Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Cross-Layer Encrypted Semantic Communication Framework for Panoramic Video Transmission

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semantic video transmission can cut bandwidth by 85 percent while surviving low-SNR channels, claims new cross-layer framework.

desk verdict A plausible cross-layer semantic communication framework that is currently undermined by a load-bearing majority-voting typo and missing reproducibility, so the 85% bandwidth claim is not yet credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12776 v1 pith:IZDZQRIX submitted 2024-11-19 eess.IV cs.CRcs.MM

Haixiao Gao , Mengying Sun , Xiaodong Xu , Bingxuan Xu , Shujun Han , Bizhu Wang , Sheng Jiang , Chen Dong
show 1 more author
Ping Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CRcs.MM
keywords semanticcommunicationcross-layerdesigndeepjointsource-channelcodingpanoramicvideoentropymodeladaptivetransmissionWS-PSNRencrypted
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 claims that semantic communication, which compresses video at the level of meaning rather than pixels, can be grafted onto the ordinary layered protocol stack without losing its advantage. The authors build a cross-layer encrypted semantic communication framework in which a deep JSCC codec for panoramic video is followed by encryption, CRC, LDPC coding, and retransmission, with all of those classic error-control steps adapted per packet according to a learned entropy map. Their central evidence is that, at equal WS-PSNR, the scheme uses about 85 percent less bandwidth than an H.264-based cross-layer system, and that it degrades gracefully at low SNR where conventional transmission shows a cliff effect. The paper's significance is that it makes a case for semantic communication being deployable inside existing mobile networks instead of replacing them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the entropy map $e_t$ of the semantic feature map $y_t$, which is grouped into spatial blocks and converted into a set of importance indications $l_{i,t}$ that control three mapping functions in the transmitter: the choice of CRC generator polynomial, the LDPC generator matrix, and the maximum retransmission count. These mappings let the physical and data-link layers allocate error-control resources according to estimated semantic importance, while the latitude-adaptive module and a weighted spatial attention module shape the entropy map itself by restricting the information dimension of each feature point according to latitude.

What would settle it

Train or simulate a version of APVST that replaces the entropy-based importance labels with a fixed equal-protection policy (same CRC length, LDPC rate, and retransmission count for all groups), holding total bandwidth constant, and compare WS-PSNR over the same channel SNR range; if the equal-protection version matches or beats the entropy-based version, the central adaptive mechanism is not delivering the claimed benefit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that semantic communication and traditional cross-layer transmission are compatible, and that the combination can be made adaptive to channel conditions. In the proposed CLESC framework, the application layer extracts semantic features and encodes them at variable length with a Deep JSCC network, then labels each packet with an importance indication derived from the entropy map of the feature map. The data link and physical layers read that label and choose CRC strength, LDPC rate, and retransmission count accordingly, so that high-priority semantic content receives stronger protection under poor channels. The accompanying APVST codec adds a latitude-adaptive module and a weight-attention module to exploit equirectangular projection redundancy. The authors report that the resulting system exceeds H.264- and H.265-based cross-layer schemes in WS-PSNR, WS-SSIM, and LPIPS at equal bandwidth, and specifically that it achieves the same WS-PSNR with 85 percent less bandwidth than H.264 while avoiding the cliff effect at low SNR.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's gains depend on the learned entropy map of the semantic feature map being a faithful measure of how much each spatial group contributes to the final WS-PSNR and WS-SSIM at the receiver; if entropy does not track perceptual or task importance, the priority-based resource allocation will not deliver the claimed efficiency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 85 percent bandwidth reduction holds at equal WS-PSNR, panoramic video services could be delivered over existing cellular infrastructure at a fraction of the current resource cost.
  • The framework extends the principle of semantic-aware hybrid ARQ to the whole protocol stack, implying that entropy-based importance labels could be used by schedulers and resource allocators in 6G networks.
  • Because the design inserts encryption before channel coding, it shows that semantic communication need not sacrifice security or error detection to gain compression.
  • The same CLESC structure is claimed to generalize to other modal data, since the cross-layer adaptation only requires an entropy map or equivalent importance map.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the entropy-based priority rule assumes that high-entropy features dominate perceptual quality; a natural test is to compare the scheme against a variant that protects the low-entropy but attended regions the user is actually looking at, which the current model does not model.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported gains are against H.264/H.265 with fixed LDPC and retransmission settings; the comparison would be fairer if the traditional schemes were also given the same latitude-adaptive rate allocation.
  • Beyond the paper: the compatibility claim suggests an incremental deployment path — semantic codecs could be introduced as an application-layer upgrade inside an otherwise unchanged mobile 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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CLESC, a cross-layer encrypted semantic communication framework for panoramic video transmission, and APVST, a Deep JSCC-based neural codec with a weighted attention module and a latitude adaptive module. The framework integrates semantic feature extraction, Deep JSCC encoding, encryption, CRC, LDPC channel coding, and retransmissions, with an adaptive cross-layer mechanism that maps per-group entropy (semantic importance) to CRC length, LDPC rate, and retransmission count. The authors claim that, compared with traditional cross-layer transmission using H.264/H.265, CLESC reduces bandwidth consumption by 85% while maintaining WS-PSNR, and that it avoids the conventional cliff effect at low SNR. The claims are supported by simulations over panoramic video datasets against H.264, H.265, DVST, and an APVST variant without the WA module.

