Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

IPComp: Interpolation Based Progressive Lossy Compression for Scientific Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IPComp makes interpolation-based prediction progressive, so a single compressed stream can be retrieved at any fidelity with a guaranteed error bound, and it outperforms existing progressive compressors by up to 487% in compression ratio…

desk verdict IPComp is a genuine advance in progressive lossy compression, but its error-bound proof leaves boundary handling unspecified, so the theoretical guarantee as stated is not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04093 v3 pith:MT3Q25WZ submitted 2025-02-06 cs.DC

Zhuoxun Yang , Sheng Di , Longtao Zhang , Ruoyu Li , Ximiao Li , Jiajun Huang , Jinyang Liu , Franck Cappello
show 1 more author
Kai Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords progressivelossycompressioninterpolationpredictionbitplanecodingnegabinaryerror-boundedscientificdatareductionretrievalknapsackoptimization
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 tries to establish that a leading class of scientific lossy compressors, those built on interpolation-based prediction, can be made progressive without sacrificing the compression ratios or speed that make them attractive. It describes IPComp, a compressor that splits each level's quantized prediction residuals into 32 independent bitplanes, so users can retrieve a coarse reconstruction from a few bitplanes and refine it by loading more. The authors prove an $L_\infty$ error bound for partial bitplane loading and cast the choice of which bitplanes to load as a knapsack problem solvable with negligible overhead. On six real datasets from four domains, IPComp reports the smallest retrieval volume at a given error bound and the lowest error at a given bitrate among the compared progressive compressors, while needing only one decompression pass per request. If correct, this removes the main obstacle to practical progressive retrieval in scientific workflows: users no longer have to decompress full precision just to inspect or analyze a small region.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the multi-level interpolation prediction model combined with bitplane-truncated quantization. IPComp decorrelates data level by level using linear or cubic interpolation, quantizes each level's prediction residual into 32-bit integers, and encodes the 32 bitplanes of each level independently. Loading only some bitplanes at each level yields a lower-fidelity reconstruction, and Theorem 1 bounds the resulting $L_\infty$ error by $\sum_{l=0}^{L-1} p^l \|\delta y_{l+1}\|_\infty + e_b$, where $p=1$ for linear and $p=1.25$ for cubic interpolation and $\delta y_l$ is the information lost by skipping bitplanes at level $l$. This bound converts progressive retrieval into a knapsack optimization, solved by dynamic programming to minimize loaded data while satisfying a user-specified error bound or bitrate.

What would settle it

Compress a one-dimensional signal with sharp boundary gradients using cubic interpolation, retrieve it repeatedly with only low-order bitplanes loaded, and compare the measured maximum pointwise error against the bound in Equation (5); any retrieval level where the measured error exceeds the bound shows the per-level additive-error assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that interpolation-based prediction, the decorrelation strategy that already leads non-progressive scientific compressors like SZ, can be made progressive by organizing quantized prediction residuals into independent bitplanes per multiresolution level. Because the interpolation operator has a bounded $L_\infty$ norm ($p=1$ for linear, $p=1.25$ for cubic), the error caused by loading only some bitplanes propagates in a controlled way, and Theorem 1 bounds the total reconstruction error by a weighted sum of per-level truncation errors plus the base quantization error. On top of this, IPComp adds a predictive bitplane coder that XORs earlier bits to lower entropy, negabinary coding to keep sign-bit planes compressible near zero, and a knapsack-based optimizer that selects the minimum bitplanes to load under an error-bound or bitrate constraint. The authors report that this yields up to 487% higher compression ratios, up to 698% faster compression and decompression, up to 83% less retrieval data at the same error bound, and up to 99% lower error at the same bitrate than state-of-the-art progressive compressors, while supporting arbitrary fidelity requests with a single decompression pass.

