Generalized Gaussian Entropy Model for Point Cloud Attribute Compression with Dynamic Likelihood Intervals

Changhao Peng; Wei Gao; Yuqi Ye

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Generalized Gaussian Entropy Model for Point Cloud Attribute Compression with Dynamic Likelihood Intervals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing Gaussian and Laplacian latent models with a learned-shape generalized Gaussian and dynamically adjusted likelihood intervals cuts average bitrate by up to 11.46 percent in three point-cloud attribute codecs.

desk verdict A solid, incremental compression paper whose main modeling worry disappears on inspection; the remaining issues are empirical reproducibility and a few specification gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09510 v1 pith:PACNKYYA submitted 2025-06-11 cs.CV eess.IV

Changhao Peng , Yuqi Ye , Wei Gao This is my paper

classification cs.CVeess.IV

keywords pointcloudattributecompressionlearnedentropymodelgeneralizedGaussiandistributiondynamiclikelihoodintervalMeanErrorDiscriminatorarithmeticcodingrate-distortionoptimizationvariationalautoencoder

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 sets out to show that learned point cloud attribute compression leaves bitrate on the table because its entropy models are too rigid. Replacing the usual Gaussian or Laplacian latent model with a generalized Gaussian distribution whose tail shape parameter is learned, and letting a Mean Error Discriminator stretch or squeeze the likelihood intervals used in arithmetic coding, yields more accurate discrete probability estimates without touching the autoencoder. Across three VAE-based codecs the reported average BD-BR gains are 11.46 percent for SparsePCAC, 9.51 percent for TSC-PCAC, and 6.11 percent for SPAC, and both added modules contribute in ablation. The method is designed to be portable to other compression tasks such as image and video coding.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Gaussian entropy model $G(\mu_i,\sigma_i,\beta_i)$, where $\beta$ controls the tail shape ($\beta=1$ is Laplacian, $\beta=2$ is Gaussian), together with the Mean Error Discriminator $d_{\mathrm{me}}$, which outputs $\pi_i = P(\hat{y}_i = \lfloor \mu_i \rceil)$ from context and entropy parameters. The discriminator's output feeds Eq. 25 to compute the central interval width $\delta_i$, and Eq. 26 translates neighboring intervals, thereby defining the discrete likelihood table used by arithmetic coding. This dynamic interval mechanism is what allows a single continuous density to assign more probability to informative integer outcomes.

What would settle it

Compute $S=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} [G(\mu,\sigma,\beta)\ast \mathrm{LI}(\mu,\sigma,\pi)](n)$ over a grid of $(\mu,\sigma,\pi)$ using the interval definitions of Eqs. 23-26; any $S\neq 1$ invalidates the arithmetic-coding distribution and would break the reported results under a correct implementation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the mean and scale emitted by an entropy network are themselves unused predictions: the optimal scale for a latent is close to the absolute residual between the latent and the mean, so a large scale flags a failed mean prediction. The paper exploits this by modeling latents with a generalized Gaussian density, using a second context module to predict the shape parameter, and using a Mean Error Discriminator to estimate the probability that the latent equals its rounded mean. That probability sets a scaling factor that narrows or widens the central likelihood interval and shifts all other integer intervals toward or away from the center, producing a discrete probability table better matched to the true latent distribution. On the three tested codecs the combination improves rate-distortion performance, with the largest gains on the weakest baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the scaled and translated likelihood intervals in Eqs. 23-26 partition the number line, so the discrete probabilities sum to one and arithmetic coding is well-defined; if that partition fails, the codec is invalid no matter the reported gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A VAE-based point cloud codec can be upgraded by adding a shape-prediction branch and a Mean Error Discriminator branch while keeping the pre-trained autoencoder frozen, so the method is a drop-in entropy-coding improvement.
The gains imply that the half-unit likelihood interval used by standard learned codecs is itself a rate bottleneck, separate from the choice of the continuous density.
On SparsePCAC the two mechanisms are roughly additive in the ablations, with about 5.6 percent from the generalized Gaussian alone and 6.8 percent from dynamic intervals alone, suggesting both should be kept.
Because the generalized Gaussian contains the Laplacian and Gaussian as special cases, the model can degrade gracefully to baseline behavior when the learned shape is uninformative.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is to apply the interval-scaling rule to image or video latents using only existing mean and scale predictions, which would isolate how much of the gain comes from the Mean Error Discriminator versus the scaling rule itself.
The paper's finding that optimal scale approximates the absolute residual suggests a broader design principle: entropy parameters could be trained as explicit predictors of error magnitude, possibly replacing the second context network with a single residual-prediction head.
The reported ordering of gains across baselines, largest for the weakest entropy model, suggests the benefit should shrink as base entropy models improve; verifying this on a stronger codec would test whether the method's headroom is tied to entropy-estimation quality.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper does what it says—replacing Gaussian/Laplacian entropy models with a generalized Gaussian whose shape beta is learned, plus a dynamic likelihood interval driven by a Mean Error Discriminator—and it reports consistent gains (6–11% BD-BR) on three point cloud attribute codecs. The math in the dynamic interval section is sound: I checked Eqs. 23–26 and the intervals do partition the real line, so the reader's concern about an invalid arithmetic-coding distribution does not land. What is genuinely new is modest but real: no one else seems to have used a learned shape parameter in this point-cloud setting, and the interval-scaling trick is simple enough to port.

