintaining low computational complexity thanks to their symmetry properties. Their design is based on our proposed algorithm, which generates symmetric graphs on the grid by adding specific symmetrical connections between nodes and does not require any data-dependent adaptation. Furthermore, for video intra-frame coding, we exploit the correlations between optimal graphs and prediction modes to reduce the cardinality of the transform sets, thus proposing a low-complexity framework. Experiments show that SBGFTs outperform the primary transforms integrated in the explicit Multiple Transform Selection (MTS) used in the latest VVC intra-coding, providing a bit rate saving percentage of 6.23%, with only a marginal increase in average complexity. A MATLAB implementation of the proposed algorithm is available online at [1].

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grid axes and their corresponding edge symmetries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of an NS with respect to the dashed blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Position of all the reflection axes for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of SBGs constructed on a 16×16 2DGG, putting k = 2 in (4)–(7). Each graph has ES with respect to one of the grid axes highlighted by the continuous blue lines. Black edges are the baseline grid edges, while red edges are added edges that induce the NS property …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Symmetry ratios of all eigenvectors for 8×8 SBGs built with reflection axes different than main grid axes. Only the first half of the axes are depicted since the other half enjoys the same symmetry ratio. The SBGs are grouped by the reflection axes direction: (a) horiz…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Symmetry ratios in residual blocks of sizes (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The multiple transform-based compression framework for evaluating the performance of the variable size SBGFTs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance comparison between the DCT and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual illustration of the best performing transforms for each block based on the RDOT paradigm in the pixel domain. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance comparison between the VVC Explicit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Probability distributions of optimal graphs for a subset of prediction modes. The first two rows correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance comparison between configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Again, F5 is better than configuration D (VVC Explicit MTS). It is also better than configuration E, there￾fore showing again the better approximation capabilities of SBGFTs with respect to DCT variants for larger blocks, even if the optimal graph may not be part of t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://github.com/AlessandroGnutti/Variable-SBGFTs, Last accessed on 2024-11-18

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ahmed and K

    N. Ahmed and K. R. Rao, Orthogonal Transforms for Digital Signal Processing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1975

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Bhaskaran and K

    V . Bhaskaran and K. Konstantinides, The H.261 Video Coding Standard. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1995, pp. 195–206

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Intra coding of the HEVC standard,

    J. Lainema, F. Bossen, W. J. Han, J. Min, and K. Ugur, “Intra coding of the HEVC standard,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1792–1801, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Overview of the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard and its applications,

    B. Bross, Y .-K. Wang, Y . Ye, S. Liu, J. Chen, G. J. Sullivan, and J.-R. Ohm, “Overview of the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard and its applications,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 3736–3764, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    The JPEG still picture compression standard,

    G. K. Wallace, “The JPEG still picture compression standard,” IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. xviii–xxxiv, 1992

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    https://bellard.org/bpg/, Last accessed on 2024-11-12

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Optimally adaptive transform coding,

    R. D. Dony and S. Haykin, “Optimally adaptive transform coding,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1358–1370, 1995

    work page 1995

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Improved H.264 intra coding based on bi- directional intra prediction, directional transform, and adaptive coeffi- cient scanning,

    Y . Ye and M. Karczewicz, “Improved H.264 intra coding based on bi- directional intra prediction, directional transform, and adaptive coeffi- cient scanning,” in Proc. 15th IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Proc. (ICIP) , 2008, pp. 2116–2119

    2008

  2. [10]

    On intra coding using mode dependent 2D-KLT,

    S. Takamura and A. Shimizu, “On intra coding using mode dependent 2D-KLT,” in Proc. 30th IEEE Picture Coding Symp. (PCS) , 2013, pp. 137–140

    2013

  3. [11]

    Non-separable mode depen- dent transforms for intra coding in HEVC,

    A. Arrufat, P. Philippe, and O. D ´eforges, “Non-separable mode depen- dent transforms for intra coding in HEVC,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Vi- sual Comm. Image Process. (VCIP) , 2014, pp. 61–64

    2014

  4. [12]

    Video coding with rate- distortion optimized transform,

    X. Zhao, L. Zhang, S. Ma, and W. Gao, “Video coding with rate- distortion optimized transform,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Tech- nol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 138–151, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    On consistency and sparsity for principal components analysis in high dimensions,

    I. M. Johnstone and A. Y . Lu, “On consistency and sparsity for principal components analysis in high dimensions,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , vol. 104, no. 486, pp. 682–693, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Ex- tending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains,

    D. I. Shuman, S. K. Narang, P. Frossard, A. Ortega, and P. Van- dergheynst, “The emerging field of signal processing on graphs: Ex- tending high-dimensional data analysis to networks and other irregular domains,” IEEE Signal Proc. Mag. , vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 83–98, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Graph Signal Processing: Overview, challenges, and ap- plications,

