Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Sparse Point Clouds Assisted Learned Image Compression

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Feeding sparse LiDAR point clouds into learned image compression cuts bitrate by up to 17% on autonomous-driving benchmarks while preserving structures.

desk verdict Genuinely new use of sparse LiDAR point clouds to improve learned image compression, with honest scoping and solid controls; the end-to-end bitrate question remains open. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15752 v1 pith:54MBBM6W submitted 2024-12-20 cs.CV eess.IV

Yiheng Jiang , Haotian Zhang , Li Li , Dong Liu , Zhu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords learnedimagecompressionsparsepointcloudLiDARmulti-modalautonomousdrivingdepthmapcross-modalpredictionrate-distortionoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that in an autonomous vehicle, where a camera image and a sparse LiDAR point cloud capture the same scene, the point cloud can serve as free side information to make learned image compression more efficient. The authors propose a framework that projects the 3D point cloud into a 2D depth map, learns to predict a dense image-like structure from that sparse map, and injects the resulting multi-scale features into the encoder, decoder, and entropy model of an existing learned compression network. Across three compression backbones (ELIC, HYPER, MLIC) on the KITTI and Waymo datasets, they report consistent bitrate savings at matched visual quality, from about 2.8% to 15.7% on KITTI. A zero-tensor control shows part of the gain is just added model capacity, but about 3.7 percentage points of ELIC's gain comes from the point cloud signal itself, and the gain persists when the point cloud is lossy-compressed with G-PCC.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the point-cloud feature injection path: Point Cloud Projection (PCP) maps 3D LiDAR points into a 2D depth map aligned with the camera view; Point-to-image Prediction (PIP) densifies that sparse depth map into an image-like prediction using randomized color transforms that decouple structure from photometry; Multi-scale Context Mining (MCM) generates three scales of features that are concatenated into the transform at matching scales and fused into a hyper-prior feature via a small Hyper Refiner (HR) that replaces the entropy model's mean and variance prediction. This path turns a sparse geometric hint into dense structural side information that the compression network can condition on at both encoder and decoder.

What would settle it

Measure end-to-end rate-distortion performance on KITTI or Waymo while charging the compressed size of the LiDAR point cloud (lossless, or G-PCC at the tested configuration) against the total bitrate; if the point-cloud-assisted codec no longer beats the unassisted codec in BD-Rate under this accounting, the practical claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sparse LiDAR point clouds can be turned into a useful conditional side channel for learned image compression, even though the point cloud is far sparser than the image and shares only structural, not photometric, information with it. The paper's proposed design—point cloud projection to a normalized, histogram-equalized depth map; Point-to-image Prediction (PIP) to densify it into a predicted image with randomized color targets; Multi-scale Context Mining (MCM) to extract multi-scale structural features; and a Hyper Refiner to fuse point-cloud features into the entropy model—consistently improves rate-distortion performance when plugged into HYPER, ELIC, and MLIC. The ablation studies attribute most of the gain to the decoding side, suggesting the side information mainly improves reconstruction rather than decorrelation. The paper further demonstrates robustness to lossy point clouds and shows that the point-cloud-specific gain exceeds what an equal number of added parameters achieves without the point cloud.