The paper is also honest about its limitations. The ablation study isolates both components and each helps; the two-step training is pragmatic. The preliminary experiment in Section 4.2 is the weakest part: hand-set thresholds (sigma>2, beta=0.5, offset 1/4) are tuned on the test sequences themselves, so the motivating numbers are selection-biased. That does not sink the final claims, because the trained models are evaluated on held-out sequences, but it should be described as exploratory rather than evidence.

The soft spots are mostly reproducibility and specification. There is no code, no error bars, and no per-sequence variance; for a method whose entire case is empirical, that is a real gap. Eq. 26's U(a,b)(n) notation is ambiguous until you read it as the convolution integral, and the sentence after Eq. 25 says the opposite of what the equation does (it says pi>=1/2 shortens, Eq. 25 stretches). That is a typo, not a load-bearing flaw. The complexity numbers are also worth flagging: encoding time roughly doubles for SparsePCAC and SPAC, which is a meaningful cost for a 6–11% bitrate gain, though TSC-PCAC's overhead is smaller.

Who is this for? People working on learned point cloud compression and, by extension, other VAE codecs. It is not a new branch of science, but it is a practical refinement that deserves referee time. A serious referee should push for code, error bars, and a clean statement of the interval partition; if those come back clean, accepting is reasonable.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a generalized Gaussian entropy model for learned point cloud attribute compression, in which the shape parameter β is predicted from context, and a Mean Error Discriminator (MED) that dynamically scales the likelihood interval of the rounded mean based on a predicted accuracy measure π. The method is applied to three VAE-based baselines—SparsePCAC, TSC-PCAC, and SPAC—and the authors report average BD-BR reductions of 11.46% for SparsePCAC, 9.51% for TSC-PCAC, and 6.11% for SPAC, with ablations showing both the generalized Gaussian model and the dynamic likelihood intervals contribute to the gains.

