Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Towards Loss-Resilient Image Coding for Unstable Satellite Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Learned codec survives packet loss by rearranging channels and reading a loss mask.

desk verdict Practical engineering paper on packet-loss-robust progressive learned image coding; credible mechanisms and consistent gains, but evaluation scope is thin and the bitstream-drop equivalence should be validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11263 v1 pith:767ZHNLB submitted 2025-01-20 cs.CV eess.IV

Hongwei Sha , Muchen Dong , Quanyou Luo , Ming Lu , Hao Chen , Zhan Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords learnedimagecompressionpacketlossresilienceprogressivecodingGilbert-Elliotmodelsatellitenetworksspatial-channelrearrangementmaskconditionalaggregation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether a learned image codec can stay usable when the network drops packets, as happens on GEO satellite links. Its answer is yes: by rearranging latent channels on the encoder side so no single channel holds irreplaceable information, and by feeding the decoder an explicit mask of what was lost, the codec keeps reconstruction quality and stability far beyond conventional progressive codecs. Training with a Gilbert-Elliot burst-loss model makes the behavior generalize to real satellite conditions. The central claim, backed by Kodak and CLIC tests, is that this design outperforms JPEG2000 and earlier learned progressive codecs under 5–20% uniform packet loss while adding only a modest computational cost.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a pair of complementary operations around a channel-progressive learned codec. SCR (Spatial-Channel Rearrangement) losslessly permutes groups of four latent channels so that information from each original channel is distributed across four transmitted channels, turning a whole-channel loss into a partial error on every channel; it is invertible and does not change what the decoder sees when no loss occurs. MCA (Mask Conditional Aggregation) is a two-layer convolutional module on the decoder that takes the binary mask of which channels arrived and the received features, concatenates them, and produces conditioning for the synthesis decoder. The third piece is the Gilbert-Elliot model, a two-state Markov process ('Good' and 'Bad') whose state-dependent error rates and transition probabilities simulate bursty packet loss during training.

