Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 187 references

Rethink Before You Execute: Adaptive Execution for World Action Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 This paper proposes TempoWAM, a plug-and-play execution layer that decides when to replan a world action model from estimated task progress instead of a fixed step count.

desk verdict A clean plug-and-play execution scheme whose central progress-signal claim is undone by a decision rule that collapses into success-gated calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09492 v1 pith:5HFJHNVR submitted 2026-08-10 cs.RO

Feng Ye , Yiming Zhao , Yong Yu , Hongxu Zhou , Yong Pan , Yuan Xue , Peng Jia , Chuanmin Jia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords adaptiveexecutionworldactionmodeltaskprogressestimationreplanningchunkingrobotmanipulationrecurrentmonitorefficiency-successtrade-off
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

World Action Models generate a chunk of future actions, and a robot normally executes a fixed number of them before calling the model again. TempoWAM argues that a fixed execution horizon is a poor match for execution dynamics, because a chunk can stay reliable through easy stages but degrade quickly in hard ones. It replaces the fixed rule with a learned Recurrent Progress Monitor that estimates how much of the task would be completed if the remaining actions were executed, and an Adaptive Execution Protocol that replans whenever the estimated progress rate falls below the rate needed to finish. If the method works, chunk-based robot policies become more efficient and more successful without retraining the policy itself. The paper reports gains on LIBERO, RoboTwin, and a real dual-arm platform, including a 26.9% reduction in model calls on easy real-robot tasks and a 13.3-point success increase on difficult ones, and includes a diagnostic showing the time-based progress labels are valid only when the task is progress-monotonic.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pair of a Recurrent Progress Monitor (RPM) and an Adaptive Execution Protocol (AEP). RPM is a lightweight GRU-based network that fuses frozen visual features of the base WAM, a recurrent encoding of the candidate action prefix, the previous progress estimate, and the task instruction to predict the progress that executing the prefix would reach. AEP turns that estimate into a decision by comparing progress per step to the per-step rate required to finish the task, then applies a calibration factor $\kappa$ that is fit offline per task and adapted online by an intra-episode EMA and an inter-episode success-gated update; execution continues when the calibrated ratio is at least 1 and replans otherwise.

What would settle it

Run TempoWAM on a task that is visually periodic or contains repeated states at different true progress values, with a ground-truth progress detector; if the monitor reports high progress while the manipulation has not advanced, or replan decisions ignore true progress, the time-based supervision is not carrying genuine progress information. Alternatively, reproduce the paper's mirrored-sequence test on a normal task and show that the monitor still fits the labels, which would indicate it is reading the step index rather than visual state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the right time to replan a world action model is when the remaining action chunk stops advancing the task, and that this can be detected online. TempoWAM implements this as an execution-layer add-on: the monitor takes the current observation, task instruction, remaining actions, and execution history to predict the progress $v_t \in [0,1]$ that would be reached by the candidate prefix, and the protocol compares the observed progress rate $\rho^{\mathrm{cur}}_t = (v_t - v_{t-1})/n_t$ to a required rate $\rho^{\mathrm{need}}_t = \max((1-v_{t-1})/\max(\bar{T}_{\mathrm{ep}} - u_t, n_t), 0.2/\bar{T}_{\mathrm{ep}})$. A scale-free ratio $\tilde{r}_t = \rho^{\mathrm{cur}}_t / \rho^{\mathrm{need}}_t$, divided by a per-task calibration factor with online adaptation, decides between continued execution and replanning. The paper shows that on LIBERO, RoboTwin, and real-robot tasks this consistently improves the efficiency-success trade-off against fixed horizons, that simply shortening the horizon does not reproduce the gains, and that the same monitor transfers to a second WAM backbone without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the time-based progress label $y_u = u/T_{\mathrm{ep}}$ is a valid measure of task advancement, so the monitor learns genuine progress rather than a step index or elapsed-time proxy, and that comparing the monitor's own progress rate to a required rate gives an independent signal for replanning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On tasks where chunks stay reliable, TempoWAM extends chunk reuse and reduces WAM inference calls without hurting success; on tasks where chunks degrade, it replans earlier and improves success.
  • A fixed shorter horizon, such as replanning every 12 steps instead of 24 on RoboTwin, does not match the improvement, so the gain comes from the timing of replanning rather than from replanning more often.
  • Because the monitor is trained only on demonstrations and uses the WAM's frozen visual features, the scheme is plug-and-play and transfers to a different WAM backbone with no retraining.
  • The monitor adds 3.54% of one optimized WAM call per decision with visual encoding, and 0.34% when reusing shared features, so the decision rule is cheap relative to the calls it saves or triggers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The boundary condition the paper identifies implies that applying TempoWAM to periodic or visually aliased tasks would require phase-based or semantic progress labels, since time-based labels would be contradictory.
  • A direct extension is to apply the same progress-ratio gate to non-WAM chunked policies, such as plain action-chunking transformer policies; if gains persist, the mechanism is a general execution-layer property rather than a world-model-specific one.
  • The success-gated inter-episode update is effectively a controller that trades success for efficiency by moving a single threshold; setting the target success rate per deployment could place a robot at any chosen point on the efficiency-success frontier.
  • The paper's mirrored-sequence diagnostic can be turned into a screening test: before deploying TempoWAM on a new task, train the monitor on time-flipped demonstrations and check that predictions become uncorrelated with labels, to verify the task is progress-monotonic.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TempoWAM, an execution-layer module for World Action Models that replaces a fixed execution horizon with an adaptive one. A Recurrent Progress Monitor (RPM) is trained to predict normalized time progress u/T_ep, and an Adaptive Execution Protocol (AEP) compares the monitor's progress rate with a required rate, using per-task and cross-episode calibration factors. The paper reports experiments on RoboTwin, LIBERO, and a real robot, claiming consistent improvement of the efficiency-success trade-off and plug-and-play transfer across WAM backbones.