Load-bearing premise

The point cloud is assumed to be available at both encoder and decoder without any bitrate cost; if transmitting or storing that point cloud is charged against the system, the reported compression gains may shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The framework is not tied to one codec: the same point-cloud feature path improved HYPER, ELIC, and MLIC, and the injection points are generic enough to apply to other learned codecs with a hyperprior.
  • The assist is cheap at inference: decoding time is essentially unchanged from the base model and point-cloud processing costs only a few milliseconds per frame (6.4 ms for ELIC-PC).
  • The method remains useful when the point cloud is lossy-compressed: with G-PCC lossy input and no retraining, ELIC-PC still beats the unassisted ELIC on KITTI, though the low-bitrate end loses more than the high-bitrate end.
  • Because the gains appear mainly at the decoder side (4.32% vs 0.42% for encoder-only on ELIC), the side information acts primarily as a reconstruction aid rather than a decorrelation aid, suggesting the architecture mainly improves how the decoded image is synthesized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the reported savings are image-only bitrate; if the LiDAR stream's own bits are charged, the end-to-end benefit is unmeasured and could vanish, since the paper assumes the point cloud is already available at both ends.
  • Editorial extension: the same projection-and-densification approach could be tested with other sparse geometric sensors such as radar, SLAM depth, or stereo disparity, and the multi-scale feature design suggests the gain should grow with point density and with how much structure the side channel shares with the image.
  • Editorial extension: a direct test of the structural-cue hypothesis would be to feed the network a point cloud with depth values randomly permuted inside objects; if the compression gain persists, the mechanism is not geometric structure but something else in the network.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for using sparse LiDAR point clouds as auxiliary side information in learned image compression for autonomous driving. The method projects a point cloud to a sparse depth map (PCP), predicts dense structural features from it (PIP), extracts multi-scale context (MCM), and injects these features into existing learned codecs (HYPER, ELIC, MLIC) in both the transform and entropy-model branches. Evaluations on KITTI and Waymo report BD-Rate improvements of about 6.05%, 15.67%, and 2.80% for ELIC, HYPER, and MLIC on KITTI relative to ELIC, with similar gains on Waymo. Extensive ablations include removing PIP/MCM components, using point cloud information only at the encoder or decoder, a zero-tensor control that isolates architectural gain from point-cloud signal, a parameter-augmentation control, and a G-PCC lossy point-cloud robustness test.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, the work is a useful contribution to multi-modal compression for autonomous driving, where camera and LiDAR streams are naturally co-located. The paper is empirically careful in several respects: test scenes are separated from training scenes, multiple codec baselines are used, the zero-tensor control (Table IV) distinguishes signal gain from parameter gain, the parameter-augmentation control (Table III, Fig. 15) strengthens the attribution of the gain, and the G-PCC lossy test (Fig. 10) addresses robustness to imperfect point-cloud inputs. The main weakness is that all rate-distortion numbers charge zero bits to the point-cloud stream, so the headline claim of 'consistently enhancing performance' is currently established only for the image subsystem, not for the full sensor-compression system.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV-B2 and Sec. IV-A]
  2. [Sec. III-C, Eq. (5)]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV-A]
  2. [Sec. IV-B2]
  3. [Sec. IV-D, Table V]
  4. [Sec. III-D, Fig. 6]
  5. [References]
  6. [Sec. III-C, Fig. 5]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported gains are empirical BD-Rate measurements with a zero-tensor control for added parameters; the free point-cloud assumption is a clearly flagged scope condition, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

No circular derivation chain was found in this paper. The method is empirical: sparse LiDAR point clouds are projected to depth maps, processed by PIP and MCM, and injected into existing learned image compression models, and the resulting rate-distortion performance is measured against the same base models as anchors. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, no self-citation that carries a load-bearing uniqueness claim, and no ansatz smuggled in through a citation. The PIP module uses the target image in its training loss Lpre = D(rand(x), cpre) (Eq. 5), but at inference the point cloud branch receives only the projected depth map, not the image, so no image information leaks into the features by construction. The end-to-end joint training with the RD loss is standard supervised optimization, not circularity. Importantly, the zero-tensor ablation in Table IV controls for added parameter count: ELIC-PC(zeros) shows -2.33% BD-Rate, while ELIC-PC gives -6.05%, so the paper explicitly isolates 3.72 percentage points of the gain as coming from real point cloud signal rather than from extra parameters. The paper's assumption that point clouds are losslessly compressed without charging their bitrate (Sec. III-A: 'assuming priority transmission of the point cloud'; Sec. IV-A: 'the point cloud frames are assumed to have been losslessly compressed') is a clearly stated system boundary and a limitation of the reported image-level BD-Rate numbers, but it is not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. The G-PCC lossy experiment in Figure 10 likewise does not hide a fitted quantity as a prediction; it tests robustness and notes a 2.41% image-level degradation while still beating the no-point-cloud baseline. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained and the paper merits a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests primarily on a deployment assumption (free, lossless point cloud at both ends) and on the empirical validity of depth-to-structure prediction. The method's hyperparameters are standard training choices, not fitted constants in a derivation. No invented physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Depth scaling range s = Not stated numerically
    Hand-selected in Eq. (3) to normalize depth before histogram equalization; changes the structural information content available to later modules.
  • Loss weight alpha = 0.01, 0.005, 0
    Scheduled in Sec. IV-A3; controls the strength of the point-cloud prediction loss Lpre and is annealed to zero during training.
  • Rate-distortion lambda = 4, 8, 16, 32 x 1e-3
    Standard RD trade-off multipliers chosen to span the bitrate range; not derived from theory.
  • MCM channel counts C and C' and number of scales = C and C' unspecified; 3 scales
    Architecture capacity choices with no derivation and no scale-count ablation; the paper only ablates presence or absence of FG and FF.
  • Random color augmentation set = Contrast, brightness, color inversion
    Task design in Sec. III-C makes the prediction target non-deterministic; the exact augmentation magnitudes are not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LiDAR-to-camera calibration matrices (R, t, Rrect, Prect) are known and fixed (Eqs. 1 and 2).
    Projection of points into the image plane requires exact extrinsic and intrinsic calibration; errors would misalign depth and image structure.
  • domain assumption Point cloud is available at both encoder and decoder at no counted bitrate (Sec. III-A and Sec. IV-A).
    The RD curves charge only image bits; total system rate is not measured, so the practical benefit depends on this deployment assumption.
  • domain assumption Histogram-equalized depth retains structural consistency with RGB image pixels despite the modality gap (Eq. 3).
    The entire PIP prediction relies on this structural correspondence; the paper validates it only empirically on KITTI and Waymo.
  • ad hoc to paper Random color transformations preserve image structure while changing color, so Lpre can train PIP to predict structure (Sec. III-C).
    This is a paper-specific training target; if the network instead learns color statistics, the features would not transfer to new scenes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sparse Point Clouds Assisted Learned Image Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54MBBM6W