Significance. If the stated results hold, the paper addresses a real and timely problem: making semantic communication compatible with a traditional protocol stack (encryption, CRC, LDPC, retransmission) while retaining compression and robustness gains. The framework is coherent, the problem is well motivated, and the evaluation against external baselines is a strength. However, the evidence is entirely simulation-based, no code or data is released, and the central quantitative claim rests on at least one internal inconsistency in the combining rule and on an asymmetric baseline comparison. The proposed entropy-based importance mechanism is also not validated by any ablation that isolates it from the codec gains. These issues must be resolved before the 85% bandwidth claim and the low-SNR robustness claim can be considered supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (29)] The majority-voting combining rule is written as argmin over b of the number of retransmissions whose bit equals b. This selects the minority bit, not the majority bit. Since priority level 5 in Table II allows up to 10 retransmissions, applying Eq. (29) as written would increasingly invert the most protected bits, so the low-SNR gains and the curves in Figs. 5(c), 6(c), and 7(c) cannot be reproduced from the published algorithm. Please correct the equation to use argmax if that is what was implemented, or state explicitly which combining rule was actually simulated. The subscript in c_{v,k} should also index the retransmission u, not a subcarrier index k.
  2. [Section VI-A3 and VI-B1] The baseline comparison is asymmetric: H.264 and H.265 are simulated with a fixed LDPC rate of 1/2 and a maximum retransmission count of 4, while APVST uses the adaptive LDPC rates 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 and retransmission limits of 2 through 10 given in Table II. The claimed 85% bandwidth reduction therefore compares unequal protection and resource budgets. Please report matched-overhead comparisons, for example by equalizing average total channel symbols or average retransmission counts, or by presenting rate-distortion curves where each scheme operates at its own optimal settings.
  3. [Section VI-B1] The paper's headline claim that APVST reduces bandwidth by 85% compared with H.264 is not tied to a specific operating point. In Fig. 5(a) the horizontal gap between the APVST and H.264 curves varies with CBR, so the percentage reduction depends on the chosen WS-PSNR level or CBR. Please state the exact comparison point, report the corresponding WS-PSNR values, and indicate how sensitive the 85% figure is to that choice.
  4. [Section VI, overall] There is no ablation that isolates the adaptive cross-layer mechanism, which is the paper's central contribution. The comparisons in Figs. 5-7 contrast APVST against DVST, H.264, and H.265, but they do not compare APVST with entropy-based priority against APVST with equal CRC, LDPC, and retransmission settings at matched overhead. Without such an ablation, the observed gains could be entirely due to the semantic codec rather than to the CLESC priority mechanism. Please add a control experiment, for example all packets assigned to the middle importance level, or a random priority assignment.
  5. [Sections III-A1, III-A2, and Algorithm 1] The adaptive mechanism treats the entropy map e_t as a faithful measure of semantic importance, and this map is the same entropy signal that the training loss in Eq. (27) minimizes. The paper provides no evidence that entropy ranking by groups corresponds to the contribution of those groups to final WS-PSNR or WS-SSIM. This is a modeling assumption rather than a derived result. Please validate it, for example by comparing the proposed entropy-based protection allocation with an allocation based on actual per-group distortion sensitivity, and by reporting the resulting WS-PSNR and WS-SSIM at low SNR.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VI-A1] The quantization set Q = {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20, 26, 32, 20, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96} contains the value 20 twice; this is presumably a typo, and the set should be monotone.
  2. [Section V-B heading] The heading uses "APSVT" where the acronym should be "APVST".
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 14] The initialization of the packet data for the 0-th retransmission uses the variable u from the preceding importance-indication loop; it should use the 0-th retransmission index for the packet data as well.
  4. [Figures 5-7 and 9] The curves show no error bars or confidence intervals, even though the simulation involves random channel fading and stochastic retransmissions. Reporting mean plus/minus standard deviation would make the comparisons, especially the 85% claim, more persuasive.
  5. [Section VI-B1 and VI-B2] The bandwidth-reduction percentages appear inconsistent across figures: Section VI-B1 reports 85% and 33% for H.264 and H.265, respectively, while Section VI-B2 reports 44% and 85%. Please clarify that these correspond to different metrics (WS-PSNR vs. WS-SSIM) and identify the exact operating points.
  6. [Section VI-B3] The text says the reconstruction loss used for training is LPIPS, whereas Sections VI-B1 and VI-B2 state that WMSE and negative WS-SSIM are used. Please clarify whether separate models are trained and evaluated for each metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bandwidth and low-SNR claims are benchmarked against external H.264/H.265 baselines, and the entropy-based priority mapping is a design choice rather than a self-deriving prediction.