Significance. If the progress-based mechanism worked as described, TempoWAM would be an attractive lightweight contribution: it requires no backbone modification, adds only a few percent overhead per decision, and the paper includes a broad multi-benchmark evaluation, cost measurements, and a diagnostic of time-based labels. However, the central claim is not supported: the decision rule is degenerate under the chosen training labels, and the results that remain are driven by calibration factors rather than by an independent progress signal. The paper's value as a progress-aware execution scheme is therefore not established, though the calibrated success-feedback controller may still be a useful heuristic.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Eqs. (6)–(7) and (11)] For a monitor that reproduces its training labels (Eq. 12), v_{t-1} ≈ u_t/T_ep and v_t ≈ (u_t+n_t)/T_ep at every decision step after the first, so ρ_cur ≈ 1/T_ep and ρ_need ≈ 1/T_ep; the raw ratio r̃_t in Eq. (7) is therefore ≈ 1 by construction until the floor term at the very end of the episode. The 'continue if r_t ≥ 1' rule in Eq. (11) then cannot produce any adaptive replanning except through κ_final. Because κ is an EMA of r̃_t (Eq. 9) and δ′ is a success-gated update (Eq. 10), the replanning behavior is controlled by calibration, not by a comparison of two independent progress rates. This undermines the central claim that execution decisions are driven by task progress.
  2. [§4.4, Table 7 and Fig. 5] The evidence attributes the gains to the success-feedback loop. Final δ′ is 0.68 on tasks already at 100% success and 0.94–0.98 on tasks below target, so the cross-episode update (Eq. 10) is doing the work of trading off efficiency vs success. No experiment isolates the progress signal: Table 8 ablates training losses, not the decision rule, and Fig. 5, which disables δ′, reports no success rate or call counts. The rising κ in Fig. 5 is an EMA of the monitor's own raw ratios, so it shows only that a filtered version of a biased monitor output changes, not that task advancement is being measured.
  3. [§3.5, Eq. (12), and §4.4 mirrored-sequence diagnostic] The supervision target y_u = u/T_ep is a clock, not a semantic measure of task progress. In-distribution the monitor can fit this label using the step index or any time-correlated visual feature, so the raw ratio degeneracy of Comment 1 is not a mere theoretical concern. The mirrored-sequence experiment in Fig. 6 shows only that contradictory labels prevent fitting; it does not show that, on the actual tasks, the monitor's output responds to genuine lack of advancement, such as repeated unsuccessful grasps, object slip, or a frozen scene. Without an out-of-distribution test of the monitor's progress response, the claimed progress-aware property is not established.
  4. [§4.2–4.3, Tables 1, 3, 5] The empirical claims are statistically fragile and partially overstated. On LIBERO the average success is unchanged (97.25 vs 97.25), and on RoboTwin the overall gains are 1.18 (clean) and 0.28 (randomized) points with no confidence intervals or significance tests reported. Real-robot numbers are 30 trials per task: for example, pick-and-place 93.3% vs 96.7% is one trial, and pack-hand-cream 50.0% vs 63.3% is four trials. The headline reductions are based on one task each. The claim that TempoWAM consistently improves the efficiency-success trade-off is stronger than the presented evidence.
  5. [§4.1 and Table 4] The cross-backbone plug-and-play experiment with Motus is under-specified. The RPM is trained on demonstration trajectories of the backbone WAM, but no information is given about whether Motus demonstrations or action distributions were used, how the action encoder handles a different action space, or how many trials the two Motus tasks use. Since plug-and-play transfer is one of the three advertised properties, this experiment needs a precise protocol before it can support the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Eq. (6)] The floor term 0.2/T_ep is introduced without motivation or sensitivity analysis, and its effect near task completion is never studied.
  2. [Table 4] The column headers ('Motus SR (%)↑' and 'TempoWAM SR (%)↑') are unclear; the table should separate clean and random settings for each method.
  3. [Related Work] The text mentions DEHP without a citation; please add the reference.
  4. [§3.4] The notation u_t is used in Eq. (6) but is only defined in prose before the equation; it should be stated explicitly before the equation appears.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] Both figures would benefit from axis labels and error bars: Fig. 5 reports episode-level means without variance, and Fig. 6 does not define the plotted quantity on the vertical axis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The progress estimate cancels by construction in the decision rule; adaptive behavior is generated by the fitted calibration factor and the success-gated update, not by task progress.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4, Eqs. (6)-(7) and (11); Section 3.5, Eq. (12)]
    "ρcur_t = (v_t − v_{t−1})/n_t, ρneed_t = max((1 − v_{t−1})/max(T̄_ep − u_t, n_t), 0.2/T̄_ep) ... r_t = r̃_t / κ_final, continue if r_t ≥ 1, replan if r_t < 1. ... For a trajectory of length T_ep, the supervision target at step u is y_u = u/T_ep."

    The monitor is trained with y_u = u/T_ep, so an accurate RPM satisfies v_t ≈ u_t/T_ep and v_{t−1} ≈ u_{t−1}/T_ep. For interior steps, ρcur_t ≈ (n_t/T_ep)/n_t = 1/T_ep, while ρneed_t = (1 − u_t/T_ep)/(T_ep − u_t) = 1/T_ep whenever T_ep − u_t ≥ n_t. Hence r̃_t ≈ 1 at every decision step, independent of task stage. The rule 'continue if r_t ≥ 1' therefore reduces to κ_final ≤ 1. Since κ_final = κ·δ′, with κ fitted to the same time labels (Eq. 8) and δ′ driven by success (Eq. 10), the progress estimate cancels by construction. The reported stage-adaptive replanning is thus not derived from estimated task progress; it is produced by the fitted calibration and the success-gated feedback.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, Eqs. (8)-(11); Section 4.4, Table 7]
    "κ_ep = arg min_κ Σ_u (v_u − κ u/T̄_ep)^2 ... δ′ ← clip(δ′ − η(ŝ − s*)/s*, δ_min, δ_max) ... r_t = r̃_t / κ_final, continue if r_t ≥ 1, replan if r_t < 1. ... The success-gated update moves δ′ in the direction of each task’s gap from the target success rate."