    A. Ortega, P. Frossard, J. Kova ˇcevi´c, J. M. F. Moura, and P. Van- dergheynst, “Graph Signal Processing: Overview, challenges, and ap- plications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 808–828, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Graph transform optimiza- tion with application to image compression,

    G. Fracastoro, D. Thanou, and P. Frossard, “Graph transform optimiza- tion with application to image compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 29, pp. 419–432, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Edge-adaptive transforms for efficient depth map coding,

    G. Shen, W.-S. Kim, S. K. Narang, A. Ortega, J. Lee, and H. Wey, “Edge-adaptive transforms for efficient depth map coding,” in Proc. 28th IEEE Picture Coding Symp. (PCS) , 2010, pp. 566–569

    2010

  10. [18]

    Multiresolution graph Fourier transform for compression of piecewise smooth images,

    W. Hu, G. Cheung, A. Ortega, and O. C. Au, “Multiresolution graph Fourier transform for compression of piecewise smooth images,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 419–433, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Graph-based transforms for video coding,

    H. E. Egilmez, Y .-H. Chao, and A. Ortega, “Graph-based transforms for video coding,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 29, pp. 9330–9344, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Symmetry-based graph Fourier transforms for image representation,

    A. Gnutti, F. Guerrini, R. Leonardi, and A. Ortega, “Symmetry-based graph Fourier transforms for image representation,” in Proc. 25th IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Proc. (ICIP) , 2018, pp. 2575–2579

    2018

  13. [21]

    Coding of image intra prediction residuals using symmetric graphs,

    ——, “Coding of image intra prediction residuals using symmetric graphs,” in Proc. 26th IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Proc. (ICIP) , 2019, pp. 131–135

    2019

  14. [22]

    Symmetry-based graph Fourier transforms: Are they optimal for image compression?

    ——, “Symmetry-based graph Fourier transforms: Are they optimal for image compression?” in Proc. 28th IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Proc. (ICIP), 2021, pp. 1594–1598

    2021

  15. [23]

    Approximation and compression with sparse orthonormal transforms,

    O. G. Sezer, O. G. Guleryuz, and Y . Altunbasak, “Approximation and compression with sparse orthonormal transforms,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 2328–2343, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Fast implementation for symmetric non- separable transforms based on grids,

    K. S. Lu and A. Ortega, “Fast implementation for symmetric non- separable transforms based on grids,” in Proc. 42nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoust., Speech and Signal Proc. (ICASSP) , 2017, pp. 4109–4113

    2017

  17. [25]

    Fast graph Fourier transforms based on graph symmetry and bipartition,

    K.-S. Lu and A. Ortega, “Fast graph Fourier transforms based on graph symmetry and bipartition,” IEEE Trans. Image Proc. , vol. 67, no. 18, pp. 4855–4869, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    The discrete cosine transform,

    G. Strang, “The discrete cosine transform,” SIAM Review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 135–147, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of symmetric centrosymmetric matrices,

    A. Cantoni and P. Butler, “Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of symmetric centrosymmetric matrices,” Linear Algebra Appl. , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 275–288, 1976

    1976

  20. [28]

    Fast implementation for symmetric non-separable transforms based on grids,

    K. Lu and A. Ortega, “Fast implementation for symmetric non-separable transforms based on grids,” in Proc. 42nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoust., Speech and Signal Proc. (ICASSP) , 2017, pp. 4109–4113

    2017

  21. [29]

    http://sipi.usc.edu/database/, Last accessed on 2024-11-12

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kodak, http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/, Last accessed on 2024-11-12

    E. Kodak, http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/, Last accessed on 2024-11-12. Alessandro Gnutti received the MS degree (cum laude) in Telecommunications engineering and the Ph.D. degree in Information engineering from the University of Brescia, Italy, in 2014 and 2017, respectively. H...

    2024

  23. [59]

    The graphical lasso: New insights and alternatives,

    R. Mazumder and T. Hastie, “The graphical lasso: New insights and alternatives,” Electron. J. Statist. ,v o l .6 ,p p .2 1 2 5 – 2 1 4 9 ,N o v .2 0 1 2 , doi: 10.1214/12-EJS740

    doi

  24. [60]

    Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization,

    P . Tseng, “Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization,” J. Optim. Theory Appl. ,v o l .1 0 9 ,n o . 3, pp. 475–494, Jun. 2001

    2001

  25. [61]

    On random graphs I,

    P . Erdös and A. Rényi, “On random graphs I,” Publicationes Mathemat- icae Debrecen ,v o l .6 ,p p .2 9 0 – 2 9 7 ,1 9 5 9

  26. [62]

    Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, “Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,” in Proc. Recent Advances in Learn. Control (Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences) , V . Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura, Eds., New Y ork, NY , USA: Springer-V erlag, 2008, pp. 95–110. [On...