full rationale

The central bandwidth and low-SNR claims are obtained from simulations that compare APVST/CLESC against H.264, H.265, and DVST along CBR, SNR, and retransmission axes; these are external benchmarks, not quantities defined by the framework's own importance model. The adaptive mechanism uses the entropy map as importance to set CRC length, LDPC rate, and retransmission count, but the reported gains are not algebraically forced by that mapping; there is no equation in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations ([10], [13]) supply network components and a baseline, but the load-bearing efficiency comparison is against H.264/H.265, whose performance figures are independent of the authors' prior work. The correlation between entropy and priority is a modeling choice, and the simulation outcome is not equivalent to the training loss by construction. The paper's Eq. (29) uses argmin instead of argmax for majority voting, which would invert the bit decision if implemented literally, but that is an internal correctness/reproducibility concern rather than a circularity, and it does not change the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on hand-selected protocol parameters, a quantization set, and the unvalidated assumption that feature-map entropy equals semantic importance. The paper introduces no new physical entities; the APVST network is a learned codec, not a postulated mechanism.

free parameters (4)
  • Importance-level transmission parameters (CRC length, LDPC rate, max retransmissions) = CRC 4/8/16/24/32 bits; LDPC 2/3,2/3,1/2,1/2,1/3; retransmissions 2/3/4/6/10 (Table II)
    Hand-chosen mapping from semantic importance to error protection. The reported bandwidth and latency gains depend on these values, and the paper provides no sensitivity analysis.
  • Quantization set Q for variable-length encoding = {0,2,4,6,8,10,16,20,26,32,20,48,56,64,80,96} (with duplicate 20)
    Hand-selected rate granularity used in Section V-A2 and VI-A1; affects the latitude-adaptive constraint in Eq. (33) and the channel bandwidth ratio.
  • Loss balance coefficients alpha and beta = not reported
    These coefficients in Eq. (27) weight distortion against entropy and latitude-adaptive losses, but their values are not given, so the training trade-off is not fully specified.
  • Grouping granularity mH=mW and packet size = 8 and 1024
    Experimental choices (Section VI-A2) that determine packet-level importance tagging and CRC and retransmission overhead.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Entropy of the Deep JSCC feature map is a valid proxy for semantic importance
    The adaptive cross-layer mechanism (Algorithm 1, Section IV) prioritizes packets based on entropy values from the entropy model (Section III-A1). If entropy does not track the packet's contribution to reconstruction quality, the claimed efficiency gains would not materialize.
  • domain assumption Encryption after Deep JSCC encoding and before channel coding does not degrade semantic fidelity if LDPC and retransmission prevent bit errors
    Section III-A4 and III-B4 assert that the avalanche effect is contained by channel coding and retransmissions; no experiments show actual AES or ChaCha20 corruption behavior.
  • domain assumption The channel model with Rayleigh fading, AWGN, and large-scale path loss represents the target deployment
    Section III-B1 defines h_k,t and SNR; all simulation conclusions are conditioned on this model.
  • domain assumption The APVST network trained on 360VDS at 512x256 generalizes to the VR scene dataset at 512x1024 without adaptation
    Section VI-A1 describes training and test resolutions; no domain adaptation or fine-tuning is reported.
  • standard math Standard CRC polynomial arithmetic and LDPC belief propagation decoding behave as specified
    Equations (6)-(7) and (16)-(19) rely on textbook coding theory, which is acceptable background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Layer Encrypted Semantic Communication Framework for Panoramic Video Transmission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZDZQRIX

@misc{pith2026241112776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Layer Encrypted Semantic Communication Framework for Panoramic Video Transmission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZDZQRIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12776}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a cross-layer encrypted semantic communication (CLESC) framework for panoramic video transmission, incorporating feature extraction, encoding, encryption, cyclic redundancy check (CRC), and retransmission processes to achieve compatibility between semantic communication and traditional communication systems. Additionally, we propose an adaptive cross-layer transmission mechanism that dynamically adjusts CRC, channel coding, and retransmission schemes based on the importance of semantic information. This ensures that important information is prioritized under poor transmission conditions. To verify the aforementioned framework, we also design an end-to-end adaptive panoramic video semantic transmission (APVST) network that leverages a deep joint source-channel coding (Deep JSCC) structure and attention mechanism, integrated with a latitude adaptive module that facilitates adaptive semantic feature extraction and variable-length encoding of panoramic videos. The proposed CLESC is also applicable to the transmission of other modal data. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed CLESC effectively achieves compatibility and adaptation between semantic communication and traditional communication systems, improving both transmission efficiency and channel adaptability. Compared to traditional cross-layer transmission schemes, the CLESC framework can reduce bandwidth consumption by 85% while showing significant advantages under low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schemes of semantic communication and traditional mobile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of cross-layer encrypted semantic communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Network structures of APVST. k × k Conv is a convolution with k × k filters, and the output channels of convolution are given on horizontal line. ↑ 2 and ↓ 2 indicate upsampling and downsampling with a stride of 2. GDN denotes the Generalised Divisive Normalization in [46], IGDN denotes the inverse operation of GDN. Inspired by the spatial attention module which is proposed in [47], to obtain higher WS-PSNR and WS-S… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detailed structures of (a) WA Module, and (b) Latitude Adaptive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: WS-PSNR performance vs. (a) CBR at SNR=5dB, (b) SNR at CBR=0.04, and (c) average retransmission times at SNR=5dB and CBR=0.04 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WS-SSIM performance vs. (a) CBR at SNR=5dB, (b) SNR at CBR=0.04, and (c) average retransmission times at SNR=5dB and CBR=0.04 with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LPIPS performance vs. ((a) CBR at SNR=5dB, (b) SNR at CBR=0.04, and (c) average retransmission times at SNR=5dB and CBR=0.04 with BPSK [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The reconstructed visualization of panoramic video cross-layer transmission, where the test SNR is 2dB. The first column shows the index of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: WS-PSNR performance vs. the distance between the transmitter and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The power of data: how traffic demand and data analytics are driving network evolution toward 6G systems,

    D. Sabella, D. Micheli, and G. Nardini, “The power of data: how traffic demand and data analytics are driving network evolution toward 6G systems,” Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks , vol. 12, no. 4, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    6G Vision: An Ultra-Flexible Perspective

    A. Yazar, S. Do ˘gan-Tusha, and H. Arslan, “6G vision: an ultra-flexible perspective,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2009.07597 , Sep. 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    6G wireless communications: from far-field beam steering to near-field beam focusing,