    Because r̃_t ≈ 1 from the time-label training, the decision threshold is entirely controlled by κ_final = κ·δ′. κ is a least-squares fit to normalized time (Eq. 8), and δ′ is an explicit success-rate controller (Eq. 10). Table 7 confirms δ′ relaxes on already-solved tasks (0.68) and tightens on below-target tasks (0.94–0.98), recovering 7–30 success points. Therefore the claimed 'progress-aware' improvements are forced by parameters fitted to success and to time labels, not by the monitor's estimate of task advancement. Calling this a prediction from task progress is a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central mechanism of TempoWAM is that estimated task progress drives the continue/replan decision. The paper's own equations make this signal degenerate: the monitor is trained on normalized time labels y_u = u/T_ep, and the required progress rate in Eq. 6 is computed from the same monitor's previous estimate v_{t−1}. Under the training objective, r̃_t = ρcur/ρneed is identically 1 in the interior of an episode, so the raw progress comparison carries no stage-dependent information. All adaptive behavior must come from κ_final = κ·δ′: κ is least-squares fitted to the time labels, and δ′ is updated by the cross-episode success-gated rule. The paper is transparent that δ′ tracks success gaps (Table 7), and the empirical gains on hard tasks are consistent with a success-feedback controller rather than with progress monitoring. The mirrored-sequence diagnostic only shows that contradictory time labels cannot be learned on an aliased sequence; it does not establish that, on the actual tasks, the monitor estimates genuine semantic task advancement rather than a visual proxy of elapsed time. No load-bearing self-citation or external-uniqueness argument appears, so the circularity is concentrated in the self-referential decision rule and the renaming of fitted calibration as progress-driven prediction. Score 8: the central derivation reduces to its fitted inputs by construction, although the resulting calibrated controller may still be empirically useful.

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

The central method rests on a progress estimate trained with time labels, a per-task calibration factor, and a success-gated online adjustment. These are free parameters that strongly influence the reported efficiency-success trade-off and the decision rule, making the method's contribution partly dependent on fitted values.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-task calibration factor kappa_task = Learned per task by least squares on demonstrations, then adapted online via EMA
    Fitted to align the monitor output with time-based labels on each task's demonstrations (Section 3.4, Eq. 8); directly controls the decision threshold.
  • Cross-episode scaling factor delta' = Initialized to 0.8, bounds [0.4, 1.0], adapted toward target success rate s*
    Updated by Eq. 10 based on recent success rate; this is a free parameter tuned to produce a desired success-efficiency trade-off.
  • Target success rate s* = 0.95
    Chosen by hand; the success-gated update steers behavior toward this target, so it is a tuning parameter that influences the reported gains.
  • Initial prefix length n_p = 10 on RoboTwin/LIBERO, 4 on real robot
    Action chunk prefix executed unconditionally before any decision; chosen by the authors.
  • Floor coefficient in required rate = 0.2
    A constant added to rho_need in Eq. 6 to avoid very low required rates; hand-chosen.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Time-based progress labels y_u = u/T_ep are a valid measure of task progress for all evaluated tasks.
    The monitor is trained exclusively with these labels (Section 3.5). The paper asserts that simulation and real tasks are 'progress-monotonic without aliasing', but this is not verified externally and is shown to fail on mirrored sequences.
  • domain assumption A scalar progress estimate in [0,1] is sufficient to decide when to replan.
    The entire AEP compares a single scalar progress rate to a required rate; no other task state or uncertainty is considered.
  • domain assumption The average episode length T_ep from demonstrations is a reliable estimate of the true episode length at deployment.
    Used in Eq. 6 to compute the required progress rate; deployment episodes may differ in length.
  • domain assumption The frozen visual backbone of the WAM provides features sufficient for progress estimation.
    The RPM encodes observations with the WAM backbone (E_obs), so its progress estimates depend on the backbone's features.
invented entities (1)
  • Scalar task progress estimate v_t
    purpose: Used to decide whether to continue executing the current action chunk or replan.
    A learned latent variable with no external ground truth beyond time-based labels. Its validity as task progress is assumed, and the paper's own diagnostic shows it fails under contradictory supervision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethink Before You Execute: Adaptive Execution for World Action Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5HFJHNVR

@misc{pith2026260809492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethink Before You Execute: Adaptive Execution for World Action Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5HFJHNVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09492}
}
read the original abstract

