SNR-EQ-JSCC: Joint Source-Channel Coding with SNR-Based Embedding and Query

Hongwei Zhang; Meixia Tao

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

SNR-EQ-JSCC: Joint Source-Channel Coding with SNR-Based Embedding and Query

T0 review · 3 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 A Transformer JSCC coder that conditions each attention block on channel SNR outperforms SwinJSCC with 0.05% of its channel-adaptation storage overhead.

desk verdict A plausible lightweight channel-adaptive JSCC scheme, but the paper's own Table III contradicts the headline efficiency claim and the gains rest on single-run evaluations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04732 v1 pith:SNBIDXKY submitted 2025-01-07 cs.IT cs.AImath.IT

Hongwei Zhang , Meixia Tao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITcs.AImath.IT

keywords jointsource-channelcodingsemanticcommunicationchanneladaptationmulti-headattentionTransformerSNRembeddingchannel-adaptivequerywirelessimagetransmission

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 proposes SNR-EQ-JSCC, a Transformer-based joint source-channel coding scheme whose attention blocks are conditioned directly on the channel signal-to-noise ratio $\mu$. It claims that embedding $\mu$ into each attention block and letting $\mu$ rescale and shift the attention queries yields better image reconstruction than the SwinJSCC baseline across a wide SNR range, while the extra storage and computation needed for channel adaptation drop to $0.05\%$ and $6.38\%$ of SwinJSCC's channel-adaptation module. The paper also claims that when instantaneous SNR feedback is imperfect, feeding only the average SNR $\bar{\mu}$ into the same trained network still outperforms both SwinJSCC and ADJSCC. A reader would care because channel adaptation in semantic communication is usually bought with large dedicated networks; here it is folded into the attention computation itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the channel-adaptive multi-head attention (CAMHA) block, which replaces the standard attention block in a Swin-Transformer-based JSCC backbone. It carries channel adaptation through two operations: a channel-adaptive query (CAQ) that rescales and shifts the queries with $q' = a_\mu q + b_\mu$, and an SNR embedding that adds a learned function of SNR to the block's input, $x' = x + g_{\theta_{\mathrm{SNR}}}(\mu)$. The CAQ directly reshapes attention scores under channel conditions, while the SNR embedding adds a global conditioning signal; the ReLU-activated $a_\mu$ prevents the score ranking from flipping, and the correlation-based penalty terms in the loss keep $a_\mu$ and $b_\mu$ tied to $\mu$ during training. The paper also uses a two-level encoding structure: the whole image is encoded once with the average SNR, then per-fading-block portions are encoded with instantaneous SNR, so fast fading is handled without re-encoding the full image.