@misc{pith2026241215752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sparse Point Clouds Assisted Learned Image Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54MBBM6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15752}
}
read the original abstract

In the field of autonomous driving, a variety of sensor data types exist, each representing different modalities of the same scene. Therefore, it is feasible to utilize data from other sensors to facilitate image compression. However, few techniques have explored the potential benefits of utilizing inter-modality correlations to enhance the image compression performance. In this paper, motivated by the recent success of learned image compression, we propose a new framework that uses sparse point clouds to assist in learned image compression in the autonomous driving scenario. We first project the 3D sparse point cloud onto a 2D plane, resulting in a sparse depth map. Utilizing this depth map, we proceed to predict camera images. Subsequently, we use these predicted images to extract multi-scale structural features. These features are then incorporated into learned image compression pipeline as additional information to improve the compression performance. Our proposed framework is compatible with various mainstream learned image compression models, and we validate our approach using different existing image compression methods. The experimental results show that incorporating point cloud assistance into the compression pipeline consistently enhances the performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image compression performance after using point clouds. Using sparse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of our method. The blue layers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Detailed structure of the Point-to-image Prediction (PIP) module. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sparse point clouds become dense after several down-sampling layers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RD performance of different methods on KITTI. “PC” refers to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of reconstructed images on KITTI. The metric is [Bpp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RD performance of ELIC-PC when point clouds are lossy com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the features from the point cloud branch. From top to bottom, and from left to right, respectively, we have the original image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: RD performance of PIP module ablation experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: RD performance of a more complex ELIC model on KITTI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Your camera improves your point cloud compression,

    Y . Lin, T. Xu, Z. Zhu, Y . Li, Z. Wang, and Y . Wang, “Your camera improves your point cloud compression,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [32]

    LiDAR Depth Map Guided Image Compression Model

    A. Gnutti, S. Della Fiore, M. Savardi, Y .-H. Chen, R. Leonardi, and W.- H. Peng, “Lidar depth map guided image compression model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06517, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Multi-task multi- sensor fusion for 3d object detection,

    M. Liang, B. Yang, Y . Chen, R. Hu, and R. Urtasun, “Multi-task multi- sensor fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 7345– 7353, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [2]

    Clocs: Camera-lidar object candi- dates fusion for 3d object detection,

    S. Pang, D. Morris, and H. Radha, “Clocs: Camera-lidar object candi- dates fusion for 3d object detection,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 10386–10393, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Pointpainting: Sequen- tial fusion for 3d object detection,

    S. V ora, A. H. Lang, B. Helou, and O. Beijbom, “Pointpainting: Sequen- tial fusion for 3d object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4604– 4612, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [4]

    Boosting 3d object de- tection by simulating multimodality on point clouds,

    W. Zheng, M. Hong, L. Jiang, and C.-W. Fu, “Boosting 3d object de- tection by simulating multimodality on point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 13638–13647, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Fuseseg: Lidar point cloud segmentation fusing multi-modal data,

    G. Krispel, M. Opitz, G. Waltner, H. Possegger, and H. Bischof, “Fuseseg: Lidar point cloud segmentation fusing multi-modal data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 1874–1883, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [6]

    A point-wise lidar and image multimodal fusion network (pmnet) for aerial point cloud 3d semantic segmentation,

    V . Poliyapram, W. Wang, and R. Nakamura, “A point-wise lidar and image multimodal fusion network (pmnet) for aerial point cloud 3d semantic segmentation,” Remote sensing, vol. 11, no. 24, p. 2961, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Robust multi-modality multi-object tracking,

