Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

M3-CVC: Controllable Video Compression with Multimodal Generative Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A video codec that compresses clips into text plus a few quantized latents beats the VVC standard at ultra-low bitrates.

desk verdict Plausible generative-codec system whose headline 'beats VVC' needs the text bitrate reported before the claim can be accepted; the paper deserves review but not without fixing the rate accounting. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15798 v2 pith:ZCPX23EN submitted 2024-11-24 eess.IV cs.CV

Rui Wan , Qi Zheng , Yibo Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords videocompressionlargemultimodalmodeldiffusioncontrollableultra-lowbitratesemanticfidelity
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 is trying to establish that general-purpose video compression can operate at ultra-low bitrates by replacing most conventional motion-compensated residual coding with two generative components: a large multimodal model that converts each keyframe and clip into compact, losslessly compressed text descriptions, and conditional diffusion models that reconstruct frames from those descriptions plus a few quantized keyframe latents. If true, this would give video coding a controllability that transform codecs lack — an operator can steer what is preserved by changing the prompts to the multimodal model — while still beating the conventional VVC standard on perceptual and semantic quality. The framework selects keyframes using a semantic-plus-motion criterion, compresses keyframe latents with a VQVAE-style encoder, and feeds the text descriptions into Stable Diffusion for keyframe reconstruction and SEINE for clip reconstruction. The paper reports consistent rate-distortion gains over VVC on four test datasets under LPIPS and CLIP-sim, with the largest margin in the ultra-low-bitrate regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a split representation: a small number of quantized latent tokens for each keyframe, plus losslessly compressed text descriptions ($D^F_i$ and $D^C_i$) produced by a multi-round dialogue with Qwen-VL-Instruct-7B. Keyframes are chosen by a weighted decision function $D(F_n,F_l)=\lambda_1(1-\text{CLIP-sim})+\lambda_2\,\text{RAFT-motion}-D_{th}$, so both semantic change and motion pick anchor frames. Keyframe latents come from a VQVAE-style encoder with an ELIC-inspired post-encoder, whose discrete tokens are entropy coded; the decoder runs a conditional latent diffusion process (Stable Diffusion) using the quantized latents and $D^F_i$ as conditions. Video clips are then regenerated by SEINE, in either prediction or interpolation mode, using the restored keyframes and $D^C_i$ as conditions.