What would settle it

Train SNR-EQ-JSCC and SwinJSCC on the same DIV2K split with several random seeds and compare the PSNR gap at $\mu = 20$ dB and $r = 1/32$; if the gap over seeds is not consistently positive, or if the seed-to-seed spread exceeds the 0.32 dB gain, the claim of consistent outperformance is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a multi-head attention block can carry the entire channel-adaptation burden of a JSCC image coder by adjusting its queries according to $\mu$, with $\mu$ also added to the block's inputs like a learnable embedding. Concretely, each attention head computes $q' = a_\mu q + b_\mu$ from the SNR through small networks, with $a_\mu > 0$ to keep attention-score rankings stable, and the block input is augmented as $x'_{\mathrm{model}} = x_{\mathrm{model}} + g_{\theta_{\mathrm{SNR}}}(\mu)$. Penalty terms $L_a = \mathrm{ReLU}(\mathrm{Corr}(\mu, a_\mu))$ and $L_b = \mathrm{ReLU}(\mathrm{Corr}(\mu, b_\mu))$ push the query parameters to be negatively correlated with $\mu$, which the authors argue makes the coder suppress non-essential elements at low SNR. On DIV2K image transmission, the paper reports that SNR-EQ-JSCC outperforms SwinJSCC in PSNR, MS-SSIM, and LPIPS at both compression rates tested; for example, at $r=1/32$ and $\mu=20$ dB it gains $0.32$ dB PSNR, $0.0056$ MS-SSIM, and $0.0095$ LPIPS, with a much smaller channel-adaptation module.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that SNR-EQ-JSCC consistently outperforms SwinJSCC rests on single-run simulation comparisons with no reported variability, so the small measured gains could reflect training randomness rather than a systematic advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Transformer-based JSCC coders can be made channel-adaptive without a dedicated channel-adaptation network, by conditioning the attention queries and inputs on the channel state.
Because one model is trained over an SNR range, a single SNR-EQ-JSCC model can serve channel conditions from about $-10$ dB to $20$ dB without per-SNR retraining.
Under imperfect instantaneous SNR feedback, replacing instantaneous SNR with the average SNR at the per-block coders requires no retraining and still beats the baselines for moderate feedback errors.
The channel-adaptive query mechanism is credited specifically with improving perceptual metrics such as MS-SSIM and LPIPS, not just pixel-level PSNR.
In the reported setup, channel adaptation costs only $0.05\%$ of SwinJSCC's Channel ModNet parameters and $6.38\%$ of its FLOPs, so channel adaptation could be added to Transformer coders at negligible overhead.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension not tested in the paper is to condition attention on variables other than SNR, such as bandwidth ratio, latency budget, or task type, since the CAQ formula only changes how queries are parameterized.
Real systems would quantize SNR feedback; the average-SNR variant suggests graceful degradation under feedback errors, but the paper only simulates Gaussian errors on the fading coefficient, leaving quantization effects untested.
Because the reported gains over SwinJSCC are moderate (around $0.1$-$0.6$ dB PSNR), their practical significance depends on whether they persist across seeds and channel realizations, which the single-run curves do not show.
The CAMHA block is a generic Transformer component, so the same mechanism could be inserted into Transformer coders for video, point clouds, or text, though the paper demonstrates only image transmission.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a plausible incremental contribution to JSCC channel adaptation, but the authors manage to invert their own headline efficiency numbers in the text, and the actual gains rest on single-run evaluations.

What's new: CAQ applies an affine transform to attention queries conditioned on SNR, plus a learned SNR embedding added to the inputs of the MHA block. Both are familiar techniques (FiLM-like conditioning, learned embeddings), but the combination in this setting, plus the correlation-based penalty terms to stabilize training, is new. The ablation study with each component removed helps the reader see what works. The alternative of running on average SNR under imperfect feedback without retraining is a nice practical add-on.

What the paper does well: comparisons against SwinJSCC and ADJSCC on DIV2K, with ablations for lambda, CAQ, and embedding. The reported gains at higher SNR are consistent with the design. The overhead table is there, which is how we can check the claims.

The soft spots, in order of weight. First, the headline claim is internally contradicted by Table III. The text says 0.05% storage and 6.38% computational complexity for CA relative to Channel ModNet. Summing the SNR Embedding and CAQ rows gives 6.29e5 parameters and 3.93e5 FLOPs. Against ModNet's 9.86e6 parameters and 8.72e8 FLOPs, that's 6.38% of the parameters and 0.045% of the FLOPs. The two percentages are swapped. The Conclusion's "one hundred-thousandth and one ten-thousandth" for CAQ alone is also wrong by orders of magnitude. The corrected numbers are still small, so this is fixable in revision, but as written the central efficiency assertion is not supported by the paper's own data. Second, no error bars, no multi-seed runs, and the code isn't released. Gains of 0.1-0.3 dB on a single run are within the noise of typical training variance. Third, the penalty weight lambda is essential; without it, CAQ hurts perception metrics. That's an honest finding, but it means the method has a hand-tuned main knob. Fourth, the "significant improvements in perception metrics" claim is based on small absolute differences (e.g., 0.0095 LPIPS) with no variance.

The math and citation pattern look fine; no self-citation inflation, no circularity. The paper is honest about the imperfect-feedback regime.