    W. Zhang, H. Zhou, S. Sun, Z. Wang, J. Shi, and C. C. Loy, “Robust multi-modality multi-object tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 2365–2374, 2019

    2019

  2. [8]

    Probabilistic 3d multi- modal, multi-object tracking for autonomous driving,

    H.-k. Chiu, J. Li, R. Ambrus ¸, and J. Bohg, “Probabilistic 3d multi- modal, multi-object tracking for autonomous driving,” in 2021 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 14227– 14233, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    W. B. Pennebaker and J. L. Mitchell, JPEG: Still image data compres- sion standard. Springer Science & Business Media, 1992

    1992

  4. [10]

    Jpeg2000, the next millennium compression standard for still images,

    M. Charrier, D. Cruz, and M. Larsson, “Jpeg2000, the next millennium compression standard for still images,” in Proceedings IEEE Inter- national Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems , vol. 1, pp. 131–132, IEEE, 1999

    1999

  5. [11]

    Bpg image format,

    F. Bellard, “Bpg image format,” in https://bellard.org/bpg, 2015

    2015

  6. [12]

    Overview of the versatile video coding (vvc) standard and its applications,

    B. Bross, Y .-K. Wang, Y . Ye, S. Liu, J. Chen, G. J. Sullivan, and J.- R. Ohm, “Overview of the versatile video coding (vvc) standard and its applications,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 3736–3764, 2021

    2021

  7. [13]

    End-to-end optimized image compression,

    J. Ball ´e, V . Laparra, and E. P. Simoncelli, “End-to-end optimized image compression,” in 5th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    Varia- tional image compression with a scale hyperprior,

    J. Ball ´e, D. Minnen, S. Singh, S. J. Hwang, and N. Johnston, “Varia- tional image compression with a scale hyperprior,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018

    2018

  9. [15]

    Joint autoregressive and hier- archical priors for learned image compression,

    D. Minnen, J. Ball ´e, and G. Toderici, “Joint autoregressive and hier- archical priors for learned image compression,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing, pp. 10794–10803, 2018

    2018

  10. [16]

    Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,

    Z. Cheng, H. Sun, M. Takeuchi, and J. Katto, “Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 7939–7948, 2020

    2020

  11. [17]

    Channel-wise autoregressive entropy models for learned image compression,

    D. Minnen and S. Singh, “Channel-wise autoregressive entropy models for learned image compression,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , pp. 3339–3343, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    End-to- end learnt image compression via non-local attention optimization and improved context modeling,

    T. Chen, H. Liu, Z. Ma, Q. Shen, X. Cao, and Y . Wang, “End-to- end learnt image compression via non-local attention optimization and improved context modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 30, pp. 3179–3191, 2021

    2021

  13. [19]

    Checkerboard context model for efficient learned image compression,

    D. He, Y . Zheng, B. Sun, Y . Wang, and H. Qin, “Checkerboard context model for efficient learned image compression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 14771–14780, 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space- channel contextual adaptive coding,

    D. He, Z. Yang, W. Peng, R. Ma, H. Qin, and Y . Wang, “Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space- channel contextual adaptive coding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 5718– 5727, 2022

    2022

  15. [21]

    The devil is in the details: Window- based attention for image compression,

    R. Zou, C. Song, and Z. Zhang, “The devil is in the details: Window- based attention for image compression,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17492– 17501, 2022. JIANG et al. : SPARSE POINT CLOUDS ASSISTED LEARNED IMAGE ...

    2022

  16. [22]

    Mlic: Multi- reference entropy model for learned image compression,

    W. Jiang, J. Yang, Y . Zhai, P. Ning, F. Gao, and R. Wang, “Mlic: Multi- reference entropy model for learned image compression,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pp. 7618– 7627, 2023

    2023

  17. [23]

    Nlic: Non-uniform quantiza- tion based learned image compression,

    Z. Ge, S. Ma, W. Gao, J. Pan, and C. Jia, “Nlic: Non-uniform quantiza- tion based learned image compression,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , pp. 1–1, 2024

    2024

  18. [24]

    Dsic: Deep stereo image compression,

    J. Liu, S. Wang, and R. Urtasun, “Dsic: Deep stereo image compression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 3136–3145, 2019

    2019

  19. [25]

    L3c-stereo: Lossless compression for stereo images,

    Z. Huang, Z. Sun, F. Duan, A. Cichocki, P. Ruan, and C. Li, “L3c-stereo: Lossless compression for stereo images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.09422, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Deep homography for efficient stereo image compression,

