Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Plug-and-Play Tri-Branch Invertible Block for Image Rescaling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that separating the low-frequency branch into luminance and chrominance, and feeding an all-zero tensor for high frequencies at upscaling, improves invertible image rescaling by up to 1.3 dB over IRN and up to 0.6 dB over…

desk verdict A modest but real architectural improvement; the headline gain is mostly the all-zero trick, so the claims need trimming. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13508 v1 pith:BUBZVMUI submitted 2024-12-18 eess.IV cs.CV

Jingwei Bao , Jinhua Hao , Pengcheng Xu , Ming Sun , Chao Zhou , Shuyuan Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords imagerescalinginvertibleneuralnetworktri-branchblockall-zeromappingYCbCrcolorspacelossycompressionJPEG
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

The paper tries to establish that the standard way of running invertible image rescaling—modeling high-frequency image details as random noise drawn from a Gaussian or a mixture—is unnecessary. It argues that the low-frequency branch, when split into luminance (Y) and chrominance (CbCr) and processed through a three-branch invertible coupling block, can carry all the information needed to reconstruct the high-resolution image. During upscaling the high-frequency latent is set to an all-zero tensor instead of being sampled, and the claim is that this both simplifies training and improves reconstruction. If true, any existing rescaling model built on invertible blocks can be upgraded by swapping in the new block and dropping its distribution-matching loss, gaining roughly 0.9–1.3 dB at ×2 scale over IRN and 0.2–0.6 dB over SAIN under JPEG compression without adding parameters.

What carries the argument

The T-InvBlock is the central object: a tri-branch invertible coupling block that operates on three variables, the luminance component $x_y$, the chrominance component $x_c$, and the high-frequency wavelet detail $x_h$, with coupling functions $\phi, \theta, \nu, \pi, \rho, \epsilon, \eta, \mu$ parameterized by densely connected convolutional blocks. Its forward map (Equation 2) updates $x_c$ then $x_y$ then $x_h$ using all previously updated branches, and its inverse (Equation 3) unwinds those updates, so the block is exactly invertible. The all-zero mapping strategy sets the latent $z$ to $0$ during upscaling, removing the distribution-matching loss and the GMM sampler; the paper argues this forces the LR image to be the sole carrier of information across the rescaling pipeline.

What would settle it

Train or evaluate T-IRN at ×4 scale and compare per-image PSNR against IRN on Urban100, where the paper's own table shows T-IRN trailing on average (31.19 vs 31.41 dB); if the deficit concentrates in images with dense repetitive textures, then the all-zero mapping is losing high-frequency information that a sampled latent preserves. A direct control experiment—sampling $z$ from the trained GMM or Gaussian during upscaling instead of using zeros and measuring the PSNR difference—would separate the benefit of the tri-branch block from the benefit of the zero strategy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the high-frequency latent variable in an invertible rescaling network does not need a learned or fixed probability model: setting $z = 0$ at upscaling time, together with a tri-branch block that treats luminance, chrominance, and high-frequency detail as separate interacting streams, produces better reconstruction than sampling from a Gaussian (IRN) or a learned Gaussian mixture (SAIN). The paper reports that the resulting T-IRN outperforms IRN by about 0.9–1.3 dB PSNR at ×2 scale across Set5, Set14, BSD100, Urban100, and DIV2K, and that T-SAIN beats SAIN by 0.2–0.6 dB under JPEG compression at quality factors 30–90. At ×4 scale the gains are smaller and not universal, with T-IRN trailing IRN on Urban100 PSNR, which the paper acknowledges as a partial exception. The discovery is framed as a plug-and-play architectural result: replacing the existing invertible block in IRN or SAIN with T-InvBlock and switching to the all-zero strategy yields the improvement without changing the overall network design.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that setting the high-frequency latent to zeros during upscaling discards no information needed for reconstruction, meaning the invertible block can push all essential high-frequency detail into the low-resolution image itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any invertible rescaling model that currently samples high-frequency latents can replace its invertible blocks with T-InvBlocks and disable the sampler, obtaining reconstruction gains without increasing parameter count.
  • Training becomes simpler: the distribution-matching loss used by IRN and the GMM-based latent model used by SAIN can be dropped entirely.
  • In lossy-compression scenarios the YCbCr decomposition aligns the network's internal color space with JPEG's, so robustness to compression artifacts improves most at low quality factors.
  • At ×4 scale, the benefit shrinks and is inconsistent across datasets, so the method's advantage is strongest for ×2 rescaling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The zero-latent result points toward a reinterpretation of invertible rescaling as deterministic learned compression: if the LR image can carry all needed detail, then the latent space is a code rather than a generative prior.
  • Because the all-zero strategy makes upscaling deterministic and removes the GMM, inference should be faster and more reproducible; a timing comparison would test this directly.
  • The ×4 gap on Urban100 suggests a testable boundary: images with dense, repetitive textures may be exactly where the LR image cannot absorb all high-frequency information, so comparing per-image PSNR against texture-density metrics would reveal the failure mode.
  • The YCbCr benefit is likely to transfer to other compression codecs that operate in chroma-separated color spaces, such as HEVC or AVIF, but that transfer is not tested in the paper.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a plug-and-play tri-branch invertible block (T-InvBlock) for learned image rescaling. The block replaces the dual-branch additive/affine coupling in IRN by splitting the Haar low-frequency component into luminance (Y) and chrominance (Cb/Cr) channels and coupling them with the high-frequency branch through three invertible update equations (Eqs. 2-3). The authors also replace the latent high-frequency variable with an all-zero tensor during upscaling, which removes the distribution-matching loss. They insert T-InvBlock into IRN and SAIN, producing T-IRN and T-SAIN, and report PSNR/SSIM gains on Set5, Set14, BSD100, Urban100, and DIV2K for both x2 and x4 rescaling, as well as on DIV2K with JPEG compression at quality factors 30 to 90. The paper claims a 0.9 to 1.3 dB improvement over IRN at x2 and 0.4 to 0.6 dB over SAIN under lossy compression.