Bottom line: this is a serious but incremental systems paper. It deserves a careful referee, not a desk reject, but the revision must fix the overhead numbers and add robustness evidence. Recommend: send to peer review, with the requirement that the authors reconcile Table III with the text and report multi-run statistics.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SNR-EQ-JSCC, a Transformer-based joint source-channel coding scheme for wireless image transmission. The two new components are an SNR embedding added to the input of each channel-adaptive multi-head attention block and a channel-adaptive query (CAQ) module that applies a positive scaling and an offset to the queries as a function of the SNR; a Pearson-correlation penalty is added to the loss to stabilize training. For imperfect SNR feedback, the authors propose substituting the average SNR without retraining. On DIV2K, the paper reports PSNR/MS-SSIM/LPIPS gains over SwinJSCC and ADJSCC and claims extremely small channel-adaptation overhead.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the contribution is a useful, low-complexity way to make Transformer-based JSCC channel-adaptive. The design is simple and transferable, and the ablation study with 'w/o CAQ' and 'w/o EM' variants is informative. The average-SNR fallback addresses a practical feedback limitation. However, the evidence currently falls short: the reported efficiency numbers are internally inconsistent, and the performance gains rest on a single training run without statistical characterization. The corrections needed are local, so the underlying idea appears salvageable.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, Section IV.F, Table III, Conclusion] Section IV.F, Table III, and the Abstract/Conclusion report that the storage overhead and computational complexity of SNR-EQ-JSCC's CA module are 0.05% and 6.38% of those of SwinJSCC's Channel ModNet. The table's own numbers give the opposite assignment: (6.29e5 + 2.42e2)/9.86e6 = 6.38% for parameters and (3.93e5 + 2.03e2)/8.72e8 = 0.045% for FLOPs (which rounds to 0.05%). Thus the statement is internally inconsistent; the two percentages have been transposed. The Conclusion's claim that CAQ alone requires 'one hundred-thousandth and one ten-thousandth' of Channel ModNet is also not supported by the table, which yields 242/9.86e6 ≈ 1/41,000 parameters and 203/8.72e8 ≈ 1/4.3e6 FLOPs. Because the low-overhead claim is a headline contribution, this must be corrected and the definitions (parameters for storage, FLOPs for computation) stated consistently.
[Section IV.A and Figures 2-3] Section IV.A and Figures 2 and 3 present all performance curves as single runs with no error bars, and the text does not report the number of random seeds, optimizer, learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, or validation-based model selection. The headline gains are small (e.g., 0.32 dB PSNR and 0.0095 LPIPS at r=1/32, µtest=20 dB), so without a measure of run-to-run variation the claim that SNR-EQ-JSCC consistently outperforms SwinJSCC and ADJSCC is not yet established. Please report multi-seed means and confidence intervals (or standard deviations) and complete training details; if this is infeasible, the quantitative claims should be appropriately qualified.
[Section IV.A, Section IV.C] Section IV.A states that SNR-EQ-JSCC uses the SwinJSCC backbone 'but the attention block near the channel is modified to align with the divided z.' This means the comparison in Section IV.C is not a pure comparison of CA mechanisms: the backbone itself differs from SwinJSCC. The text should quantify the effect of this modification by explicitly comparing 'SNR-EQ-JSCC w/o CA' with 'SwinJSCC w/o CA'; those curves appear in Figure 3 but no numbers or discussion are given. Without this, part of the reported gain may be attributable to the structural change rather than to CAQ or SNR embedding.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (4)] Eq. (4): the definition of softmax as e^{(·)_{i,j}} / \sum_i \sum_j e^{(·)_{i,j}} normalizes over all entries of the attention matrix, whereas standard scaled dot-product attention uses a row-wise softmax over keys for each query. This affects the definition of attention scores in Sections III-A and III-B and should be corrected or clarified.
[Section II and Section IV.F] Section II: 'the receiver feedback the fading coefficient' should read 'feeds back'; in Section IV.F, 'Channel ModeNet' should be 'Channel ModNet' for consistency with Table III.
[Section IV.A] Section IV.A: the evaluation protocol for DIV2K is underspecified; it should state whether the 100 test images are scored as whole images or as 256×256 patches, how overlapping patches are aggregated if any, and what image size is used for the reported curves.
[Table III] Table III: the layout is difficult to parse because method names appear in the header row and 'FLOPs'/'Parameters' as row labels; use separate columns per method or a clearer multi-row layout, and state the input size and FLOPs definition used for the counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: the performance and efficiency claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines, and the SNR/query correlation is a training objective, not a predicted result.