What would settle it

Take the released code, drop one packet that contains part of the hyperprior z (not just a latent y channel) during a burst-loss simulation or real satellite transmission, and measure whether the decoder can start decoding; the paper's stated assumption predicts a complete failure, which would delimit the method's true loss-resilience.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the hyperprior-based learned image compression pipeline, the paper demonstrates that progressive channel-wise transmission can be made loss-resilient by two additions: Spatial-Channel Rearrangement (SCR), which shuffles feature points from four adjacent channels into a grid across four new channels so a lost channel's information is spread over the survivors, and Mask Conditional Aggregation (MCA), which concatenates a binary loss mask with the received incomplete features and fuses them through a small convolutional network so the decoder adapts to the distribution shift caused by missing data. Training under a Gilbert-Elliot two-state Markov model, rather than uniform random masking, is what lets the trained model cope with burst losses. The paper's claim is that this combination outperforms JPEG2000, ProgDTD, and random-mask-trained baselines in both mean PSNR and variance under packet loss, and does so with negligible bitrate overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes the hyperprior bitstream z is delivered without loss; if even one z packet is dropped, the decoder cannot parse the latent features at all, so all loss-resilience numbers cover only the y-channel portion of the bitstream.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under 10% uniform packet loss at about 0.21 bpp on Kodak, the method reaches 27.61 dB PSNR with variance 0.100, versus 27.32 dB and variance 0.156 for random-mask training and 25.70 dB for ProgDTD, so the robustness transfers to standard progressive transmission.
  • Because SCR spreads each channel's content over four channels, losing one channel degrades all four slightly instead of erasing one channel's information entirely, which is why reconstruction errors stay as noise rather than color deviation or pixel blocks.
  • The Gilbert-Elliot-trained model generalizes to a 15% burst-loss scenario it never saw in training and to a real GEO satellite link, indicating that realistic loss simulation, not just higher loss rates, is what improves stability.
  • The extra parameters and time are modest: 28.53 MB versus 26.80 MB, and encoding/decoding times rise from 89.15/39.30 ms to 93.35/50.17 ms, so the resilience comes at a small practical cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hyperprior-loss assumption means the method's 'loss-resilient' label really covers only the roughly 94% of the bitstream carrying latent features; a natural extension would be to apply the same masking/aggregation idea to z itself or to make the entropy model loss-aware, which the paper leaves open.
  • The SCR window of four channels is a complexity choice, not a structural one; larger windows would spread a packet loss over more channels and could tolerate losing an entire packet of multiple channels, at the cost of more rearrangement distortion.
  • The MCA module's conditioning on an exact binary mask presumes the decoder knows precisely which channels were lost; in real transport, this requires per-packet sequence metadata, and the paper's packetization algorithm implicitly supplies it.
  • The same two-stage recipe could transfer to other learned codecs and to video, replacing the uniform random mask in prior video-codec training with a burst-aware (Gilbert-Elliot) loss model.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a loss-resilient learned image coding method for GEO satellite links with frequent packet loss. It extends the channel-wise progressive coding framework of ProgDTD by adding an encoder-side Spatial-Channel Rearrangement (SCR) that spreads each latent channel's information across several channels, and a decoder-side Mask Conditional Aggregation (MCA) module that conditions reconstruction on the received-channel mask. Training also simulates packet loss with a Gilbert-Elliot two-state model, and the method is tested by zeroing latent channels according to uniform or GE loss patterns, as well as in one real GEO satellite network experiment. The reported results (Tables 1, 3, 4; Figures 6-11) show consistent PSNR gains and lower variance relative to the mbt-mean baseline, a randomly-masked baseline, ProgDTD, and JPEG2000.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a practical contribution: it shows that a learned codec can tolerate channel-level packet loss with modest architectural additions, and it provides a concrete way to incorporate bursty loss into training. The release of code, the use of an externally parameterized Gilbert-Elliot model, and the inclusion of complexity measurements are strengths. However, the significance is conditional on the evaluation protocol actually corresponding to real bitstream packet loss. The main load-bearing assumption - that zeroing a latent channel during evaluation is equivalent to losing the corresponding network packet - is not demonstrated, and the paper explicitly assumes the hyperprior bitstream is delivered losslessly, so the 'loss-resilient' claim is narrower than the title and abstract suggest.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Appendix A.2] The central evaluation simulates packet loss by 'zeros out the channels corresponding to the lost packets,' but the manuscript never establishes that the compressed bitstream is structured so that losing a network packet removes exactly those channels while leaving all other channels decodable. The baseline is the CompressAI mbt-mean model, which in its standard form entropy-codes the entire y tensor as one continuous arithmetic bitstream. Without explicitly modifying the codec to entropy-code each channel (or each packet's set of channels) as an independent arithmetic bitstream, dropping a middle packet would desynchronize the arithmetic decoder and make all subsequent channels undecodable rather than merely zeroing the lost ones. The per-channel size estimation in Appendix A.2 suggests per-channel handling, but the paper does not state this explicitly, and no real byte-level packet-drop experiment is reported to validate the zeroing simulation. Because Tables 1, 3, 4 and Figures 7, 10, 11 all rest on this equivalence, this is the most load-bearing point in the paper and must be resolved, either by specifying the per-channel entropy-coding implementation used for all models or by adding a bitstream-drop validation.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Appendix A.1] The paper assumes the hyperprior bitstream z is transmitted without any packet loss, stating in Section 4.1 that it 'will not experience packet loss in our evaluations' and in Appendix A.1 that the premise is required for correct decoding. Since z is about 6% of the bitstream, the loss-resilience claim applies only to the y bitstream; the abstract's 'diverse packet loss' and the title's 'loss-resilient image coding' overstate the scope. The authors do disclose the assumption, but the abstract and conclusion should qualify the claim, and the cost of protecting z (e.g., redundant transmission or ARQ) should be included in the rate budget or at least quantified explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.2, Tables 1, 3, 4] All headline results are averages over only 10 test samples from Kodak and CLIC, and no training-seed variation or confidence intervals for the mean PSNR are reported. The 'var' column appears to be the variance of PSNR over loss realizations, not an error bar on the mean; with 10 samples, the reported differences (e.g., 28.25 dB vs. 27.75 dB in Table 1) may not be statistically significant. The authors should report standard errors or per-image paired differences, and ideally evaluate on the full Kodak set and a larger CLIC subset.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figure 6b] The real GEO satellite network evaluation is described only as 'testing on a real GEO satellite network (Fig. 6b)' with no details on the number of images, the network setup, the loss trace, packet size, or how the real loss pattern was recorded and replayed. The claim that the GE-trained model 'confirms its superior performance and generalization' cannot be reproduced or assessed without this information. The authors should provide a description of the measurement procedure and, ideally, release the loss trace along with the code.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (2) defines eyr = yhr ⊙ mr for the rearranged feature, but Eq. (3) writes ey = y ⊙ m without defining how y and m are obtained from InvSCR. Please define all variables at first use and keep the notation uniform.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 8] The ablation results in Figure 8 are reported without error bars or statistical significance, which is especially important for the claim that SCR has 'minimal impact' on coding performance while providing loss resilience. Please add per-seed or per-sample variability.
  3. [Appendix A.5, Tables 3 and 4] The 'Ours (ConvNeXt)' variant is not described: it is unclear which convolutions are replaced, whether the training recipe is unchanged, and whether the same SCR/MCA modules are used. A brief architectural description is needed.
  4. [Globally] Several figure captions and axis labels (e.g., Figure 6) appear garbled in the submitted version, with unreadable character codes. Please ensure all figures are rendered correctly in the final PDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper grounds its method and baselines in external prior work, and its loss-resilience claims are empirical rather than derived by construction.