Significance. The manuscript is a competent empirical architecture paper in a well-studied area. The invertibility of Eqs. (2)-(3) is correctly constructed as a sequential coupling with an unambiguous inverse, and the parameter count is nearly unchanged. The JPEG-compression results in Table 2 are consistently positive across all tested quality factors and both scales, which is the strongest evidence for practical value. The ablation design in Table 3 is a useful first step, and the paper promises code via GitHub. The main weakness is attribution: the method varies the architecture and the training objective jointly, and the paper does not retrain the original IRN or SAIN with the all-zero objective, so the headline gain is not cleanly attributable to T-InvBlock alone. If the missing baseline is added, the paper would make a clean and useful contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The claimed 0.9 to 1.3 dB gain over IRN at x2 conflates two interventions. Table 3 shows that IRN with an all-zero latent at test time (IRN (all-zero)) already improves PSNR over the standard IRN by 0.58 dB on Set14, 0.63 dB on Urban100, and 0.86 dB on DIV2K, without retraining. Comparing T-IRN with this row leaves only 0.33, 0.50, and 0.28 dB of residual gain. Because IRN (all-zero) is not retrained with the distribution-loss-free objective used for T-IRN, even this residual is not an unbiased estimate of the block's contribution. Please retrain IRN with the same all-zero objective, training schedule, and loss weights, and report it as the primary baseline. The same issue affects T-SAIN: Table 4 does not state whether SAIN (all-zero) is retrained, even though T-SAIN changes both the block and the GMM.
  2. [Section 3.3] The all-zero strategy is motivated by an assertion about SAIN's official GMM weights, namely that the 'GMM actually learns a near-zero mean unimodal distribution.' No plot, variance value, or other quantitative evidence is provided for this load-bearing claim. If the claim is used to justify discarding the learned latent model, it should be substantiated. Similarly, the paper's appeal to IRN's ablation studies should cite the specific table or section in Xiao et al. (2023) rather than a general reference. Otherwise, the motivation should be stated as a hypothesis, not as an established fact.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2, Table 1] The unqualified 'state of the art' claim in the abstract is not supported by the paper's own x4 results. In Table 1, T-IRN underperforms IRN on Urban100 at x4 (PSNR 31.19 vs 31.41, SSIM 0.9132 vs 0.9157) and ties IRN on BSD100 PSNR (31.64). The text acknowledges this by saying 'some datasets do not fully surpass,' but the abstract and conclusion do not carry the necessary qualification. Please either qualify the claim to x2 and to most x4 datasets, or report an aggregate statistic over the full benchmark set that justifies the state-of-the-art phrasing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The reported RGB-PSNR improvement of 0.6 to 1.1 dB over IRN is not shown in any table or figure; please provide these numbers explicitly, either in the main text or in supplementary material.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 2] The notation x_c for chrominance is easy to confuse with the concatenation of the Cb and Cr channels; consider using a more explicit label such as x_chroma or x_cbcr throughout.
  3. [Section 4.1, Tables 1 and 2] Please state explicitly what the 'Param' column counts, since T-IRN uses 1.57M vs IRN's 1.67M at x2 but 4.67M vs 4.35M at x4; calling this 'similar' is acceptable but should be accompanied by the exact numbers and the model footprint definition.
  4. [Section 3.4, Eq. (4)] The loss weights lambda1 = 1 and lambda2 = 0.25 are hand-chosen. Please state whether identical weights and training schedules were used for the IRN and SAIN baselines, or whether those baselines were tuned separately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical, benchmark-based, and its architectural equations are exact inverses by construction.