World Action Models (WAMs) jointly predict future actions and the evolution of the environment. At each inference, a WAM generates a chunk of actions and the robot executes a fixed prefix before replanning. We argue that this fixed execution horizon is poorly matched to execution dynamics: the chunk reliability varies across task stages, so when to replan depends on the result of accumulated execution, not on the step counts. We propose TempoWAM (Timing Execution by Monitoring Progress Online), a lightweight plug-and-play execution scheme for WAMs. A Recurrent Progress Monitor first estimates task progress from the current observation, task instruction, remaining actions, and execution history; and an Adaptive Execution Protocol then evaluates whether the chunk is advancing the task to decide if replanning is needed. To bridge the training-deployment gap, the protocol is calibrated by a task-dependent calibration factor with online adaptation. Experiments on LIBERO, RoboTwin, and real-world tasks show that TempoWAM consistently improves the efficiency-success trade-off of WAM execution. On real robots, it reduces WAM inferences by 26.9% on easy tasks while maintaining success, and improves success by 13.3 points on difficult tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09492 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stage-dependent chunk reliability in Click Bell task of RoboTwin 2.0. We plot the L2 error of action un￾der three fixed execution horizons. Chunk reliability varies across execution stages: a long horizon accumulates error in hard stages, while a short horizon remains accurate but triggers unnecessary WAM calls in easy stages where the chunk is still reliable. This mismatch shows that no single fixed horizon fits al… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of TempoWAM. The base WAM generates an action chunk c from the current observation, whose first np actions are executed unconditionally. Each subsequent decision step evaluates the remaining nt = min(np, |c rem|) candidate actions: the RPM estimates the task progress that would be reached if they were executed, from the current observation, task instruction, candidate prefix, and execution history; the AEP … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real-robot task definitions and visualizations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adaptive execution behavior on two RoboTwin episodes. Top: the calibrated ratio rt and the decision threshold. Bottom: execution timelines of TempoWAM and the fixed-horizon baseline, with easy and hard stages shaded. Left: on open_microwave, TempoWAM discards the unrel…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intra-episode calibration on open_microwave, with the inter-episode update of δ ′ disabled. Each episode starts with κ at its offline initialization and rises within the episode, showing that the online EMA alone recognizes in￾creasing task difficulty and tightens the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-based labels fail on a mirrored sequence. Ground-truth progress labels and RPM predictions on the palindromic take drinks construction. The predictions are unstructured and uncorrelated with the labels, showing that contradictory supervision from aliased states pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning Universal Policies via Text-Guided Video Generation , booktitle=

    Du, Yilun and Yang, Sherry and Dai, Bo and Dai, Hanjun and Nachum, Ofir and Tenenbaum, Josh and Schuurmans, Dale and Abbeel, Pieter , year =. Learning Universal Policies via Text-Guided Video Generation , booktitle=

  2. [2]

    International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year=

    Video Prediction Policy: A Generalist Robot Policy with Predictive Visual Representations , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year=

  3. [3]

    2026 , booktitle=

    Cosmos Policy: Fine-Tuning Video Models for Visuomotor Control and Planning , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  4. [4]

    2026 , booktitle=

    Motus: A Unified Latent Action World Model , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  5. [6]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    AHA-WAM: Asynchronous Horizon-Adaptive World-Action Modeling with Observation-Guided Context Routing , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  6. [7]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    LaWAM: Latent World Action Models for Efficient Dynamics-Aware Robot Policies , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  7. [8]

    2026 , booktitle=

    Adaptive Action Chunking at Inference-time for Vision-Language-Action Models , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  8. [9]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    Denoising Tells When to Replan: Denoising-Variance Adaptive Chunking for Flow-Based Robot Policies , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

Show all 187 references
  1. [10]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Bidirectional Decoding: Improving Action Chunking via Guided Test-Time Sampling , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  2. [11]

    2026 , booktitle=

    VLA Knows Its Limits: Adaptive Execution Horizons for Robot Policies , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  3. [12]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    PACE: Phase-Aware Chunk Execution for Robot Policies with Action Chunking , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  4. [13]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    When to Trust Imagination: Adaptive Action Execution for World Action Models , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  5. [14]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    ProgressVLA: Progress-Guided Diffusion Policy for Vision-Language Robotic Manipulation , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  6. [15]

    2026 , archivePrefix=

    Dynamic Execution Horizon Prediction for Chunk-based Robot Policies , author=. 2026 , archivePrefix=

    2026

  7. [16]

    2025 , archivePrefix=

    RoboTwin 2.0: A Scalable Data Generator and Benchmark with Strong Domain Randomization for Robust Bimanual Robotic Manipulation , author=. 2025 , archivePrefix=

    2025

  8. [17]

    LIBERO: Benchmarking Knowledge Transfer for Lifelong Robot Learning , author=

  9. [18]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  10. [19]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  11. [20]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  12. [21]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  13. [22]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    1984 doi

  14. [23]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  15. [24]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  16. [25]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

  17. [26]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  18. [27]

    2023 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  19. [28]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  20. [29]

    FirstName LastName , title =

  21. [30]

    FirstName Alpher , title =

  22. [31]

    Journal of Foo , volume = 13, number = 1, pages =

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe , title =. Journal of Foo , volume = 13, number = 1, pages =

  23. [32]

    Journal of Foo , volume = 14, number = 1, pages =

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Fotheringham-Smythe and FirstName Gamow , title =. Journal of Foo , volume = 14, number = 1, pages =

  24. [33]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

    FirstName Alpher and FirstName Gamow , title =. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages =

  25. [34]

    The Bell system technical journal , year=

    A mathematical theory of communication , author=. The Bell system technical journal , year=

  26. [35]

    1996 , publisher=

    Digital video: an introduction to MPEG-2 , author=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  27. [36]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    The MPEG-4 video standard verification model , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  28. [37]

    263: Video coding for low-bit-rate communication , author=

    H. 263: Video coding for low-bit-rate communication , author=. IEEE Communications magazine , year=

  29. [38]

    Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal , year=

    New video coding standard for the 1990s , author=. Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal , year=

  30. [39]

    264/AVC video coding standard , author=

    Overview of the H. 264/AVC video coding standard , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  31. [40]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  32. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Overview of the versatile video coding (VVC) standard and its applications , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  33. [42]

    IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , year=

    AVS2? Making video coding smarter [standards in a nutshell] , author=. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , year=

  34. [43]

    IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

    Recent development of avs video coding standard: Avs3 , author=. IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

  35. [44]

    Proceedings of the IEEE , year=

    A technical overview of AV1 , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE , year=

  36. [45]

    Nature , year=

    Deep learning , author=. Nature , year=

  37. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Image and video compression with neural networks: A review , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  38. [47]

    Neurocomputing , year=

    Deep learning for visual understanding: A review , author=. Neurocomputing , year=

  39. [48]