full rationale

SNR-EQ-JSCC's central claims are empirical: trained models are evaluated on the held-out DIV2K test set against external baselines (SwinJSCC, ADJSCC). The channel-adaptive query mechanism is defined by q' = a_mu q + b_mu, and the loss in Eq. (11) includes penalty terms ReLU(Corr(mu,a_mu)) and ReLU(Corr(mu,b_mu)). This is a training objective that by construction encourages negative correlation between SNR and query parameters; however, the paper does not present that induced correlation as a discovered result or as a prediction. The performance comparisons in Figs. 2-4 and Table II are measured, not derived from the loss definition. The supporting citations are to external baselines and standard components (Transformer, DIV2K); no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The efficiency claim is internally inconsistent (Abstract and Section V vs Table III, where the 0.05% and 6.38% percentages appear swapped), but that is a numeric-consistency issue, not circularity. Therefore no circular step exists.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and relies on channel modeling assumptions plus a hand-chosen loss penalty. The method introduces no new physical entities; the learned networks are standard neural network parameters trained on the DIV2K dataset.

free parameters (1)

lambda (loss penalty weight) = 10^5 (tested at 0, 10, 10^5)
Weight of the correlation penalty terms in the loss. Chosen by hand and crucial: at lambda=0, CAQ degrades MS-SSIM and LPIPS.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The wireless channel is Rayleigh fading with E[h^2]=1 and instantaneous SNR varies M=8 times per image.
Section II system model; the entire evaluation depends on this channel model.
domain assumption Training SNR is uniformly distributed in [-10,20] dB.
Section IV-A; this training distribution covers the test range.
domain assumption Feedback overhead is negligible compared to the transmitted signal.
Section IV-A; feedback is neglected in the complexity comparison.
ad hoc to paper The CAQ affine transform with a_mu>0 prevents attention score reversal and stabilizes training.
Section III-B; this is an imposed constraint to make the method work.
ad hoc to paper The Pearson-correlation penalty with ReLU is sufficient to stabilize training when lambda is large.
Section III-D; the design relies on this empirical behavior, and the paper shows that lambda=0 leads to degraded perception metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SNR-EQ-JSCC: Joint Source-Channel Coding with SNR-Based Embedding and Query." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNBIDXKY

@misc{pith2026250104732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SNR-EQ-JSCC: Joint Source-Channel Coding with SNR-Based Embedding and Query},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNBIDXKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04732}
}

read the original abstract

Coping with the impact of dynamic channels is a critical issue in joint source-channel coding (JSCC)-based semantic communication systems. In this paper, we propose a lightweight channel-adaptive semantic coding architecture called SNR-EQ-JSCC. It is built upon the generic Transformer model and achieves channel adaptation (CA) by Embedding the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) into the attention blocks and dynamically adjusting attention scores through channel-adaptive Queries. Meanwhile, penalty terms are introduced in the loss function to stabilize the training process. Considering that instantaneous SNR feedback may be imperfect, we propose an alternative method that uses only the average SNR, which requires no retraining of SNR-EQ-JSCC. Simulation results conducted on image transmission demonstrate that the proposed SNR-EQJSCC outperforms the state-of-the-art SwinJSCC in peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and perception metrics while only requiring 0.05% of the storage overhead and 6.38% of the computational complexity for CA. Moreover, the channel-adaptive query method demonstrates significant improvements in perception metrics. When instantaneous SNR feedback is imperfect, SNR-EQ-JSCC using only the average SNR still surpasses baseline schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04732 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Performance comparison of different λ. NN-based perceptual similarity metric designed to better align with human visual perception. B. Effects of λ in the Loss Function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Illustration of the reconstructed images at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,

E. Bourtsoulatze, D. B. Kurka, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567–579, May. 2019

work page 2019
[2]

SwinJSCC: Taming Swin Transformer for deep joint source-channel coding,

K. Yang, S. Wang, J. Dai, X. Qin, K. Niu, and P. Zhang, “SwinJSCC: Taming Swin Transformer for deep joint source-channel coding,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , Jul. 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Task-oriented multi-user semantic communications for VQA task,

H. Xie, Z. Qin, and G. Y . Li, “Task-oriented multi-user semantic communications for VQA task,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 11, pp. 553–557, Dec. 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Nonlinear transform source-channel coding for semantic communications,