Load-bearing premise

The whole error guarantee rests on the assumption that the extra error from skipping bitplanes at different refinement levels adds up in the worst case without cancelling, and that the coarsest refinement level always dominates the total error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can request any error bound or bitrate and receive a reconstruction from a single decompression pass, eliminating the repeated passes that residual-based progressive compressors require.
  • For the same error bound, IPComp loads up to 83% less data than SZ3-R, ZFP-R, and PMGARD on the tested datasets.
  • At the same retrieval bitrate, IPComp achieves up to 99% lower reconstruction error, giving higher PSNR without additional storage.
  • Because IPComp preserves byte-level patterns better than Huffman-based SZ3, it can beat even the non-progressive SZ3 in compression ratio at high precision settings.
  • Residual-based progressive compressors slow down as the number of anchor error bounds increases, whereas IPComp's speed is independent of fidelity granularity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, Theorem 1's structure suggests a general recipe: any predictor with a bounded interpolation operator norm can be made progressive by bitplane truncation, and predictors with smaller per-level norms would tighten the retrieval error bound.
  • The knapsack formulation could be extended beyond $L_\infty$ to rate-distortion objectives, such as minimizing $L_2$ error or a quantity-of-interest error under a retrieval budget, using the same dynamic-programming skeleton.
  • Negabinary coding's smaller truncation uncertainty, roughly two-thirds of sign-magnitude coding, may be attractive in other layered or embedded coding schemes, not only interpolation-based progressive compression.
  • The visualization result that Curl is usable at 0.3% retrieval while Laplace needs 1% suggests that application-specific quality thresholds could be used to auto-select the retrieval level, which IPComp's arbitrary-fidelity interface makes possible.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents IPComp, a progressive lossy compression framework built on interpolation-based prediction. It splits quantized prediction residuals into independent bitplanes, encodes them with a predictive/negabinary coder, and uses a dynamic-programming loader to select the minimum set of bitplanes per level under either an L-infinity error-bound constraint or a bitrate constraint. A theoretical bound (Theorem 1) is proposed to convert per-level bitplane truncation into an accumulated L-infinity error. Experiments on six datasets compare IPComp with SZ3-M, SZ3-R, ZFP-R, and PMGARD, reporting higher compression ratios, faster compression/decompression, and lower retrieval volume at equal fidelity.

Significance. If the central claims hold, IPComp is a meaningful step: it is the first interpolation-based progressive compressor with single-pass reconstruction, it supports arbitrary error bounds in retrieval, and the optimizer is lightweight. The evaluation spans four domains and six datasets, and the comparison includes both residual-based and multilevel baselines. The paper also gives a concrete error-propagation model with precomputed per-level truncation errors, which is a useful design contribution. However, the advertised guarantees depend on Theorem 1 and on the boundary behavior of the interpolation stencils; the current proof does not establish the worst-case bound for the implemented predictor. The performance claims also rest on single-run experiments without variance reporting.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.1, Theorem 1, Eqs. (5)-(9)] The error-bound guarantee is not established for the actual predictor because the proof replaces each ||P_l||_inf by the centered-stencil constant p (p=1 or 1.25) without considering array boundaries. The stencils in Eqs. (1)-(2) are centered, but interpolation in a finite array must use one-sided or extrapolation stencils at boundaries; such stencils can have absolute coefficient sums larger than p (for example, quadratic extrapolation coefficients (3, -3, 1) have absolute sum 7). Unless the boundary rule is specified and its induced norm is included in Eq. (9), the per-level errors err(l,b_l)=p^(l-1)||delta_y_l||_inf used in Section 5.2 can underestimate the propagated error, and the DP solution may violate the requested error bound E near boundaries. The paper needs to either prove that the implemented boundary stencils have norm p, use a boundary-aware norm in Theorem 1, or handle boundaries with a conservative padding or error budget.
  2. [4.2, Eq. (3)] The comparison between transform and prediction models overgeneralizes from a single non-orthogonal example. Equation (3) is derived for the difference transform T with ||T^-1||_inf = n, and the text then concludes that errors in transform models are proportional to the input size. This is not true for orthogonal or near-orthogonal transforms such as the block transform in ZFP or the CDF 9/7 wavelet in SPERR, whose inverse L-infinity norms do not grow linearly with n. Since this comparison is used to motivate the choice of prediction over transform, it should be restated as an example rather than a general result, or replaced with a correct general bound.
  3. [6, Figures 5-10] The performance evaluation reports single runs without error bars, confidence intervals, or per-run variance. The headline claims (up to 487% higher compression ratio, 698% faster speed, and up to 83% reduced retrieval volume) are point estimates from one execution; on HPC nodes with variable clock frequency and system contention, this is insufficient support. Please report multiple runs and variability, and state the number of repeats. This is especially important for the speed comparisons in Figures 8-9, where timing differences can be dominated by system noise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.1] The heading 'Introduction to none-progressive interpolation algorithm' contains a typo; it should be 'non-progressive'.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the solution 'archives up to 487%'; this should be 'achieves'.
  3. [Table 2] It is not stated how the entropy values are computed (empirical entropy of the encoded bitplane symbols after XOR, or a theoretical model). Please clarify the measurement so the reader can interpret the entropy reductions.
  4. [5.2] The claim that the discrete error values fall within the range [128, 1023] by normalizing the retrieval bound E by the compression bound eb should be justified; it appears to assume a fixed 32-bit integer range and a specific bitplane truncation behavior that are not otherwise stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the error-bound constants are derived from fixed interpolation stencil norms, and the optimizer uses encoder-side metadata rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claims. Theorem 1 in Section 5.1 obtains the propagation weights p=1 (linear) and p=1.25 (cubic) by computing the induced L-infinity norms of the fixed interpolation stencils in Equations (1)-(2); these are algebraic constants, not parameters fitted to the retrieval error or to the reported compression gains. The per-level information losses δy_l are described as values "pre-computed during compression," i.e. encoder-side metadata quantifying the effect of unloaded bitplanes; using them inside the Section 5.2/5.3 dynamic-programming loaders is a normal encode-time error model, not a prediction manufactured from the measured outcome. The self-citations to the authors' prior SZ3/interpolation work [28,29,35] supply the base predictor and background motivation, but the progressive bitplane design, the Theorem 1 bound, and the optimized loading strategy do not reduce to those citations. A skeptical concern about boundary stencil amplification in Theorem 1 is a correctness or worst-case-guarantee risk, not a circularity, because the paper's equations are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The paper is also evaluated against external baselines and datasets, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the error propagation bound (Theorem 1) and the empirical per-level error curves. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The free parameters are design choices, not fitted to inflate the reported performance.