Significance. If the reported results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution to learned point cloud attribute compression: it shows that a more flexible entropy model and data-dependent likelihood intervals can improve arithmetic coding, and the gains are consistent across three baselines. The proposed modules are lightweight and the two-step training strategy is a practical way to retrofit existing codecs. However, the manuscript lacks a precise definition of the training-time likelihood used in Eq. (28), and the exploratory experiment in Section 4 is evaluated on the same test sequences later used for the final tables, which introduces a risk of selection bias. These issues must be resolved before the empirical claims are fully supported.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.4 / Eq. (28)] The loss is written with yhat_i continuous during training, since Section 3.1 says quantization is replaced by adding U(-1/2,1/2) noise. But the dynamic likelihood intervals LI(n|...) in Eqs. (23)-(26) are defined only for integer n and are not a shift-invariant convolution kernel. Therefore [G * LI](yhat_i) is not a well-defined density for non-integer yhat_i under the standard convolution convention in Eq. (21). If the intended evaluation is the integral over the interval I_n that contains yhat_i, the objective is piecewise constant in yhat_i and provides no gradient to the encoder; if a smooth surrogate is used, it is not described. Please specify exactly how Eq. (28) is computed during training and justify that it is a valid surrogate for the discrete arithmetic-coding table used at test time. Without this, the reported rate-distortion gains are not reproducible from the paper.
[Section 4 / Figure 5] The preliminary experiment hand-sets the threshold sigma_i > 2, the generalized Gaussian shape beta = 0.5, and the interval offset Delta = 1/4 by inspecting performance on the same nine test sequences that are later used for Tables 3 and 4, with no separate validation set. Because the final architecture and design decisions are motivated by this experiment, the final average gains may include selection bias. Please either reserve a validation set for design choices or report the sensitivity of the final results to the preliminary hand-set hyperparameters.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5.2 / Eq. (25)] The sentence after Eq. (25) is inconsistent with the equation: for pi_i >= 1/2, Eq. (25) gives delta_i >= 1, i.e., the central interval is stretched, while the text says it is shortened. Please reverse the wording for the two cases.
[Section 5.2 / Eqs. (21)-(26)] The notation U(a,b)(n) is nonstandard: it is used as if it means the integral over [n+a, n+b] of the entropy density. Please define this convention explicitly near Eq. (21). With that convention, I checked the concern that the dynamic intervals fail to partition the real line: the intervals in Eqs. (23)-(26) are contiguous and cover R, so the arithmetic-coding distribution is valid.
[Section 6.6 / Table 5] Table 5 shows that encoding and decoding times are roughly doubled for SparsePCAC and SPAC, yet Section 6.6 says the method does not significantly affect parallelism. This understates the computational overhead; please describe the overhead more precisely.
[Section 5.1 / Eqs. (17)-(22)] Please specify how beta_i and pi_i are constrained to their valid ranges (e.g., beta_i > 0 and pi_i in [0,1]) and whether d_me receives any supervision or is trained purely through the rate-distortion loss.
[Throughout] Minor typographical issues include 'Datastes' and 'traning' in Section 6.1, 'Methos' in the Table 5 caption, and 'Scool' in the author affiliation. Please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamic-interval scheme is a genuine partition, and the RD gains are measured on held-out sequences.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a learned generalized Gaussian entropy model and MED-based dynamic likelihood intervals improve RD performance on three VAE-based point cloud attribute codecs—does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The entropy parameters (μ,σ) are inherited from each baseline, β is estimated by a separate context model h_ep, and π is estimated by MED d_me; none of these is defined in terms of the final bitrate or the reported BD-BR gains. The dynamic interval formulas (Eqs. 23–26) define disjoint, contiguous intervals: for k=⌊μ⌉, I_k=[k−δ/2,k+δ/2]; for n>k, I_n=[n+δ/2−1,n+δ/2]; for n<k, I_n=[n−δ/2,n−δ/2+1]. Since δ_i>0 by Eq. 24, these tile R and the probabilities sum to ∫G(y)dy=1, so the arithmetic-coding distribution is well-defined; the prose after Eq. 25 reverses stretch/squeeze, but the equations govern. The two-step training evaluates on nine held-out 8iVFBv2/MVUB sequences, so the improvements are measured rather than baked in. The self-citations ([7], [14], [15], [21]) appear only as related-work or standard references and do not carry the derivation of the new entropy model or interval scheme. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is equivalent to the reported RD result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central method rests on standard VAE compression assumptions (uniform-noise quantization, learned entropy models) plus several hand-designed choices: the preliminary heuristic thresholds, the ad hoc interval bounds in Eq 24, and the unproven partition property of Eq 26. The learned beta and pi are fitted to training data, which is normal for the method but means the final performance depends on training details not fully specified.

free parameters (4)