full rationale

This is an empirical architecture paper with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The proposed T-InvBlock is defined by invertible coupling equations (Eqs. 2 and 3), which are exact algebraic inverses by construction; this is a definition, not a prediction derived from fitted parameters. The all-zero mapping strategy is a training/testing choice, and its motivation cites IRN's published ablation (Xiao et al. 2023) and SAIN's official weights, both of which are external artifacts rather than self-citations by the present authors. The central performance claims are evaluated on held-out benchmark datasets (Set5, Set14, BSD100, Urban100, DIV2K, and JPEG quality-factor sweeps) against published baselines under fixed, hand-chosen loss weights (lambda1=1, lambda2=0.25); those weights are not fitted to the evaluation data, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The skeptical concern that the reported 0.9-1.3 dB improvement over IRN conflates the tri-branch block with the all-zero strategy is a legitimate experimental-attribution question, but it is not circularity: the paper's ablation in Table 3 explicitly separates IRN, IRN(YCbCr), IRN(all-zero), and full T-IRN, even if the all-zero IRN baseline was not retrained under identical conditions. No quantity is defined in terms of another quantity it is meant to predict, and no load-bearing premise is justified only by a self-citation. The verification is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim depends on the expressiveness of learned coupling layers, the assumption that YCbCr decomposition reduces redundancy in a way that helps reconstruction, and the hypothesis that an all-zero high-frequency latent is sufficient. The loss weights (λ1=1, λ2=0.25) are hand-chosen hyperparameters. No invented entities are introduced; the T-InvBlock is an architectural component, not a postulated physical entity.

free parameters (2)
  • λ1 (HR loss weight) = 1
    Hand-set loss weight for the HR reconstruction term in Equation 4; not fitted to evaluation data.
  • λ2 (LR loss weight) = 0.25
    Hand-set loss weight for the LR perceptual term in Equation 4; chosen to balance LR and HR losses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Densely connected convolutional blocks are sufficiently expressive to learn the transformation functions φ, θ, ν, π, ρ, ε, η, μ in the T-InvBlock.
    The paper inherits this capacity assumption from IRN, which uses the same type of blocks (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Converting low-frequency image content from RGB to YCbCr and processing luminance and chrominance separately reduces inter-channel redundancy and improves reconstruction.
    Stated in Section 3.2 and motivated by color science references (Jain 1989; Poynton 2012), but not formally proven.
  • domain assumption An all-zero tensor for the high-frequency latent during upscaling preserves the information needed for HR reconstruction.
    Core hypothesis of Section 3.3; supported empirically by the paper's ablations and by IRN's published ablation, but not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper SAIN's official GMM weights produce a near-zero mean unimodal distribution for the latent.
    Asserted in Section 3.3 without showing the weights or a quantitative analysis; used to justify the all-zero strategy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plug-and-Play Tri-Branch Invertible Block for Image Rescaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUBZVMUI

@misc{pith2026241213508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plug-and-Play Tri-Branch Invertible Block for Image Rescaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUBZVMUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13508}
}
read the original abstract

High-resolution (HR) images are commonly downscaled to low-resolution (LR) to reduce bandwidth, followed by upscaling to restore their original details. Recent advancements in image rescaling algorithms have employed invertible neural networks (INNs) to create a unified framework for downscaling and upscaling, ensuring a one-to-one mapping between LR and HR images. Traditional methods, utilizing dual-branch based vanilla invertible blocks, process high-frequency and low-frequency information separately, often relying on specific distributions to model high-frequency components. However, processing the low-frequency component directly in the RGB domain introduces channel redundancy, limiting the efficiency of image reconstruction. To address these challenges, we propose a plug-and-play tri-branch invertible block (T-InvBlocks) that decomposes the low-frequency branch into luminance (Y) and chrominance (CbCr) components, reducing redundancy and enhancing feature processing. Additionally, we adopt an all-zero mapping strategy for high-frequency components during upscaling, focusing essential rescaling information within the LR image. Our T-InvBlocks can be seamlessly integrated into existing rescaling models, improving performance in both general rescaling tasks and scenarios involving lossy compression. Extensive experiments confirm that our method advances the state of the art in HR image reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of IRN and T-IRN: (a) Vanilla in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of tri-branch invertible block(T-InvBlock) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Architecture of SAIN and T-SAIN Building on these insights, we adopt an all-zero tensor, i.e., z = 0, for high-frequency components during upscal￾ing in models’ training and testing processes. This approach shifts the responsibility for representing high-frequency de￾tails to the LR image itself, which we hypothesize could of￾fer a more deterministic and content-specific basis for recon￾struction compared to abstrac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Evaluation(×2) for T-IRN. The shown images are 0846 and 0823 from DIV2K. Original image Ground Truth EDSR RCAN IRN SAIN T-SAIN (Ours) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative Evaluation(×2) for T-SAIN. The shown images are 0804 and 0890 from DIV2K. The first row shows images where the LR input was compressed with JPEG QF=30 before upscaling, while the second row shows images where the LR input was compressed with JPEG QF=90. Str…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning Arbitrary-Scale RAW Image Downscaling with Wavelet-based Recurrent Reconstruction