J. Dai, S. Wang, K. Tan, Z. Si, X. Qin, K. Niu, and P. Zhang, “Nonlinear transform source-channel coding for semantic communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2300–2316, Jun. 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Transformer-aided wireless image transmission with channel feedback,

H. Wu, Y . Shao, E. Ozfatura, K. Mikolajczyk, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Transformer-aided wireless image transmission with channel feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 904–11 919, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Semantic importance- aware based for multi-user communication over MIMO fading chan- nels,

H. Liang, Z. Bao, W. An, C. Dong, and X. Xu, “Semantic importance- aware based for multi-user communication over MIMO fading chan- nels,” arXiv:2312.16057, Dec. 2023

arXiv 2023
[7]

DeepJSCC-1++: Robust and bandwidth-adaptive wireless image transmission,

C. Bian, Y . Shao, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “DeepJSCC-1++: Robust and bandwidth-adaptive wireless image transmission,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Feb. 2023, pp. 3148–3154

work page 2023
[8]

Wireless image transmission using deep source channel coding with attention modules,

J. Xu, B. Ai, W. Chen, A. Yang, P. Sun, and M. Rodrigues, “Wireless image transmission using deep source channel coding with attention modules,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2315–2328, May. 2021

work page 2021

Show all 13 references

[9]

Predictive and adaptive deep coding for wireless image transmission in semantic communication,

W. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Ma, H. Shao, N. Wang, and V . C. Leung, “Predictive and adaptive deep coding for wireless image transmission in semantic communication,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , Jan. 2023

2023
[10]

Channel-adaptive wireless image transmission with OFDM,

H. Wu, Y . Shao, K. Mikolajczyk, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Channel-adaptive wireless image transmission with OFDM,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 2400–2404, Sep. 2022

2022
[11]

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,” in Proc. Advances Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS) , vol. 30, Dec. 2017

2017
[12]

Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study,

E. Agustsson and R. Timofte, “Ntire 2017 challenge on single image super-resolution: Dataset and study,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. (CVPR) Workshops , Jul. 2017, pp. 126–135

2017
[13]

DeepJSCC-f: Deep joint source-channel coding of images with feedback,

D. B. Kurka and D. G ¨und¨uz, “DeepJSCC-f: Deep joint source-channel coding of images with feedback,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 178–193, Apr. 2020

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,

E. Bourtsoulatze, D. B. Kurka, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Deep joint source- channel coding for wireless image transmission,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 567–579, May. 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

SwinJSCC: Taming Swin Transformer for deep joint source-channel coding,

K. Yang, S. Wang, J. Dai, X. Qin, K. Niu, and P. Zhang, “SwinJSCC: Taming Swin Transformer for deep joint source-channel coding,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , Jul. 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Task-oriented multi-user semantic communications for VQA task,

H. Xie, Z. Qin, and G. Y . Li, “Task-oriented multi-user semantic communications for VQA task,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 11, pp. 553–557, Dec. 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Nonlinear transform source-channel coding for semantic communications,

J. Dai, S. Wang, K. Tan, Z. Si, X. Qin, K. Niu, and P. Zhang, “Nonlinear transform source-channel coding for semantic communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 2300–2316, Jun. 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Transformer-aided wireless image transmission with channel feedback,

H. Wu, Y . Shao, E. Ozfatura, K. Mikolajczyk, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “Transformer-aided wireless image transmission with channel feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 11 904–11 919, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Semantic importance- aware based for multi-user communication over MIMO fading chan- nels,

H. Liang, Z. Bao, W. An, C. Dong, and X. Xu, “Semantic importance- aware based for multi-user communication over MIMO fading chan- nels,” arXiv:2312.16057, Dec. 2023

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

DeepJSCC-1++: Robust and bandwidth-adaptive wireless image transmission,

C. Bian, Y . Shao, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “DeepJSCC-1++: Robust and bandwidth-adaptive wireless image transmission,” in Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM) , Feb. 2023, pp. 3148–3154

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Wireless image transmission using deep source channel coding with attention modules,

J. Xu, B. Ai, W. Chen, A. Yang, P. Sun, and M. Rodrigues, “Wireless image transmission using deep source channel coding with attention modules,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. , vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2315–2328, May. 2021

work page 2021