Preliminary failure threshold (sigma_i > 2) = 2
Hand-set in Section 4.2 to classify inaccurate mean predictions in SparsePCAC; evaluated on the same nine test sequences without a validation split.
Preliminary generalized Gaussian shape beta = 0.5
Chosen in Section 4.2 for the heavy-tailed model used when sigma_i > 2; no ablation over beta is reported.
Preliminary interval offset Delta = 1/4
Hand-set in Eq 15 to shift likelihood intervals toward the center for failed predictions; no ablation is reported.
Dynamic interval scaling bounds = 1/(1+sigma_i) to 1/(1-exp(-sigma_i))
Ad hoc functions in Eq 24 that define how much the center interval can be squeezed or stretched; no derivation or ablation over alternative forms is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Latents y are modeled by a generalized Gaussian distribution G(mu, sigma, beta) whose parameters are estimated by neural networks from hyperpriors and context.
Eq 17 in Section 5.1; the entropy model is a modeling choice justified only by rate-distortion results.
domain assumption Quantization can be approximated by additive uniform noise U(-1/2, 1/2) during training.
Standard VAE compression assumption used in the loss function Eq 27; inherited from Balle et al.
domain assumption The entropy model scale sigma approximates the optimal scale |y-mu|, so larger sigma indicates less accurate mean prediction.
Derived approximately in Eqs 9-11 under simplifying assumptions and used to motivate the interval bounds in Eq 24.
ad hoc to paper The likelihood intervals defined in Eq 26 form a valid probability partition for every (mu, sigma, pi).
No proof is given; under a standard reading of the U notation the intervals leave gaps or overlap, so arithmetic coding validity is an unverified assumption.
domain assumption Shape beta and interval probability pi for latent i can be estimated from previously decoded latents only (context |y-mu|_{<i}), keeping the coding causal.
Eqs 19-20 and 22; necessary for the decoder to reproduce the same probability tables.

invented entities (1)

Mean Error Discriminator (d_me)
purpose: A neural network module that predicts the probability that the quantized latent equals floor(mu), and thereby controls the dynamic likelihood interval scaling.
The d_me is introduced in Section 5.2; its only support is the reported rate-distortion improvement, with no independent falsifiable prediction outside the method.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Gaussian Entropy Model for Point Cloud Attribute Compression with Dynamic Likelihood Intervals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PACNKYYA

@misc{pith2026250609510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Gaussian Entropy Model for Point Cloud Attribute Compression with Dynamic Likelihood Intervals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PACNKYYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09510}
}

read the original abstract

Gaussian and Laplacian entropy models are proved effective in learned point cloud attribute compression, as they assist in arithmetic coding of latents. However, we demonstrate through experiments that there is still unutilized information in entropy parameters estimated by neural networks in current methods, which can be used for more accurate probability estimation. Thus we introduce generalized Gaussian entropy model, which controls the tail shape through shape parameter to more accurately estimate the probability of latents. Meanwhile, to the best of our knowledge, existing methods use fixed likelihood intervals for each integer during arithmetic coding, which limits model performance. We propose Mean Error Discriminator (MED) to determine whether the entropy parameter estimation is accurate and then dynamically adjust likelihood intervals. Experiments show that our method significantly improves rate-distortion (RD) performance on three VAE-based models for point cloud attribute compression, and our method can be applied to other compression tasks, such as image and video compression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09510 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Dynamic likelihood intervals. When the prediction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Operational diagrams: Variational compression model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Function diagram: (a) Generalized Gaussian distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of preliminary experiment. To highlight the dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Overall framework. We propose using the generalized Gaussian distribution as the entropy model to better estimate the probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Demonstration of rate-distortion curves for the proposed method applied to three baseline models on nine point cloud sequences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Visual quality comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The first frame of 9 point cloud sequences in testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

8i voxelized full bodies version 2 – a voxelized point cloud dataset

8i Labs. 8i voxelized full bodies version 2 – a voxelized point cloud dataset. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 Joint WG11/WG1 (MPEG/JPEG) input document, 2017. 1, 6

work page 2017
[2]

Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436,

Johannes Ball ´e, David Minnen, Saurabh Singh, Sung Jin Hwang, and Nick Johnston. Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436,

arXiv
[3]

Vincent Poor, and Shlomo Shamai

Ronit Bustin, H. Vincent Poor, and Shlomo Shamai. Analyt- ical properties of generalized gaussian distributions.Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, 5(1):6, 2018. 3

work page 2018
[4]

Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas J

Angel X. Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas J. Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository. Technical Report Tech Report, Stanford Univer- sity, 2015. 6

work page 2015
[5]

Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules

Zhengxue Cheng, Heming Sun, Masaru Takeuchi, and Jiro Katto. Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7939–7948, 2020. 2

2020
[6]

Carnet: Compression artifact reduction for point cloud at- tribute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08276, 2022

Dandan Ding, Junzhe Zhang, Jianqiang Wang, and Zhan Ma. Carnet: Compression artifact reduction for point cloud at- tribute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08276, 2022. 2

arXiv 2022
[7]

Oc- tattention: Octree-based large-scale contexts model for point cloud compression