    eess.IV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A wavelet-based recurrent network performs arbitrary-scale downscaling directly on RAW images, outperforming sRGB and interpolation baselines on new and existing benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Agustsson, E.; and Timofte, R. 2017. Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 126--135

    2017

  2. [2]

    Bevilacqua, M.; Roumy, A.; Guillemot, C.; and Alberi-Morel, M. L. 2012. Low-complexity single-image super-resolution based on nonnegative neighbor embedding. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, 135.1--135.10

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Chen, H.; Hao, J.; Zhao, K.; Yuan, K.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; and Hu, W. 2024. CasSR: Activating Image Power for Real-World Image Super-Resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11451

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Dai, T.; Cai, J.; Zhang, Y.; Xia, S.-T.; and Zhang, L. 2019. Second-order attention network for single image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11065--11074

    2019

  5. [5]

    Dinh, L.; Krueger, D.; and Bengio, Y. 2014. Nice: Non-linear independent components estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8516

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Dinh, L.; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; and Bengio, S. 2016. Density estimation using real nvp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08803

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    C.; He, K.; and Tang, X

    Dong, C.; Loy, C. C.; He, K.; and Tang, X. 2015. Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 38(2): 295--307

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Guo, M.; Zhao, S.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, L.; and Wang, Y. 2022. Invertible Single Image Rescaling via Steganography. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 1--6. IEEE

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, J.-B.; Singh, A.; and Ahuja, N. 2015. Single image super-resolution from transformed self-exemplars. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 5197--5206

    2015

  2. [10]

    Jain, A. K. 1989. Fundamentals of digital image processing. Prentice-Hall, Inc

    1989

  3. [11]

    Kim, H.; Choi, M.; Lim, B.; and Lee, K. M. 2018. Task-aware image downscaling. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 399--414

    2018

  4. [12]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J.; and Brubaker, M

    Kobyzev, I.; Prince, S. J.; and Brubaker, M. A. 2020. Normalizing flows: An introduction and review of current methods. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11): 3964--3979

    2020

  6. [14]

    Li, Y.; Liu, D.; Li, H.; Li, L.; Li, Z.; and Wu, F. 2018. Learning a convolutional neural network for image compact-resolution. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 28(3): 1092--1107

    2018

  7. [15]

    Liang, J.; Lugmayr, A.; Zhang, K.; Danelljan, M.; Van Gool, L.; and Timofte, R. 2021. Hierarchical conditional flow: A unified framework for image super-resolution and image rescaling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4076--4085

    2021

  8. [16]

    Lienhart, R.; and Maydt, J. 2002. An extended set of haar-like features for rapid object detection. In Proceedings. international conference on image processing, volume 1, I--I. IEEE

    2002

  9. [17]

    Lim, B.; Son, S.; Kim, H.; Nah, S.; and Mu Lee, K. 2017. Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 136--144

    2017

  10. [18]

    Liu, Y.; Qin, Z.; Anwar, S.; Ji, P.; Kim, D.; Caldwell, S.; and Gedeon, T. 2021. Invertible denoising network: A light solution for real noise removal. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 13365--13374

    2021

  11. [19]

    Lu, Y.; Li, X.; Pei, Y.; Yuan, K.; Xie, Q.; Qu, Y.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; and Chen, Z. 2024. Kvq: Kwai video quality assessment for short-form videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 25963--25973

    2024

  12. [20]

    Martin, D.; Fowlkes, C.; Tal, D.; and Malik, J. 2001. A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001, ...