    X. Deng, W. Yang, R. Yang, M. Xu, E. Liu, Q. Feng, and R. Timofte, “Deep homography for efficient stereo image compression,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1492–1501, 2021

    2021

  21. [27]

    Sasic: Stereo image compression with latent shifts and stereo attention,

    M. W ¨odlinger, J. Kotera, J. Xu, and R. Sablatnig, “Sasic: Stereo image compression with latent shifts and stereo attention,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 661–670, 2022

    2022

  22. [28]

    Deep stereo image compression via bi-directional coding,

    J. Lei, X. Liu, B. Peng, D. Jin, W. Li, and J. Gu, “Deep stereo image compression via bi-directional coding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 19669– 19678, 2022

    2022

  23. [29]

    Masic: Deep mask stereo image compression,

    X. Deng, Y . Deng, R. Yang, W. Yang, R. Timofte, and M. Xu, “Masic: Deep mask stereo image compression,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 6026–6040, 2023

    2023

  24. [30]

    Learning based multi-modality image and video compression,

    G. Lu, T. Zhong, J. Geng, Q. Hu, and D. Xu, “Learning based multi-modality image and video compression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 6083–6092, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    On uniform scalar quantization for learned image compression,

    H. Zhang, L. Li, and D. Liu, “On uniform scalar quantization for learned image compression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17051 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Image and video compression with neural networks: A review,

    S. Ma, X. Zhang, C. Jia, Z. Zhao, S. Wang, and S. Wang, “Image and video compression with neural networks: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1683– 1698, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,” International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR) , 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Stereo image compression using wavelet coefficients morphology,

    J. Ellinas and M. S. Sangriotis, “Stereo image compression using wavelet coefficients morphology,” Image and Vision Computing , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 281–290, 2004

    2004

  29. [37]

    Sparse optimiza- tion of non separable vector lifting scheme for stereo image coding,

    I. Bezzine, M. Kaaniche, S. Boudjit, and A. Beghdadi, “Sparse optimiza- tion of non separable vector lifting scheme for stereo image coding,” Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , vol. 57, pp. 283–293, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Joint disparity and variable size-block optimization algorithm for stereoscopic image compression,

    A. Kadaikar, G. Dauphin, and A. Mokraoui, “Joint disparity and variable size-block optimization algorithm for stereoscopic image compression,” Signal Processing: Image Communication , vol. 61, pp. 1–8, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    An improved multimodal signal-image compression scheme with application to nat- ural images and biomedical data,

    T. Brahimi, L. Boubchir, R. Fournier, and A. Na ¨ıt-Ali, “An improved multimodal signal-image compression scheme with application to nat- ural images and biomedical data,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 76, no. 15, pp. 16783–16805, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Rgb and depth intra- frame cross-compression for low bandwidth 3d video,

    K. M. Varadarajan, K. Zhou, and M. Vincze, “Rgb and depth intra- frame cross-compression for low bandwidth 3d video,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012) , pp. 955–958, IEEE, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Adaptive multi-modality residual network for compression distorted multi-view depth video enhancement,

    S. Chen, Q. Liu, and Y . Yang, “Adaptive multi-modality residual network for compression distorted multi-view depth video enhancement,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 97072–97081, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 770–778, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,

    Z. Song, C. Jia, L. Yang, H. Wei, and L. Liu, “Graphalign++: An accurate feature alignment by graph matching for multi-modal 3d object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2619–2632, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    A multi-phase camera-lidar fusion network for 3d semantic segmentation with weak supervision,

    X. Chang, H. Pan, W. Sun, and H. Gao, “A multi-phase camera-lidar fusion network for 3d semantic segmentation with weak supervision,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3737–3746, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Evaluation of mea- surement space representations of deep multi-modal object detection for extended object tracking in autonomous driving,

    L. A. Giefer, R. Khamsehashari, and K. Schill, “Evaluation of mea- surement space representations of deep multi-modal object detection for extended object tracking in autonomous driving,” in 2020 IEEE 3rd Connected and Automated V ehicles Symposium (CA VS), pp. 1–6, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Temporal context min- ing for learned video compression,

    X. Sheng, J. Li, B. Li, L. Li, D. Liu, and Y . Lu, “Temporal context min- ing for learned video compression,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine, et al. , “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ,...

    2020

  41. [49]

    G-pcc codec description v5,

    M. 3DG, “G-pcc codec description v5,” in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 N18891, Geneva, CH, October 2019 , 2019. Yiheng Jiang received the B.S. degree in electronic information engineering from University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in 2022. He is currently pursuing the ...

    2019

Pith tools

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