Chunyang Fu, Ge Li, Rui Song, Wei Gao, and Shan Liu. Oc- tattention: Octree-based large-scale contexts model for point cloud compression. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 625–633, 2022. 1

work page 2022
[8]

Tsc-pcac: V oxel transformer and sparse convolution- based point cloud attribute compression for 3d broadcasting

Zixi Guo, Yun Zhang, Linwei Zhu, Hanli Wang, and Gangyi Jiang. Tsc-pcac: V oxel transformer and sparse convolution- based point cloud attribute compression for 3d broadcasting. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 2024. 2, 7

work page 2024

Show all 31 references

[9]

Checkerboard context model for effi- cient learned image compression

Dailan He, Yaoyan Zheng, Baocheng Sun, Yan Wang, and Hongwei Qin. Checkerboard context model for effi- cient learned image compression. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14771–14780, 2021. 2

2021
[10]

Elic: Efficient learned image compres- sion with unevenly grouped space-channel contextual adap- tive coding

Dailan He, Ziming Yang, Weikun Peng, Rui Ma, Hongwei Qin, and Yan Wang. Elic: Efficient learned image compres- sion with unevenly grouped space-channel contextual adap- tive coding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5718...

2022
[11]

Mlic++: Linear complexity multi-reference entropy modeling for learned image compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15421, 2023

Wei Jiang, Jiayu Yang, Yongqi Zhai, Feng Gao, and Rong- gang Wang. Mlic++: Linear complexity multi-reference entropy modeling for learned image compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15421, 2023

2023
[12]

Mlic: Multi-reference entropy model for learned image compression

Wei Jiang, Jiayu Yang, Yongqi Zhai, Peirong Ning, Feng Gao, and Ronggang Wang. Mlic: Multi-reference entropy model for learned image compression. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 7618–7627, 2023. 2

2023
[13]

Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 1

2013 arXiv
[14]

Mpeg geometry-based point cloud compression (g-pcc) standard

Ge Li, Wei Gao, and Wen Gao. Mpeg geometry-based point cloud compression (g-pcc) standard. InPoint Cloud Com- pression: Technologies and Standardization, pages 135–165. Springer, 2024. 1

2024
[15]

Mpeg video-based point cloud compression (v-pcc) standard

Ge Li, Wei Gao, and Wen Gao. Mpeg video-based point cloud compression (v-pcc) standard. InPoint Cloud Com- pression: Technologies and Standardization, pages 199–218. Springer, 2024. 1

2024
[16]

Belongie, Lubomir D

Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, Lubomir D. Bourdev, Ross B. Girshick, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context.CoRR, abs/1405.0312,

arXiv
[17]

Spac: Sampling-based pro- gressive attribute compression for dense point clouds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10293, 2024

Xiaolong Mao, Hui Yuan, Tian Guo, Shiqi Jiang, Raouf Hamzaoui, and Sam Kwong. Spac: Sampling-based pro- gressive attribute compression for dense point clouds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10293, 2024. 2, 7

2024 arXiv
[18]

V oxelized Upper Bodies – A V oxelized Point Cloud Dataset

Microsoft. V oxelized Upper Bodies – A V oxelized Point Cloud Dataset. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 Joint WG11/WG1 (MPEG/JPEG) input document, 2016. 1, 6

2016
[19]

Channel-wise autoregres- sive entropy models for learned image compression

David Minnen and Saurabh Singh. Channel-wise autoregres- sive entropy models for learned image compression. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3339–3343. IEEE, 2020. 2

2020
[20]

Joint autoregressive and hierarchical priors for learned im- age compression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

David Minnen, Johannes Ball ´e, and George D Toderici. Joint autoregressive and hierarchical priors for learned im- age compression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. 2

2018
[21]

Laplacian matrix learning for point cloud attribute compression with ternary search-based adaptive block partition

Changhao Peng and Wei Gao. Laplacian matrix learning for point cloud attribute compression with ternary search-based adaptive block partition. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM In- ternational Conference on Multimedia, pages 10412–10420,
[22]

Introduction to Arithmetic Coding – Theory and Practice

Amir Said. Introduction to Arithmetic Coding – Theory and Practice. Technical Report cs/2302.00819, arXiv, 1999. 2

1999 arXiv
[23]