free parameters (2)
  • prefix_bit_count = 2
    Chosen based on entropy measurements in Table 2 showing 2-bit prefix gives the best entropy reduction; a design parameter fitted to the evaluation data, though not to the final compression-ratio results directly.
  • DP_error_discretization = [128, 1023]
    Fixed range for normalized retrieval bound E/eb in the DP; an implementation choice, not fitted to results.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The interpolation prediction operator P_l is linear and its L-infinity operator norm is 1 for linear interpolation and 1.25 for cubic interpolation, and this norm is constant across all levels and boundaries.
    Used in Theorem 1 (Eq. 5) to bound error propagation; ignores boundary effects and data-dependent predictor variations.
  • domain assumption In the non-progressive base compression, each level's reconstruction error is bounded by e_b independently, because the stored prediction differences are computed against the lossy higher-level reconstruction.
    Standard SZ-style assumption; used in Eq. (4) to establish the base error bound.
  • domain assumption The per-level truncation error delta_y_l can be precomputed during compression and remains valid when other levels are partially loaded.
    Used by the DP optimizer in Section 5.2; assumes the bitplane truncation error vector is independent of the prediction context.
  • domain assumption The global reconstruction error equals the error at the finest level (level 1), because the finest level contains or dominates the reconstructed dataset.
    Used in Eq. (9) to convert the sum of propagated errors into a global bound; may fail if coarser levels have larger point-wise errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IPComp: Interpolation Based Progressive Lossy Compression for Scientific Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MT3Q25WZ

@misc{pith2026250204093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IPComp: Interpolation Based Progressive Lossy Compression for Scientific Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MT3Q25WZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04093}
}
abstract

Compression is a crucial solution for data reduction in modern scientific applications due to the exponential growth of data from simulations, experiments, and observations. Compression with progressive retrieval capability allows users to access coarse approximations of data quickly and then incrementally refine these approximations to higher fidelity. Existing progressive compression solutions suffer from low reduction ratios or high operation costs, effectively undermining the approach's benefits. In this paper, we propose the first-ever interpolation-based progressive lossy compression solution that has both high reduction ratios and low operation costs. The interpolation-based algorithm has been verified as one of the best for scientific data reduction, but previously no effort exists to make it support progressive retrieval. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We thoroughly analyze the error characteristics of the interpolation algorithm and propose our solution IPComp with multi-level bitplane and predictive coding. (2) We derive optimized strategies toward minimum data retrieval under different fidelity levels indicated by users through error bounds and bitrates. (3) We evaluate the proposed solution using six real-world datasets from four diverse domains. Experimental results demonstrate our solution archives up to $487\%$ higher compression ratios and $698\%$ faster speed than other state-of-the-art progressive compressors, and reduces the data volume for retrieval by up to $83\%$ compared to baselines under the same error bound, and reduces the error by up to $99\%$ under the same bitrate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical lossy compression workflow. T/P repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall design of our solution IPComp (the com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of how the none-progressive interpolation algorithm works for a 2d input – target points (in red color) are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our progressive solution splits the quantization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our compressor IPComp leads the compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our compressor IPComp takes the smallest amount [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our solution IPComp has the fastest speed in both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our solution leads to higher PSNR under the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The visualization of two post-analysis metrics Curl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. STZ: A High Quality and High Speed Streaming Lossy Compression Framework for Scientific Data

    cs.DC 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A streaming lossy compressor that supports both progressive and random-access decompression at quality near SZ3 and up to 6.7x lower decompression time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Mark Ainsworth, Ozan Tugluk, Ben Whitney, and Scott Klasky. 2018. Multilevel techniques for compression and reduction of scientific data—the univariate case. Computing and Visualization in Science 19, 5 (01 Dec 2018), 65–76

    work page 2018

  2. [3]

    Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan Lawrence, Paul Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sebastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stephan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stock- hause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams. 2018. Req...

    work page 2018

  3. [4]

    Rafael Ballester-Ripoll, Peter Lindstrom, and Renato Pajarola. 2019. TTHRESH: Tensor Compression for Multidimensional Visual Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1806.05952. IEEE Transaction on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 09 (sep 2019), 2891–2903. Issue 9. Online

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [5]

    Harsh Bhatia, Duong Hoang, Nate Morrical, Valerio Pascucci, Peer-Timo Bremer, and Peter Lindstrom. 2022. AMM: Adaptive Multilinear Meshes.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 6 (June 2022), 2350–2363. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3165392

    arXiv 2022

  5. [6]

    Boerner, Stephen Deems, Thomas R

    Timothy J. Boerner, Stephen Deems, Thomas R. Furlani, Shelley L. Knuth, and John Towns. 2023. ACCESS: Advancing Innovation: NSF’s Advanced Cyberinfras- tructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support. In Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good (Port- land, OR, USA) (PEARC ’23). Association for Computi...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    Yann Collet and Murray Kucherawy. 2018. Zstandard Compression and the application/zstd Media Type. RFC 8478. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8478

    doi:10.17487/rfc8478 2018

  7. [8]

    Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. 2024. https://wcrp-cmip.org/. Online

    work page 2024

  8. [9]

    Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 dashboard. 2024. http://esgf- ui.cmcc.it/esgf-dashboard-ui/federated-view.html. Online

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [10]

    cuZFP. 2019. https://github.com/LLNL/zfp/tree/develop/src/cuda_zfp. Online

    2019

  2. [11]

    Sheng Di and Franck Cappello. 2016. Fast error-bounded lossy HPC data com- pression with SZ. In 2016 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). 730–739

    2016

  3. [12]

    Sheng Di, Jinyang Liu, Kai Zhao, Xin Liang, Robert Underwood, Zhaorui Zhang, Milan Shah, Yafan Huang, Jiajun Huang, Xiaodong Yu, et al . 2024. A Survey on Error-Bounded Lossy Compression for Scientific Datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02840 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [13]

    FZ Lossy Compression Framework. 2024. https://fzframework.org//. Online

    2024

  5. [14]

    Jun Han and Chaoli Wang. 2023. CoordNet: Data Generation and Visualization Generation for Time-Varying Volumes via a Coordinate-Based Neural Network. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2023), 4951–

    2023

  6. [15]

    HDF5. 2024. HDF5. https://www.hdfgroup.org/solutions/hdf5/. Online

    2024

  7. [16]

    Duong Hoang, Harsh Bhatia, Peter Lindstrom, and Valerio Pascucci. 2021. High- Quality and Low-Memory-Footprint Progressive Decoding of Large-Scale Particle Data. In 2021 IEEE 11th Symposium on Large Data Analysis and Visualization (LDA V). 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/LDAV53...

    2021

  8. [17]

    Duong Hoang, Harsh Bhatia, Peter Lindstrom, and Valerio Pascucci. 2023. Pro- gressive Tree-Based Compression of Large-Scale Particle Data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2023.3260628

    2023

  9. [18]

    Duong Hoang, Harsh Bhatia Brian Summa, Peter Lindstrom Pavol Klacansky, Will Usher, Peer-Timo Bremer, , and Valerio Pascucci. 2021. Efficient and Flexible Hierarchical Data Layouts for a Unified Encoding of Scalar Field Precision and Resolution. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 27...

    2021

  10. [19]

    Duong Hoang, Pavol Klacansky, Harsh Bhatia, Peer-Timo Bremer, Peter Lind- strom, and Valerio Pascucci. 2018. A study of the trade-off between reducing precision and reducing resolution for data analysis and visualization. IEEE trans- actions on visualization and computer graph...