full rationale

This paper contains no derivation chain whose output reduces to its own inputs. The method is an empirical extension of ProgDTD (external prior work) with two new modules, SCR and MCA, and the training signal is a rate-distortion loss with packet-loss simulation. The Gilbert-Elliot parameters are taken from an external technical report (Pieper 2023), and the progressive-coding backbone is inherited from an external CVPR paper. The self-citations (Duan et al. 2022; Lu et al. 2022) are used only as background motivation, not as load-bearing justification for the central claim. The central evaluation compares the proposed architecture against independently trained or standard baselines (JPEG2000, ProgDTD, and the CompressAI mbt-mean baseline), so the reported PSNR/variance improvements are empirical measurements rather than quantities forced by construction. The main validity concern raised by a skeptic is that packet loss is simulated by zeroing latent channels, which presupposes per-channel independently decodable arithmetic bitstreams; however, that is a question of whether the evaluation faithfully models real byte-level packet loss, not a circularity in the paper's own argument. Similarly, the stated assumption that the hyperprior bitstream z is transmitted without loss limits the scope of the loss-resilience claim but does not make any prediction equivalent to an input. No step was found that renames a known result, imports uniqueness from the authors' own prior work, or equates a fitted parameter with a prediction. The appropriate finding is therefore no significant circularity.

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

The central claim depends on the hyperprior being lossless, on the GE model matching real GEO loss behavior, and on channel-wise independence after SCR. The SCR window size, GE parameters, training loss-rate sets, and packet size are hand-chosen and affect the reported gains. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SCR window size = 4 channels
    Chosen by hand for complexity (Section 3.2: 'Due to complexity considerations, this work selects four sequential channels as the process window for SCR'). Affects how loss is spread and reconstruction quality.
  • GE model training parameters = [p, r, h, k] = [0.378, 0.883, 0.810, 0.938]
    Taken from Pieper (2023) to simulate 10% packet loss during training (Section 4.1). The method's claimed generalization depends on this choice.
  • Training packet loss rate sets = e.g., [0.5%, 1.5%, 2.5%, 3.5%, 5%] for 5% loss
    Randomly selected values to approximate target loss rates during training (Section 4.1). These distributions shape the model's resilience.
  • Maximum packet size Bmax = 900 bytes
    Chosen according to commercial short burst data design (Section 4.1). Affects packetization and which channels are lost together.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hyperprior z is transmitted without packet loss
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A.1 explicitly assume z is protected. If z is lost, entropy decoding fails, so loss resilience only covers y channels.
  • domain assumption Latent features are approximately channel-wise independent
    Built on Duan et al. 2022 observation; SCR relies on spreading information across channels to make loss less harmful. Violation would weaken the benefit.
  • domain assumption Gilbert-Elliot model captures real GEO satellite loss behavior
    Section 3.4 justifies GE for bursty loss; training with GE parameters from Pieper 2023 assumes this model matches real conditions.
  • domain assumption i.i.d. assumption for hyperprior remains valid after SCR
    Section A.4 argues spatial decorrelation aligns with i.i.d. assumption; cited Ali et al. 2024 supports this, but it is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Loss-Resilient Image Coding for Unstable Satellite Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/767ZHNLB