    2001

  13. [21]

    Mo, Q.; Ding, Y.; Hao, J.; Zhu, Q.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; Chen, F.; and Zhu, S. 2025. OAPT: Offset-Aware Partition Transformer for Double JPEG Artifacts Removal. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 38--56. Springer

    2025

  14. [22]

    Pan, Z.; Li, B.; He, D.; Wu, W.; and Ding, E. 2023. Effective invertible arbitrary image rescaling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 5416--5425

    2023

  15. [23]

    Pan, Z.; Li, B.; He, D.; Yao, M.; Wu, W.; Lin, T.; Li, X.; and Ding, E. 2022. Towards bidirectional arbitrary image rescaling: Joint optimization and cycle idempotence. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17389--17398

    2022

  16. [24]

    Poynton, C. 2012. Digital video and HD: Algorithms and Interfaces. Elsevier

    2012

  17. [25]

    Qin, R.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; and Wang, B. 2025. A New Dataset and Framework for Real-World Blurred Images Super-Resolution. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 56--75. Springer

    2025

  18. [26]

    Qu, Y.; Yuan, K.; Zhao, K.; Xie, Q.; Hao, J.; Sun, M.; and Zhou, C. 2025. Xpsr: Cross-modal priors for diffusion-based image super-resolution. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 285--303. Springer

    2025

  19. [27]

    Quan, Y.; Tan, X.; Huang, Y.; Xu, Y.; and Ji, H. 2024. Enhancing Underwater Images via Asymmetric Multi-Scale Invertible Networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 6182--6191

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rezende, D.; and Mohamed, S. 2015. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning, 1530--1538. PMLR

    2015

  21. [29]

    Son, H.; Kim, T.; Lee, H.; and Lee, S. 2021. Enhanced standard compatible image compression framework based on auxiliary codec networks. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31: 664--677

    2021

  22. [30]

    Sun, W.; and Chen, Z. 2020. Learned image downscaling for upscaling using content adaptive resampler. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 4027--4040

    2020

  23. [31]

    Wallace, G. K. 1991. The JPEG still picture compression standard. Communications of the ACM, 34(4): 30--44

    1991

  24. [32]

    Wang, X.; Yu, K.; Wu, S.; Gu, J.; Liu, Y.; Dong, C.; Qiao, Y.; and Change Loy, C. 2018. Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 0--0

    2018

  25. [33]

    C.; Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z.; Bovik, A. C.; Sheikh, H. R.; and Simoncelli, E. P. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4): 600--612

    2004

  26. [34]

    Xiao, M.; Zheng, S.; Liu, C.; Lin, Z.; and Liu, T.-Y. 2023. Invertible rescaling network and its extensions. International Journal of Computer Vision, 131(1): 134--159

    2023

  27. [35]

    Xiao, M.; Zheng, S.; Liu, C.; Wang, Y.; He, D.; Ke, G.; Bian, J.; Lin, Z.; and Liu, T.-Y. 2020. Invertible image rescaling. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 126--144. Springer

    2020

  28. [36]

    Xie, Q.; Yuan, K.; Qu, Y.; Wu, M.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; and Zhu, J. 2024. QPT-V2: Masked Image Modeling Advances Visual Scoring. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2709--2718

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xing, J.; Hu, W.; Xia, M.; and Wong, T.-T. 2023. Scale-arbitrary invertible image downscaling. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

    2023

  30. [38]

    Yang, J.; Guo, M.; Zhao, S.; Li, J.; and Zhang, L. 2023. Self-asymmetric invertible network for compression-aware image rescaling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 3155--3163

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yuan, K.; Liu, H.; Li, M.; Sun, M.; Sun, M.; Gong, J.; Hao, J.; Zhou, C.; and Tang, Y. 2024. PTM-VQA: Efficient Video Quality Assessment Leveraging Diverse PreTrained Models from the Wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2835--2845

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zeyde, R.; Elad, M.; and Protter, M. 2010. On single image scale-up using sparse-representations. In International conference on curves and surfaces, 711--730. Springer

    2010

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Y.; Li, K.; Li, K.; Wang, L.; Zhong, B.; and Fu, Y. 2018 a . Image super-resolution using very deep residual channel attention networks. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 286--301

    2018

  34. [42]

    Zhang, Y.; Tian, Y.; Kong, Y.; Zhong, B.; and Fu, Y. 2018 b . Residual dense network for image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2472--2481

    2018

  35. [43]

    Zhu, Q.; Hao, J.; Ding, Y.; Liu, Y.; Mo, Q.; Sun, M.; Zhou, C.; and Zhu, S. 2024. CPGA: Coding Priors-Guided Aggregation Network for Compressed Video Quality Enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2964--2974

    2024

  36. [44]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  37. [45]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.