Attribute compression of 3d point clouds using laplacian sparsity optimized graph transform

Yiting Shao, Zhaobin Zhang, Zhu Li, Kui Fan, and Ge Li. Attribute compression of 3d point clouds using laplacian sparsity optimized graph transform. In2017 IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP), pages 1–4. IEEE, 2017. 2

2017
[24]

Fine-grained correlation representation for graph-based point cloud attribute compression

Fei Song, Ge Li, Xiaodong Yang, Wei Gao, and Thomas H Li. Fine-grained correlation representation for graph-based point cloud attribute compression. In2022 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2022. 2

2022
[25]

Efficient hier- archical entropy model for learned point cloud compression

Rui Song, Chunyang Fu, Shan Liu, and Ge Li. Efficient hier- archical entropy model for learned point cloud compression. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14368–14377, 2023. 1

2023
[26]

Sparse tensor-based multi- scale representation for point cloud geometry compression

Jianqiang Wang, Dandan Ding, Zhu Li, Xiaoxing Feng, Chuntong Cao, and Zhan Ma. Sparse tensor-based multi- scale representation for point cloud geometry compression. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 45(7):9055–9071, 2022. 1, 2, 6, 7

2022
[27]

A versatile point cloud compressor using universal multiscale conditional coding – part ii: Attribute

Jianqiang Wang, Ruixiang Xue, Jiaxin Li, Dandan Ding, Yi Lin, and Zhan Ma. A versatile point cloud compressor using universal multiscale conditional coding – part ii: Attribute. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 2024. 2

2024
[28]

Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Process- ing, 13(4):600–612, 2004

Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Process- ing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 3

2004
[29]

Pointatme: efficient 3d point cloud labeling in vir- tual reality

Florian Wirth, Jannik Quehl, Jeffrey Ota, and Christoph Stiller. Pointatme: efficient 3d point cloud labeling in vir- tual reality. In2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1693–1698. IEEE, 2019. 1

2019
[30]

A lidar point cloud generator: from a virtual world to autonomous driving

Xiangyu Yue, Bichen Wu, Sanjit A Seshia, Kurt Keutzer, and Alberto L Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. A lidar point cloud generator: from a virtual world to autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pages 458–464, 2018. 1

2018
[31]

Scalable point cloud attribute compression.IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia, 2023

Junteng Zhang, Jianqiang Wang, Dandan Ding, and Zhan Ma. Scalable point cloud attribute compression.IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia, 2023. 2

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

8i voxelized full bodies version 2 – a voxelized point cloud dataset

8i Labs. 8i voxelized full bodies version 2 – a voxelized point cloud dataset. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 Joint WG11/WG1 (MPEG/JPEG) input document, 2017. 1, 6

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436,

Johannes Ball ´e, David Minnen, Saurabh Singh, Sung Jin Hwang, and Nick Johnston. Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436,

arXiv

[3] [3]

Vincent Poor, and Shlomo Shamai

Ronit Bustin, H. Vincent Poor, and Shlomo Shamai. Analyt- ical properties of generalized gaussian distributions.Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, 5(1):6, 2018. 3

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas J

Angel X. Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas J. Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository. Technical Report Tech Report, Stanford Univer- sity, 2015. 6

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules

Zhengxue Cheng, Heming Sun, Masaru Takeuchi, and Jiro Katto. Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7939–7948, 2020. 2

2020

[6] [6]

Carnet: Compression artifact reduction for point cloud at- tribute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08276, 2022

Dandan Ding, Junzhe Zhang, Jianqiang Wang, and Zhan Ma. Carnet: Compression artifact reduction for point cloud at- tribute.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08276, 2022. 2

arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

Oc- tattention: Octree-based large-scale contexts model for point cloud compression

Chunyang Fu, Ge Li, Rui Song, Wei Gao, and Shan Liu. Oc- tattention: Octree-based large-scale contexts model for point cloud compression. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 625–633, 2022. 1

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Tsc-pcac: V oxel transformer and sparse convolution- based point cloud attribute compression for 3d broadcasting

Zixi Guo, Yun Zhang, Linwei Zhu, Hanli Wang, and Gangyi Jiang. Tsc-pcac: V oxel transformer and sparse convolution- based point cloud attribute compression for 3d broadcasting. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 2024. 2, 7

work page 2024