    ACM Computing Surveys (ACM CSUR) , year=

    Deep learning-based video coding: A review and a case study , author=. ACM Computing Surveys (ACM CSUR) , year=

  40. [49]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Compressed video action recognition , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  41. [50]

    arXiv preprint: 2006.15862 , year=

    OpenDVC: An open source implementation of the DVC video compression method , author=. arXiv preprint: 2006.15862 , year=

    2006 arXiv

  42. [51]

    263 video compression standard , author=

    Performance of the H. 263 video compression standard , author=. Journal of VLSI signal processing systems for signal, image and video technology , year=

  43. [52]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Dvc: An end-to-end deep video compression framework , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  44. [53]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

    Improving deep video compression by resolution-adaptive flow coding , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

  45. [54]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Scale-Space Flow for End-to-End Optimized Video Compression , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  46. [55]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    M-LVC: Multiple Frames Prediction for Learned Video Compression , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  47. [56]

    Neural Video Coding Using Multiscale Motion Compensation and Spatiotemporal Context Model , year=

    Liu, Haojie and Lu, Ming and Ma, Zhan and Wang, Fan and Xie, Zhihuang and Cao, Xun and Wang, Yao , journal=. Neural Video Coding Using Multiscale Motion Compensation and Spatiotemporal Context Model , year=

  48. [57]

    MLSPW , year=

    ModeNet: Mode Selection Network For Learned Video Coding , author=. MLSPW , year=

  49. [58]

    IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , year=

    End-to-End Rate-Distortion Optimization for Bi-Directional Learned Video Compression , author=. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , year=

  50. [59]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Learning for video compression with hierarchical quality and recurrent enhancement , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  51. [60]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Learned video compression , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  52. [61]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Video compression with rate-distortion autoencoders , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  53. [62]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Learning for video compression , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  54. [63]

    IEEE signal processing magazine , year=

    Rate-distortion optimization for video compression , author=. IEEE signal processing magazine , year=

  55. [64]

    IEEE signal processing magazine , year=

    Rate-distortion methods for image and video compression , author=. IEEE signal processing magazine , year=

  56. [65]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Generative adversarial networks for extreme learned image compression , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  57. [66]

    , author=

    Full Resolution Image Compression with Recurrent Neural Networks. , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  58. [67]

    arXiv preprint: 1703.00395 , year=

    Lossy image compression with compressive autoencoders , author=. arXiv preprint: 1703.00395 , year=

    arXiv

  59. [68]

    arXiv preprint: 1611.01704 , year=

    End-to-end optimized image compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 1611.01704 , year=

    arXiv

  60. [69]

    arXiv preprint: 1804.02958 , year=

    Generative Adversarial Networks for Extreme Learned Image Compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 1804.02958 , year=

    arXiv

  61. [70]

    https://bellard

    BPG Image format , author=. https://bellard. org/bpg , volume=

  62. [71]

    arXiv preprint: 1802.01436 , year=

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

    arXiv

  63. [72]

    arXiv preprint: 1511.06281 , year=

    Density modeling of images using a generalized normalization transformation , author=. arXiv preprint: 1511.06281 , year=

    arXiv

  64. [73]

    ICML , year=

    Fixing a broken ELBO , author=. ICML , year=

  65. [74]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  66. [75]

    VCIP , year=

    Deepcoder: A deep neural network based video compression , author=. VCIP , year=

  67. [76]

    arXiv preprint: 2002.03711 , year=

    Learning End-to-End Lossy Image Compression: A Benchmark , author=. arXiv preprint: 2002.03711 , year=

    2002 arXiv

  68. [77]

    arXiv preprint: 1810.02845 , year=

    Deep probabilistic video compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 1810.02845 , year=

    arXiv

  69. [78]

    arXiv preprint: 1912.06348 , year=

    Learned video compression via joint Spatial-Temporal correlation exploration , author=. arXiv preprint: 1912.06348 , year=

    1912 arXiv

  70. [79]

    and Ohm, Jens-Rainer , journal=

    Bross, Benjamin and Wang, Ye-Kui and Ye, Yan and Liu, Shan and Chen, Jianle and Sullivan, Gary J. and Ohm, Jens-Rainer , journal=. Overview of the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) Standard and its Applications , year=

  71. [80]

    International Journal of Computer Vision , year=

    Video enhancement with task-oriented flow , author=. International Journal of Computer Vision , year=

  72. [81]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , year=

    Enhanced motion-compensated video coding with deep virtual reference frame generation , author=. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , year=

  73. [82]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

    Image super-resolution using very deep residual channel attention networks , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

  74. [83]

    arXiv preprint: 1809.10452 , year=

    Context-adaptive entropy model for end-to-end optimized image compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 1809.10452 , year=

    arXiv

  75. [84]

    The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 , year=

    Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment , author=. The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 , year=

    2003

  76. [85]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Optical flow estimation using a spatial pyramid network , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  77. [86]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

    Video compression through image interpolation , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

  78. [87]

    VCEG-M33 , year=

    Calculation of average PSNR differences between RD-curves , author=. VCEG-M33 , year=

  79. [88]

    Ultra video group test sequences , journal=

  80. [89]

    IEEE TMM , year=

    Temporal Context Mining for Learned Video Compression , author=. IEEE TMM , year=

  81. [90]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    FVC: A new framework towards deep video compression in feature space , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  82. [91]

    arXiv preprint: 1902.07383 , year=

    Neural video compression using spatio-temporal priors , author=. arXiv preprint: 1902.07383 , year=

    1902 arXiv

  83. [92]

    IEEE SiPS , year=

    End-to-end learning of video compression using spatio-temporal autoencoders , author=. IEEE SiPS , year=

  84. [93]

    ACCV , year=

    Feedback recurrent autoencoder for video compression , author=. ACCV , year=

  85. [94]

    MMSP , year=

    Optical flow and mode selection for learning-based video coding , author=. MMSP , year=