    2008

  27. [63]

    CVX: Matlab software for disciplined con- vex programming, version 2.1,

    M. Grant and S. Boyd, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined con- vex programming, version 2.1,” CVX Research. Accessed: Mar. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://cvxr.com/cvx

    2014

  28. [64]

    DELTACON: A principled massive-graph similarity function,

    D. Koutra, J. V ogelstein, and C. F aloutsos, “DELTACON: A principled massive-graph similarity function,” 2013, arXiv:1304.4657

    2013 arXiv

  29. [65]

    Comparing methods for comparing networks,

    M. Tantardini, F. Ieva, L. Tajo li, and C. Piccardi, “Comparing methods for comparing networks,” Sci. Rep. ,v o l .9 ,D e c .2 0 1 9

  30. [66]

    Bunke, P

    H. Bunke, P . Dickinson, M. Kraetzl, and W. Wallis, A Graph-Theoretic Approach to Enterprise Network Dynamics (Progress in Computer Science and Applied Logic). Bost on, MA, USA: Birkhäuser, 2006. [On- line]. Available: https://books.google.dm/books?id=MuqjjwEACAAJ

    2006

  31. [67]

    A study of graph spectra for comparing graphs and trees,

    R. Wilson and P . Zhu, “A study of graph spectra for comparing graphs and trees,” Pattern Recognit.,v o l .4 1 ,p p .2 8 3 3 – 2 8 4 1 ,S e p .2 0 0 8

  32. [68]

    Image interpolation during DIBR view synthesis using graph Fourier transform,

    Y . Mao, G. Cheung, and Y . Ji, “Image interpolation during DIBR view synthesis using graph Fourier transform,” in Proc. 3DTV-Conf. , Budapest, Hungary, Jul. 2014

    2014

  33. [69]

    Function minimization by conjugate gradients,

    R. Fletcher and C. M. Reeves, “Function minimization by conjugate gradients,” Comput. J. ,v o l .7 ,n o .2 ,p p .1 4 9 – 1 5 4 ,J a n .1 9 6 4 ,d o i : 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.149

    doi

  34. [70]

    Nearest neighbor value interpolation,

    R. Olivier and C. Hanqiang, “Nearest neighbor value interpolation,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. ,v o l .3 ,n o .4 ,p p .2 5 – 3 0 ,2 0 1 2 ,d o i : 10.14569/IJACSA.2012.030405

    2012 arXiv

  35. [71]

    Adaptable k-nearest neighbor for image interpolation,

    K. S. Ni and T. Q. Nguyen, “Adaptable k-nearest neighbor for image interpolation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process. , 2008, pp. 1297–1300

    2008

  36. [72]

    Theoretical foundations of transform coding,

    V . Goyal, “Theoretical foundations of transform coding,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag.,v o l .1 8 ,n o .5 ,p p .9 – 2 1 ,S e p .2 0 0 1

  37. [73]

    The discrete cosine transform,

    G. Strang, “The discrete cosine transform,” SIAM Rev., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 135–147, Mar. 1999, doi: 10.1137/S0036144598336745

    1999 doi

  38. [74]

    W. A. Pearlman and A. Said, Set Partition Coding: Part I of Set Partition Coding and Image Wavelet Coding Systems ,H a n o v e r ,M A ,U S A :N o w Publishers Inc., 2008

    2008

  39. [75]

    Jointly optimized spatial prediction and block transform for video and image coding,

    J. Han, A. Saxena, V . Melkote, and K. Rose, “Jointly optimized spatial prediction and block transform for video and image coding,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1874–1884, Apr. 2012

    2012

  40. [76]

    Hybrid model- based/data-driven graph tra nsform for image coding,

    S. Bagheri, T. T. Do, G. Cheung, and A. Ortega, “Hybrid model- based/data-driven graph tra nsform for image coding,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. (ICIP) ,2 0 2 2 ,p p .3 6 6 7 – 3 6 7 1 . Saghar Bagheri (Member, IEEE) received the B.S. degree from Sharif University ...

    2019

  41. [2021]

    degree with the Graph and Image Signal Processing Lab (GISP), Electrical Engi neering and Computer Science Department, Y ork University

    He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree with the Graph and Image Signal Processing Lab (GISP), Electrical Engi neering and Computer Science Department, Y ork University. His research interests include 3D point cloud attribute com- pression, graph signal processing, and...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.