    H. Zhang, N. Shlezinger, F. Guidi, D. Dardari, and Y . C. Eldar, “6G wireless communications: from far-field beam steering to near-field beam focusing,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 72–77, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Toward immersive communications in 6G,

    X. S. Shen, J. Gao, M. Li, C. Zhou, S. Hu, M. He, and W. Zhuang, “Toward immersive communications in 6G,” Frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 4, 2023. 14

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Toward wisdom-evolutionary and primitive-concise 6G: a new paradigm of semantic communication networks,

    P. Zhang, W. Xu, H. Gao et al. , “Toward wisdom-evolutionary and primitive-concise 6G: a new paradigm of semantic communication networks,” Engineering, vol. 8, pp. 60–73, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Communication beyond transmitting bits: semantics-guided dource and channel coding,

    J. Dai, P. Zhang, K. Niu, S. Wang, Z. Si, and X. Qin, “Communication beyond transmitting bits: semantics-guided dource and channel coding,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 170–177, Aug. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Semantic communications: overview, open issues, and future research directions,

    X. Luo, H.-H. Chen, and Q. Guo, “Semantic communications: overview, open issues, and future research directions,” IEEE Wireless Commun. , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 210–219, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    TCP/IP tutorial and technical overview,

    L. Parziale, W. Liu, C. Matthews, N. Rosselot, C. Davis, J. Forrester, D. T. Britt et al. , “TCP/IP tutorial and technical overview,” 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    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, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Wireless deep video semantic transmission,

    S. Wang, J. Dai, Z. Liang, K. Niu, Z. Si, C. Dong, X. Qin, and P. Zhang, “Wireless deep video semantic transmission,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 214–229, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Semantic coding for text transmission: an iterative design,

    S. Yao, K. Niu, S. Wang, and J. Dai, “Semantic coding for text transmission: an iterative design,” IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1594–1603, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Semantic communication systems for speech transmission,

    Z. Weng and Z. Qin, “Semantic communication systems for speech transmission,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2434– 2444, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Semantic communication-enabled wireless adaptive panoramic video transmission,

    H. Gao, M. Sun, X. Xu, and S. Han, “Semantic communication-enabled wireless adaptive panoramic video transmission,” in2024 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) , 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  6. [14]

    Rate splitting multiple access-enabled adaptive panoramic video semantic transmission,

    H. Gao, M. Sun, X. Xu, S. Han, B. Wang, J. Zhang, and P. Zhang, “Rate splitting multiple access-enabled adaptive panoramic video semantic transmission,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2402.16581 , Feb. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    End-to-end optimized 360° image compression,

    M. Li, J. Li, S. Gu, F. Wu, and D. Zhang, “End-to-end optimized 360° image compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 31, pp. 6267– 6281, Sep. 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Deep contextual video compression,

    J. Li, B. Li, and Y . Lu, “Deep contextual video compression,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2109.15047, Sep. 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Weighted-to-spherically-uniform quality evaluation for omnidirectional video,

    Y . Sun, A. Lu, and L. Yu, “Weighted-to-spherically-uniform quality evaluation for omnidirectional video,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1408–1412, Sep. 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Weighted-to- spherically-uniform SSIM objective quality evaluation for panoramic video,

    Y . Zhou, M. Yu, H. Ma, H. Shao, and G. Jiang, “Weighted-to- spherically-uniform SSIM objective quality evaluation for panoramic video,” in 2018 14th IEEE International Conference on Signal Pro- cessing (ICSP) , Beijing, China, 2018, pp. 54–57

    2018

  11. [19]

    Semantic communi- cations in networked systems: a data significance perspective,

    E. Uysal, O. Kaya, A. Ephremides, J. Gross, M. Codreanu, P. Popovski, M. Assaad, G. Liva, A. Munari, B. Soret et al. , “Semantic communi- cations in networked systems: a data significance perspective,” IEEE Netw., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 233–240, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Knowledge-enhanced semantic communication system with OFDM transmissions,

    X. Xu, H. Xiong, Y . Wang et al. , “Knowledge-enhanced semantic communication system with OFDM transmissions,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. , vol. 66, no. 7, p. 172302, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Latent semantic diffusion-based channel adaptive de-noising semcom for future 6g systems,