  86. [95]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    End-to-end Neural Video Coding Using a Compound Spatiotemporal Representation , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  87. [96]

    IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , year=

    Deep Video Compression for Interframe Coding , author=. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , year=

  88. [97]

    ISCAS , year=

    Memorize, Then Recall: A Generative Framework for Low Bit-Rate Surveillance Video Compression , author=. ISCAS , year=

  89. [98]

    IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

    MOVI-Codec: Deep Video Compression without Motion , author=. IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

  90. [99]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Hierarchical Autoregressive Modeling for Neural Video Compression , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  91. [100]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Neural inter-frame compression for video coding , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  92. [101]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Extending neural p-frame codecs for b-frame coding , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  93. [102]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , year=

    End-to-End Rate-Distortion Optimized Learned Hierarchical Bi-Directional Video Compression , author=. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , year=

  94. [103]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Integer networks for data compression with latent-variable models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  95. [104]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Efficient neural image decoding via fixed-point inference , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  96. [105]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Nerv: Neural representations for videos , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  97. [106]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Fpx-nic: An fpga-accelerated 4k ultra-high-definition neural video coding system , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  98. [107]

    IEEE A-SSCC , year=

    F-LIC: FPGA-based Learned Image Compression with a Fine-grained Pipeline , author=. IEEE A-SSCC , year=

  99. [108]

    arXiv preprint: 2312.00921 , year=

    Bitstream Organization for Parallel Entropy Coding on Neural Network-based Video Codecs , author=. arXiv preprint: 2312.00921 , year=

    arXiv

  100. [109]

    WACV , year=

    MobileNVC: Real-time 1080p Neural Video Compression on a Mobile Device , author=. WACV , year=

  101. [110]

    ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (ACM MMSys) , year=

    Mobilecodec: neural inter-frame video compression on mobile devices , author=. ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (ACM MMSys) , year=

  102. [111]

    IEEE MM , year=

    The JPEG AI standard: providing efficient human and machine visual data consumption , author=. IEEE MM , year=

  103. [112]

    arXiv preprint: 2309.10668 , year=

    Language modeling is compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 2309.10668 , year=

    arXiv

  104. [113]

    DCC , year=

    Modulated variable-rate deep video compression , author=. DCC , year=

  105. [114]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Deep contextual video compression , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  106. [115]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Asymmetric gained deep image compression with continuous rate adaptation , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  107. [116]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Hierarchical B-Frame Video Coding Using Two-Layer CANF Without Motion Coding , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  108. [117]

    arXiv preprint: 2308.15791 , year=

    Neural Video Compression with Temporal Layer-Adaptive Hierarchical B-frame Coding , author=. arXiv preprint: 2308.15791 , year=

    arXiv

  109. [118]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Neural video compression with diverse contexts , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  110. [119]

    arXiv preprint: 2310.05737 , year=

    Language Model Beats Diffusion--Tokenizer is Key to Visual Generation , author=. arXiv preprint: 2310.05737 , year=

    arXiv

  111. [120]

    IEEE JSAC , year=

    Toward Adaptive Semantic Communications: Efficient Data Transmission via Online Learned Nonlinear Transform Source-Channel Coding , author=. IEEE JSAC , year=

  112. [121]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    Elf-vc: Efficient learned flexible-rate video coding , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  113. [122]

    IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

    Content-Adaptive Motion Rate Adaption For Learned Video Compression , author=. IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , year=

  114. [123]

    WACV , year=

    A neural video codec with spatial rate-distortion control , author=. WACV , year=

  115. [124]

    arXiv preprint: 2212.10674 , year=

    Pim: Video coding using perceptual importance maps , author=. arXiv preprint: 2212.10674 , year=

    arXiv

  116. [125]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionW , year=

    Adversarial distortion for learned video compression , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionW , year=

  117. [126]

    IJCAI , year =

    Perceptual Learned Video Compression with Recurrent Conditional GAN , author =. IJCAI , year =

  118. [127]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Sparse-to-Dense: High Efficiency Rate Control for End-to-end Scale-Adaptive Video Coding , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  119. [128]

    2022 , booktitle =

    Ho, Yung-Han and Chang, Chih-Peng and Chen, Peng-Yu and Gnutti, Alessandro and Peng, Wen-Hsiao , title =. 2022 , booktitle =

    2022

  120. [129]

    An End-to-End Learning Framework for Video Compression , year=

    Lu, Guo and Zhang, Xiaoyun and Ouyang, Wanli and Chen, Li and Gao, Zhiyong and Xu, Dong , journal=. An End-to-End Learning Framework for Video Compression , year=

  121. [130]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

    Alphavc: High-performance and efficient learned video compression , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

  122. [131]

    Learning for Video Compression With Recurrent Auto-Encoder and Recurrent Probability Model , journal=

    Yang, Ren and Mentzer, Fabian and Van Gool, Luc and Timofte, Radu , year=. Learning for Video Compression With Recurrent Auto-Encoder and Recurrent Probability Model , journal=

  123. [132]

    arXiv preprint: 2111.03386 , year=

    Versatile Learned Video Compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 2111.03386 , year=

    arXiv

  124. [133]

    Coarse-To-Fine Deep Video Coding with Hyperprior-Guided Mode Prediction , year=

    Hu, Zhihao and Lu, Guo and Guo, Jinyang and Liu, Shan and Jiang, Wei and Xu, Dong , booktitle =. Coarse-To-Fine Deep Video Coding with Hyperprior-Guided Mode Prediction , year=

  125. [134]

    Hybrid Spatial-Temporal Entropy Modelling for Neural Video Compression , url=

    Li, Jiahao and Li, Bin and Lu, Yan , year=. Hybrid Spatial-Temporal Entropy Modelling for Neural Video Compression , url=. doi:10.1145/3503161.3547845 , booktitle=