@misc{pith2026250111263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Loss-Resilient Image Coding for Unstable Satellite Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/767ZHNLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11263}
}
read the original abstract

Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite communication demonstrates significant advantages in emergency short burst data services. However, unstable satellite networks, particularly those with frequent packet loss, present a severe challenge to accurate image transmission. To address it, we propose a loss-resilient image coding approach that leverages end-to-end optimization in learned image compression (LIC). Our method builds on the channel-wise progressive coding framework, incorporating Spatial-Channel Rearrangement (SCR) on the encoder side and Mask Conditional Aggregation (MCA) on the decoder side to improve reconstruction quality with unpredictable errors. By integrating the Gilbert-Elliot model into the training process, we enhance the model's ability to generalize in real-world network conditions. Extensive evaluations show that our approach outperforms traditional and deep learning-based methods in terms of compression performance and stability under diverse packet loss, offering robust and efficient progressive transmission even in challenging environments. Code is available at https://github.com/NJUVISION/LossResilientLIC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11263 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualizations of reconstruction results with packet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A spatial-channel rearrangement example. Feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Network simulation using Gilbert-Elliot model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance under the GE model and the real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualizations of progressive coding under packet loss on Kodim20. #p denotes the reconstructed result after receiving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation studies on modular contributions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gilbert-Elliot model. stance, satellite networks often experience prolonged peri￾ods of poor connectivity due to factors like adverse weather, leading to sudden spikes in packet loss. The model’s abil￾ity to represent these ”Bad” states aligns well with the real￾world …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualizations of progressive coding under packet loss on Kodim09. # p denotes the reconstructed result after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualizations of progressive coding under packet loss on Kodim03. # p denotes the reconstructed result after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    S.; Kim, Y.; Qamar, M.; Lim, S.-C.; Kim, D.; Zhang, C.; Bae, S.-H.; and Kim, H

    Ali, M. S.; Kim, Y.; Qamar, M.; Lim, S.-C.; Kim, D.; Zhang, C.; Bae, S.-H.; and Kim, H. Y. 2024. Towards efficient image compression without autoregressive models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Ball \'e , J.; Laparra, V.; and Simoncelli, E. P. 2016. End-to-end optimized image compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01704

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    J.; and Johnston, N

    Ball \'e , J.; Minnen, D.; Singh, S.; Hwang, S. J.; and Johnston, N. 2018. Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    B \'e gaint, J.; Racap \'e , F.; Feltman, S.; and Pushparaja, A. 2020. Compressai: a pytorch library and evaluation platform for end-to-end compression research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03029

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Bellard, F. 2014. BPG image format. https://bellard.org/bpg/

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Cai, C.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X.; Lu, G.; and Gao, Z. 2019. A novel deep progressive image compression framework. In 2019 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 1--5. IEEE

    work page 2019

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Castura, J.; and Mao, Y. 2006. Rateless coding over fading channels. IEEE communications letters, 10(1): 46--48

    2006

  2. [10]

    Y.; et al

    Cheng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Arapin, A.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Du, K.; Zhang, X.; Yan, F. Y.; et al. 2024. \ GRACE \ : \ Loss-Resilient \ \ Real-Time \ Video through Neural Codecs. In 21st USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 24), 509--531

    2024

  3. [11]

    Chu, W.-J.; and Leou, J.-J. 1998. Detection and concealment of transmission errors in H. 261 images. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 8(1): 74--84

    1998

  4. [12]

    Duan, Z.; Lu, M.; Ma, Z.; and Zhu, F. 2022. Opening the black box of learned image coders. In 2022 Picture Coding Symposium (PCS), 73--77. IEEE

    2022

  5. [13]

    Elliott, E. O. 1963. Estimates of error rates for codes on burst-noise channels. The Bell System Technical Journal, 42(5): 1977--1997

    1963

  6. [14]

    Gilbert, E. N. 1960. Capacity of a burst-noise channel. Bell system technical journal, 39(5): 1253--1265

    1960

  7. [15]

    Ha linger, G.; and Hohlfeld, O. 2008. The Gilbert-Elliott model for packet loss in real time services on the Internet. In 14th GI/ITG Conference-Measurement, Modelling and Evalutation of Computer and Communication Systems, 1--15. VDE

    2008

  8. [16]

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

    2021

  9. [17]