    B. Xu, R. Meng, Y . Chen, X. Xu, C. Dong, and H. Sun, “Latent semantic diffusion-based channel adaptive de-noising semcom for future 6g systems,” in GLOBECOM 2023-2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2023, pp. 1229–1234

    2023

  14. [22]

    SemHARQ: Semantic-Aware HARQ for Multi-task Semantic Communications,

    J. Hu, F. Wang, W. Xu, H. Gao, and P. Zhang, “SemHARQ: Semantic-Aware HARQ for Multi-task Semantic Communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08490 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Deep source-channel coding for sentence semantic transmission with HARQ,

    P. Jiang, C.-K. Wen, S. Jin, and G. Y . Li, “Deep source-channel coding for sentence semantic transmission with HARQ,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 5225–5240, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    DeepJSCC- Q: Constellation constrained deep joint source-channel coding,

    T.-Y . Tung, D. B. Kurka, M. Jankowski, and D. G ¨und¨uz, “DeepJSCC- Q: Constellation constrained deep joint source-channel coding,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Inf. Theory , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 720–731, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Joint coding-modulation for digital semantic communications via variational autoencoder,

    Y . Bo, Y . Duan, S. Shao, and M. Tao, “Joint coding-modulation for digital semantic communications via variational autoencoder,” IEEE Trans. Commun., 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    A survey of cross-layer designs in wireless networks,

    B. Fu, Y . Xiao, H. Deng, and H. Zeng, “A survey of cross-layer designs in wireless networks,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 110–126, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Cross-layer design proposals for wireless mobile networks: a survey and taxonomy,

    F. Foukalas, V . Gazis, and N. Alonistioti, “Cross-layer design proposals for wireless mobile networks: a survey and taxonomy,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor ., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 70–85, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    An adaptive cross-layer de- sign approach for network security management,

    I.-H. Chuang, C.-T. Hsieh, and Y .-H. Kuo, “An adaptive cross-layer de- sign approach for network security management,” in 13th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT2011) , 2011, pp. 1085–1089

    2011

  21. [29]

    Improving TCP performance for wireless cellular networks by adaptive FEC combined with explicit loss notification,

    M. Miyoshi, M. Sugano, and M. Murata, “Improving TCP performance for wireless cellular networks by adaptive FEC combined with explicit loss notification,” IEICE Trans. Commun. , vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2208– 2213, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    CDMA/HDR: a bandwidth efficient high speed wireless data service for nomadic users,

    P. Bender, P. Black, M. Grob, R. Padovani, N. Sindhushyana, and A. Viterbi, “CDMA/HDR: a bandwidth efficient high speed wireless data service for nomadic users,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 70–77, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    A transcoding-enabled 360 VR video caching and delivery framework for edge-enhanced next-generation wireless networks,

    H. Xiao, C. Xu, Z. Feng, R. Ding, S. Yang, L. Zhong, J. Liang, and G.-M. Muntean, “A transcoding-enabled 360 VR video caching and delivery framework for edge-enhanced next-generation wireless networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1615–1631, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Taming the latency in multi-user VR 360°: A QoE-aware deep learning-aided multicast framework,

    C. Perfecto, M. S. Elbamby, J. Del Ser, and M. Bennis, “Taming the latency in multi-user VR 360°: A QoE-aware deep learning-aided multicast framework,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2491– 2508, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Reliability enhancement for VR delivery in mobile-edge empowered dual-connectivity sub-6 GHz and mmWave HetNets,

    Z. Gu, H. Lu, P. Hong, and Y . Zhang, “Reliability enhancement for VR delivery in mobile-edge empowered dual-connectivity sub-6 GHz and mmWave HetNets,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2210–2226, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Power-efficient wireless streaming of multi-quality tiled 360 VR video in MIMO- OFDMA systems,

    C. Guo, L. Zhao, Y . Cui, Z. Liu, and D. W. K. Ng, “Power-efficient wireless streaming of multi-quality tiled 360 VR video in MIMO- OFDMA systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 5408–5422, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    NOMA assisted two-tier VR content transmission: a tile-based approach for QoE optimization,