    2018

  11. [20]

    Pu Jiao, Sheng Di, Hanqi Guo, Kai Zhao, Jiannan Tian, Dingwen Tao, Xin Liang, and Franck Cappello. 2023. Toward Quantity-of-Interest Preserving Lossy Com- pression for Scientific Data. In nternational Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB)

    2023

  12. [21]

    Samuel Li, Stanislaw Jaroszynski, Scott Pearse, Leigh Orf, and John Clyne. 2019. VAPOR: A Visualization Package Tailored to Analyze Simulation Data in Earth System Science. Atmosphere 10 (08 2019), 488

    2019

  13. [22]

    Shaomeng Li, Peter Lindstrom, and John Clyne. 2023. Lossy Scientific Data Compression With SPERR. In 2023 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS54959. 2023.00104

    2023

  14. [23]

    Xin Liang, Qian Gong, Jieyang Chen, Ben Whitney, Lipeng Wan, Qing Liu, David Pugmire, Rick Archibald, Norbert Podhorszki, and Scott Klasky. 2021. Error- controlled, progressive, and adaptable retrieval of scientific data with multilevel decomposition. In Proceedings of the Int...

    2021

  15. [24]

    Xin Liang, Ben Whitney, Jieyang Chen, Lipeng Wan, Qing Liu, Dingwen Tao, James Kress, David Pugmire, Matthew Wolf, Norbert Podhorszki, and Scott Klasky. 2022. MGARD+: Optimizing Multilevel Methods for Error-Bounded Scientific Data Reduction. IEEE Trans. Comput. 71, 7 (2022), 1...

    2022

  16. [25]

    Peter Lindstrom. 2014. Fixed-rate compressed floating-point arrays. IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2674–2683

    2014

  17. [26]

    J. Liu, S. Di, S. Jin, K. Zhao, X. Liang, Z. Chen, and F. Cappello. 2023. Scientific Error-bounded Lossy Compression with Super-resolution Neural Networks. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) . IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 229–236. http...

    2023

  18. [27]

    Jinyang Liu, Sheng Di, Kai Zhao, Sian Jin, Dingwen Tao, Xin Liang, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello. 2021. Exploring Autoencoder-based Error-bounded Compression for Scientific Data. In IEEE International Conference on Clus- ter Computing . 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1109/Clu...

    2021

  19. [28]

    Jinyang Liu, Sheng Di, Kai Zhao, Xin Liang, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello

  20. [29]

    Jinyang Liu, Sheng Di, Kai Zhao, Xin Liang, Sian Jin, Zizhe Jian, Jiajun Huang, Shixun Wu, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello. 2024. High-performance Ef- fective Scientific Error-bounded Lossy Compression with Auto-tuned Multi- component Interpolation. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, ...

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    Victor A. P. Magri and Peter Lindstrom. 2024. A General Framework for Pro- gressive Data Compression and Retrieval . IEEE Transactions on Visualization Computer Graphics 30, 01 (Jan. 2024), 1358–1368. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2023.3327186

    2024

  22. [31]

    Patterson and John L

    David A. Patterson and John L. Hennessy. 2013. Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface (5th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann

    2013

  23. [32]

    Purdue Anvil supercomputer. 2024. https://www.rcac.purdue.edu/anvil. Online

    2024

  24. [33]

    Dingwen Tao, Sheng Di, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello. 2017. Significantly improving lossy compression for scientific data sets based on multidimensional prediction and error-controlled quantization. In 2017 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium ....

    2017

  25. [34]

    Xuan Wu, Qian Gong, Jieyang Chen, Qing Liu, Norbert Podhorszki, Xin Liang, and Scott Klasky. 2024. Error-controlled Progressive Retrieval of Scientific Data under Derivable Quantities of Interest . In SC24: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, S...

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Tonellot, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello

    Kai Zhao, Sheng Di, Maxim Dmitriev, Thierry-Laurent D. Tonellot, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello. 2021. Optimizing Error-Bounded Lossy Compression for Scientific Data by Dynamic Spline Interpolation. In IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering . 1643–1654. http...

    2021

  27. [36]

    Kai Zhao, Sheng Di, Xin Liang, Sihuan Li, Dingwen Tao, Julie Bessac, Zizhong Chen, and Franck Cappello. 2020. SDRBench: Scientific Data Reduction Bench- mark for Lossy Compressors. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). 2716–2724

    2020

  28. [2022]

    In SC22: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis

    Dynamic Quality Metric Oriented Error Bounded Lossy Compression for Scientific Datasets. In SC22: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis . 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/ SC41404.2022.00067

    arXiv

  29. [4963]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3197203

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.