  126. [135]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    MPAI-EEV: Standardization Efforts of Artificial Intelligence based End-to-End Video Coding , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  127. [136]

    B-CANF: Adaptive B-Frame Coding With Conditional Augmented Normalizing Flows , year=

    Chen, Mu-Jung and Chen, Yi-Hsin and Peng, Wen-Hsiao , journal=. B-CANF: Adaptive B-Frame Coding With Conditional Augmented Normalizing Flows , year=

  128. [137]

    Workshop of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLRW) , year=

    Conditional Coding for Flexible Learned Video Compression , author=. Workshop of International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLRW) , year=

  129. [138]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionW , year=

    Learned Video Compression with Feature-level Residuals , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionW , year=

  130. [139]

    ICML , year=

    Bit allocation using optimization , author=. ICML , year=

  131. [140]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Neural Rate Control for Learned Video Compression , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  132. [141]

    ICMLW , year=

    Neural Rate Control for Video Encoding using Imitation Learning , author=. ICMLW , year=

  133. [142]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Deep Generative Video Compression , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  134. [143]

    Deep Learning in Latent Space for Video Prediction and Compression , year=

    Liu, Bowen and Chen, Yu and Liu, Shiyu and Kim, Hun-Seok , booktitle =. Deep Learning in Latent Space for Video Prediction and Compression , year=

  135. [144]

    AABI , year=

    Generative Video Compression as Hierarchical Variational Inference , author=. AABI , year=

  136. [145]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

    Content adaptive and error propagation aware deep video compression , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , year=

  137. [146]

    SPIC , year=

    Learning to compress videos without computing motion , author=. SPIC , year=

  138. [147]

    Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Neural Video Compression with Feature Modulation , author=. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  139. [148]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , year=

    Bi-Directional Deep Contextual Video Compression , author=. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , year=

  140. [149]

    2024 , booktitle =

    Ye, Feng and Zhang, Li and Jia, Chuanmin , title =. 2024 , booktitle =

    2024

  141. [150]

    Science China Information Sciences , year=

    Evolution of AVS video coding standards: twenty years of innovation and development , author=. Science China Information Sciences , year=

  142. [151]

    D2-JSCC: Digital Deep Joint Source-channel Coding for Semantic Communications , year=

    Huang, Jianhao and Yuan, Kai and Huang, Chuan and Huang, Kaibin , booktitle=. D2-JSCC: Digital Deep Joint Source-channel Coding for Semantic Communications , year=

  143. [152]

    Nonlinear Transform Source-Channel Coding for Semantic Communications , year=

    Dai, Jincheng and Wang, Sixian and Tan, Kailin and Si, Zhongwei and Qin, Xiaoqi and Niu, Kai and Zhang, Ping , journal=. Nonlinear Transform Source-Channel Coding for Semantic Communications , year=

  144. [153]

    Boyce, Jill and Suehring, Karsten and Li, Xiang and Seregin, Vadim , year =

  145. [154]

    264/AVC video quality assessment dataset , author=

    MCL-JCV: a JND-based H. 264/AVC video quality assessment dataset , author=. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , year=

  146. [155]

    ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (ACM MMSys) , year=

    UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4K sequences for video codec analysis and development , author=. ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (ACM MMSys) , year=

  147. [156]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

    Spatial Decomposition and Temporal Fusion based Inter Prediction for Learned Video Compression , author=. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , year=

  148. [157]

    Advances and challenges in semantic communications: A systematic review

    Zhang, Ping and Liu, Yiming and Song, Yile and Zhang, Jiaxiang. Advances and challenges in semantic communications: A systematic review. National Science Open. 2024

    2024

  149. [158]

    Overview of intelligent video coding: from model-based to learning-based approaches

    Ma, Siwei and Gao, Junlong and Wang, Ruofan and Chang, Jianhui and Mao, Qi and Huang, Zhimeng and Jia, Chuanmin. Overview of intelligent video coding: from model-based to learning-based approaches. Visual Intelligence. 2023

    2023

  150. [159]

    Omra: Online Motion Resolution Adaptation To Remedy Domain Shift in Learned Hierarchical B-Frame Coding , year=

    Gao, Zong-Lin and NguyenQuang, Sang and Peng, Wen-Hsiao and HoangVan, Xiem , booktitle=. Omra: Online Motion Resolution Adaptation To Remedy Domain Shift in Learned Hierarchical B-Frame Coding , year=

  151. [160]

    arXiv preprint: 2511.01590 , year=

    EV-NVC: Efficient Variable bitrate Neural Video Compression , author=. arXiv preprint: 2511.01590 , year=

  152. [161]

    arXiv preprint: 1412.6980 , year=

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , author=. arXiv preprint: 1412.6980 , year=

    arXiv

  153. [162]

    International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , pages=

    Study on coding tools beyond AV1 , author=. International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , pages=

  154. [163]

    MaskCRT-B: Masked Conditional Residual Transformer for Learned B-frame Coding , year=

    Gao, Zong-Lin and Yao, Yi-Chen and Ho, Kuan-Wei and Chen, Yi-Hsin and Peng, Wen-Hsiao , booktitle=. MaskCRT-B: Masked Conditional Residual Transformer for Learned B-frame Coding , year=

  155. [164]

    IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , pages=

    An overview of core coding tools in the AV1 video codec , author=. IEEE Picture Coding Symposium (PCS) , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  156. [165]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages=

    RAFT: Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms for Optical Flow , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages=

  157. [166]

    European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages=

    SEA-RAFT: Simple, Efficient, Accurate RAFT for Optical Flow , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages=

  158. [167]

    International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

    FlowSeek: Optical Flow Made Easier with Depth Foundation Models and Motion Bases , author=. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year=

  159. [168]

    Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    LiteFlowNet: A Lightweight Convolutional Neural Network for Optical Flow Estimation , author=. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  160. [169]

    Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia , year=

    BiECVC: Gated Diversification of Bidirectional Contexts for Learned Video Compression , author=. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia , year=

  161. [170]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Neural B-frame Video Compression with Bi-directional Reference Harmonization , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  162. [171]

    Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

    Ye, Feng and Zhang, Kai and Zhang, Li and Jia, Chuanmin , title=. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year=

  163. [172]

    Bi, H.; Tan, H.; Xie, S.; Wang, Z.; Huang, S.; Liu, H.; Zhao, R.; Feng, Y.; Xiang, C.; Rong, Y.; Zhao, H.; Liu, H.; Su, Z.; Ma, L.; Su, H.; and Zhu, J. 2026. Motus: A Unified Latent Action World Model. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 35101--35113

    2026

  164. [173]

    Cai, J.; Ling, L.; Chu, S.; Liu, Z.; Kang, J.; Liang, Z.; Xu, W.; Mao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X.; Ying, R.; Zheng, R.; and Mu, Y. 2026. AHA-WAM: Asynchronous Horizon-Adaptive World-Action Modeling with Observation-Guided Context Routing. arXiv:2606.09811

    2026 arXiv

  165. [174]

    Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Chen, K.; Chen, S.; Gao, F.; Tang, W.; Li, Z.; Liu, W.; Yao, Z.; Li, B.; Xu, Y.; and Yu, C. 2026. LaWAM: Latent World Action Models for Efficient Dynamics-Aware Robot Policies. arXiv:2606.15768

    2026

  166. [175]

    Chen, T.; Chen, Z.; Chen, B.; Cai, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liang, Q.; Li, Z.; Lin, X.; Ge, Y.; Gu, Z.; et al. 2025. RoboTwin 2.0: A Scalable Data Generator and Benchmark with Strong Domain Randomization for Robust Bimanual Robotic Manipulation. arXiv:2506.18088

    2025 arXiv

  167. [176]

    Du, Y.; Yang, S.; Dai, B.; Dai, H.; Nachum, O.; Tenenbaum, J.; Schuurmans, D.; and Abbeel, P. 2023. Learning Universal Policies via Text-Guided Video Generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), volume 36, 9156--9172

    2023

  168. [177]

    Feng, X.; Cheng, Y.; Shi, C.; Han, B.; Yan, Y.; Hong, Y.; Tian, Z.; and Jiang, L. 2026. Denoising Tells When to Replan: Denoising-Variance Adaptive Chunking for Flow-Based Robot Policies. arXiv:2606.03847

    2026 arXiv

  169. [178]

    Hu, Y.; Guo, Y.; Wang, P.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y.-J.; Zhang, J.; Sreenath, K.; Lu, C.; and Chen, J. 2025. Video Prediction Policy: A Generalist Robot Policy with Predictive Visual Representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 267, 24328--24346

    2025

  170. [179]

    J.; Gao, Y.; Lin, T.-Y.; Lin, Y.-C.; Ge, Y.; Lam, G.; Liang, P.; Song, S.; Liu, M.-Y.; Finn, C.; and Gu, J

    Kim, M. J.; Gao, Y.; Lin, T.-Y.; Lin, Y.-C.; Ge, Y.; Lam, G.; Liang, P.; Song, S.; Liu, M.-Y.; Finn, C.; and Gu, J. 2026. Cosmos Policy: Fine-Tuning Video Models for Visuomotor Control and Planning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2026

  171. [180]

    Liang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, K.; Wang, S.; Peng, X.; Chen, H.; Chua, D. K. H.; and Vadakkepat, P. 2026. Adaptive Action Chunking at Inference-time for Vision-Language-Action Models. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 20802--20811

    2026

  172. [181]

    Liu, B.; Zhu, Y.; Gao, C.; Feng, Y.; Liu, Q.; Zhu, Y.; and Stone, P. 2023. LIBERO: Benchmarking Knowledge Transfer for Lifelong Robot Learning. arXiv:2306.03310

    2023 arXiv

  173. [182]

    I.; Xie, A.; Lee, Y.; Du, M.; and Finn, C

    Liu, Y.; Hamid, J. I.; Xie, A.; Lee, Y.; Du, M.; and Finn, C. 2025. Bidirectional Decoding: Improving Action Chunking via Guided Test-Time Sampling. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  174. [183]

    Nie, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Lao, J.; Liu, C.; Zhang, T.; and Huang, S. 2026. PACE: Phase-Aware Chunk Execution for Robot Policies with Action Chunking. arXiv:2606.00537

    2026 arXiv

  175. [184]

    R.; and Liu, G

    Wang, H.; Zhang, G.; Yan, Y.; Kompella, R. R.; and Liu, G. 2026 a . VLA Knows Its Limits: Adaptive Execution Horizons for Robot Policies. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2026

  176. [185]

    Wang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, J.; Luo, K.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z.; and Qi, X. 2026 b . When to Trust Imagination: Adaptive Action Execution for World Action Models. arXiv:2605.06222

    2026 arXiv

  177. [186]

    Yan, H.; Li, Q.; Yang, J.; and Mu, Y. 2026. ProgressVLA: Progress-Guided Diffusion Policy for Vision-Language Robotic Manipulation. arXiv:2603.27670

    2026

  178. [187]

    Yuan, T.; Dong, Z.; Liu, Y.; and Zhao, H. 2026. Fast-WAM: Do World Action Models Need Test-time Future Imagination? arXiv:2603.16666

    2026 arXiv

  179. [188]

    Zhao, Y.; Bogdanovic, M.; Sohal, A.; Tao, L.; Darvish, K.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Shkurti, F.; and Garg, A. 2026. Dynamic Execution Horizon Prediction for Chunk-based Robot Policies. arXiv:2606.11408

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

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