    Y . Li, C. Dou, Y . Wu, W. Jia, and R. Lu, “NOMA assisted two-tier VR content transmission: a tile-based approach for QoE optimization,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 3769–3784, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    DeepWiVe: Deep-learning-aided wireless video transmission,

    T.-Y . Tung and D. G ¨und¨uz, “DeepWiVe: Deep-learning-aided wireless video transmission,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2570–2583, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Advanced encryption standard (AES) algorithm to encrypt and decrypt data,

    A. M. Abdullah et al., “Advanced encryption standard (AES) algorithm to encrypt and decrypt data,” Cryptography and Network Security , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 11, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    ChaCha20-Poly1305 authenti- cated encryption for high-speed embedded IoT applications,

    F. De Santis, A. Schauer, and G. Sigl, “ChaCha20-Poly1305 authenti- cated encryption for high-speed embedded IoT applications,” in Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), 2017 , 2017, pp. 692–697

    2017

  31. [39]

    Optimization of cyclic redundancy-check codes with 24 and 32 parity bits,

    G. Castagnoli, S. Brauer, and M. Herrmann, “Optimization of cyclic redundancy-check codes with 24 and 32 parity bits,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 883–892, 1993

    1993

  32. [40]

    A survey on protograph LDPC codes and their applications,

    Y . Fang, G. Bi, Y . L. Guan, and F. C. Lau, “A survey on protograph LDPC codes and their applications,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor . , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1989–2016, 2015

    1989

  33. [41]

    NR; Physical layer proce- dures for data,

    3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), “NR; Physical layer proce- dures for data,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification TS 38.214, July 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    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, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    Wireless multiplayer interactive virtual reality game systems with edge computing: modeling and optimization,

    Z. Chen, H. Zhu, L. Song, D. He, and B. Xia, “Wireless multiplayer interactive virtual reality game systems with edge computing: modeling and optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 9684–9699, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Informed dynamic scheduling for belief-propagation decoding of LDPC codes,

    A. I. V . Casado, M. Griot, and R. D. Wesel, “Informed dynamic scheduling for belief-propagation decoding of LDPC codes,” in 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2007, pp. 932–937

    2007

  37. [45]

    A majority voting technique for wireless intrusion detection systems,

    B. Alotaibi and K. Elleithy, “A majority voting technique for wireless intrusion detection systems,” in 2016 IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference (LISAT) , 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  38. [46]

    Density modeling of images using a generalized normalization transformation,

    J. Ball ´e and V . Laparra and E. P. Simoncelli, “Density modeling of images using a generalized normalization transformation,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:1511.06281, Nov. 2015

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    CBAM: convolutional block attention module,

    S. Woo, J. Park, J.-Y . Lee, and I. S. Kweon, “CBAM: convolutional block attention module,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:1807.06521 , Jul. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    End-to-end optimized image compression,

    J. Ball ´e, V . Laparra, and E. P. Simoncelli, “End-to-end optimized image compression,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:1611.01704 , Nov. 2016

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Swin transformer v2: scaling up capacity and resolution,

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, Y . Lin, Z. Yao, Z. Xie, Y . Wei, J. Ning, Y . Cao, Z. Zhang, L. Dong, F. Wei, and B. Guo, “Swin transformer v2: scaling up capacity and resolution,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 11 999–12 009

    2022

  42. [50]

    Omnidirectional video super-resolution using deep learning,

    A. A. Baniya, T.-K. Lee, P. W. Eklund, and S. Aryal, “Omnidirectional video super-resolution using deep learning,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 26, pp. 540–554, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Gaze prediction in dynamic 360 immersive videos,

    Y . Xu, Y . Dong, J. Wu, Z. Sun, Z. Shi, J. Yu, and S. Gao, “Gaze prediction in dynamic 360 immersive videos,” in IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2018, pp. 5333–5342

    2018

  44. [52]

    Overview of the H. 264/A VC video coding standard,

    T. Wiegand, G. J. Sullivan, G. Bjontegaard, and A. Luthra, “Overview of the H. 264/A VC video coding standard,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 560–576, 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard,

    G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm, W.-J. Han, and T. Wiegand, “Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1649–1668, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.