    Hendrycks, D.; and Gimpel, K. 2016. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hojjat, A.; Haberer, J.; and Landsiedel, O. 2023. ProgDTD: Progressive learned image compression with double-tail-drop training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1130--1139

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ismaeil, I.; Shirani, S.; Kossentini, F.; and Ward, R. 2000. An efficient, similarity-based error concealment method for block-based coded images. In Proceedings 2000 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No. 00CH37101), volume 3, 388--391. IEEE

    2000

  12. [20]

    P.; and Welling, M

    Kingma, D. P.; and Welling, M. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kodak, E. 1993. Kodak Lossless True Color Image Suite (PhotoCD PCD0992)

    1993

  14. [22]

    Koike-Akino, T.; and Wang, Y. 2020. Stochastic bottleneck: Rateless auto-encoder for flexible dimensionality reduction. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2735--2740. IEEE

    2020

  15. [23]

    P.; Park, Y.; and Kim, C.-S

    Lee, J.-H.; Jeon, S.; Choi, K. P.; Park, Y.; and Kim, C.-S. 2022. DPICT: Deep progressive image compression using trit-planes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 16113--16122

    2022

  16. [24]

    Liu, J.; Lu, G.; Hu, Z.; and Xu, D. 2020. A unified end-to-end framework for efficient deep image compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03370

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Liu, J.; Sun, H.; and Katto, J. 2023. Learned image compression with mixed transformer-cnn architectures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 14388--14397

    2023

  18. [26]

    Liu, W.; Wang, Y.; Yap, K.-H.; and Chau, L.-P. 2023. Bitstream-corrupted jpeg images are restorable: Two-stage compensation and alignment framework for image restoration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9979--9988

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lu, M.; Guo, P.; Shi, H.; Cao, C.; and Ma, Z. 2022. Transformer-based Image Compression. In 2022 Data Compression Conference (DCC), 469--469. IEEE

    2022

  20. [28]

    J.; and Neal, R

    MacKay, D. J.; and Neal, R. M. 1997. Near Shannon limit performance of low density parity check codes. Electronics letters, 33(6): 457--458

    1997

  21. [29]

    Minnen, D.; Ball \'e , J.; and Toderici, G. D. 2018. Joint autoregressive and hierarchical priors for learned image compression. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  22. [30]

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

    2020

  23. [31]

    Pieper, J. 2023. Relationships between Gilbert-Elliot Burst Error Model Parameters and Error Statistics. Technical report, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences

    2023

  24. [32]

    Rabbani, M.; and Joshi, R. 2002. An overview of the JPEG 2000 still image compression standard. Signal processing: Image communication, 17(1): 3--48

    2002

  25. [33]

    Si, Z.; and Shen, K. 2016. Research on the WebP image format. In Advanced graphic communications, packaging technology and materials, 271--277. Springer

    2016

  26. [34]

    M.; Hwang, S

    Toderici, G.; O'Malley, S. M.; Hwang, S. J.; Vincent, D.; Minnen, D.; Baluja, S.; Covell, M.; and Sukthankar, R. 2015. Variable rate image compression with recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06085

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Toderici, G.; Vincent, D.; Johnston, N.; Jin Hwang, S.; Minnen, D.; Shor, J.; and Covell, M. 2017. Full resolution image compression with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5306--5314

    2017

  28. [36]

    S.; and Aasma, S

    Vishwakarma, S.; Chauhan, A. S.; and Aasma, S. 2014. A Comparative Study of Satellite Orbits as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). SAMRIDDHI: A Journal of Physical Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 6(02): 99--106

    2014

  29. [37]

    Wallace, G. K. 1992. The JPEG still picture compression standard. IEEE transactions on consumer electronics, 38(1): xviii--xxxiv

    1992

  30. [38]

    Wang, Y.; Zhu, Q.-F.; and Shaw, L. 1993. Maximally smooth image recovery in transform coding. IEEE transactions on communications, 41(10): 1544--1551

    1993

  31. [39]

    Withers, D. J. 1977. Effective utilization of the geostationary orbit for satellite communication. Proceedings of the IEEE, 65(3): 308--317

    1977

  32. [40]

    Zhu, Q.-F.; Wang, Y.; and Shaw, L. 1993. Coding and cell-loss recovery in DCT-based packet video. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 3(3): 248--258

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.