What would settle it

Compute the total bitstream size for a standard test clip by adding the losslessly compressed bytes of $D^F_i$ and $D^C_i$ to the entropy-coded keyframe tokens, then plot total bpp against VVC at the same LPIPS/CLIP-sim operating points; if the text overhead shifts M3-CVC's points above VVC's curve, the claimed rate advantage does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, M3-CVC claims that the rate-distortion frontier at very low bitrates can be pushed not by better motion compensation but by semantic abstraction: a dialogue-based large multimodal model distills each keyframe and clip into hierarchical text (objects, background, changes from the previous keyframe, motion), and pretrained diffusion models regenerate the video from that text conditioned on quantized latent tokens of keyframes. The result, as reported, is a codec whose decoded video preserves semantic meaning (CLIP-sim) and perceptual structure (LPIPS) better than VTM-17.0, particularly in the ultra-low-bitrate operating points tested. The claim is supported by RD curves on HEVC Class B/C, UVG, and MCL-JCV, plus ablations showing that joint semantic-motion keyframe selection, four-turn dialogue, and interpolation-mode reconstruction each contribute to the BD-rate savings against the VTM-17.0 anchor.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing premise is that the text descriptions written by the vision-language model are small enough, after lossless compression, that they add only negligible bits to the bitstream; the paper does not report how many bits those descriptions actually cost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the operating points shown, M3-CVC's rate-distortion curves sit below VVC's on LPIPS and CLIP-sim, meaning the same perceptual quality can be reached with notably fewer bits.
  • Because the textual descriptions are generated by a dialogue that can be reprompted, the codec gains a controllability that transform codecs lack: an operator can steer what details the decoder preserves.
  • The ablation numbers imply the design choices matter quantitatively: joint semantic-motion keyframe selection gives -18.9% BD-rate versus -13.4% for fixed interval, four-turn dialogue gives -19.5% versus -9.4% for one turn, and interpolation mode gives -20.4% while prediction mode degrades quality by +22.1%.
  • M3-CVC's total processing time on the tested sequence is lower than VTM-17.0's on the tested hardware, with the encoder much faster but the decoder slower, a trade-off expected for diffusion-based coding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: The decisive untested quantity is the byte cost of the losslessly compressed text descriptions; reporting total bpp including $D^F_i$ and $D^C_i$ would either confirm or erase the claimed rate advantage over VVC.
  • Beyond the paper: Since the multimodal model's output is prompt-steerable, the same architecture could become a task-aware codec — describing only what an autonomous system needs — and likely push bitrate even lower for machine-consumed video.
  • Beyond the paper: Because reconstruction leans on pretrained diffusion priors, the codec's errors will be generative hallucinations rather than classic compression artifacts; perceptual metrics like LPIPS may miss small missed objects or invented text, so downstream task accuracy is a more informative test.
  • Beyond the paper: Interpolation mode's large BD-rate gain over prediction suggests using more than two anchor keyframes per clip, or hierarchical clip structures, could cut bitrate further at the cost of decoder latency.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes M3-CVC, a video compression framework for ultra-low-bitrate coding that combines keyframe selection based on CLIP similarity and RAFT optical flow, a multi-round dialogue strategy with Qwen-VL-Instruct-7B to produce textual descriptions of keyframes and clips, a VQVAE/ELIC-style latent codec with conditional Stable Diffusion for keyframe reconstruction, and SEINE-based video synthesis for clip reconstruction. The authors report R-D curves on HEVC Class B/C, UVG, and MCL-JCV showing that M3-CVC outperforms VVC on LPIPS and CLIP-sim at low bitrates, together with ablations on keyframe selection, dialogue turns, and reconstruction mode, and a latency comparison with VTM-17.0.

Significance. If the bitrate accounting is correct and the reported comparisons are properly controlled, the paper would make a meaningful contribution: a general-purpose, text-guided generative codec that beats VVC on perceptual/semantic metrics at ultra-low bitrates would be a notable step toward controllable and interpretable learned video compression. The use of LMMs for hierarchical spatiotemporal description and the conditional diffusion reconstruction pipeline are well-motivated and timely. However, the current evidence is not yet sufficient: the rate definition omits the text-description bitstream, no numerical RD values are given, the ablation is very small, and the latency comparison is hardware-asymmetric. These issues are fixable in principle, but they must be addressed before the central claims can be verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-B and III-A] The bpp definition in Section III-A does not state whether the bits of the losslessly compressed text descriptions DFi and DCi are included in the reported rate. Section II-B states that these descriptions are LZW-compressed but never reports their compressed sizes. Since a multi-round 7B-LLM dialogue can produce long text outputs, the text bitstream could dominate the total rate at the ultra-low bitrates claimed (for example, 0.01 bpp for 512x320 at 8 fps corresponds to roughly 1.6 KB per second of video). The RD curves in Fig. 4 therefore cannot be interpreted without a component-wise bitrate breakdown. Please clarify the definition of bpp, report the average compressed sizes of DFi and DCi, and state whether keyframe text, clip text, keyframe indices, and entropy-coded VQ indices are all included in the total bitstream.
  2. [III-B and Fig. 4] The main comparison with VVC and learned codecs is presented only as R-D curves, with no numerical values of LPIPS or CLIP-sim at specific bitrate points and no BD-rate tables. The claim that M3-CVC 'significantly outperforms' VVC is therefore not quantitatively verifiable from the manuscript. Please include a table of rate-distortion values or BD-rate savings against each anchor, along with error bars or confidence intervals over the test sets.
  3. [III-C and Table I] The ablation study is limited to three HEVC Class B sequences and reports no per-sequence variance or error bars. The BD-rate values in Table I also need explanation: fixed-interval keyframe selection (-13.4) is reported as better than semantic-only selection (-9.7), which is surprising and is not discussed; the prediction-mode result (+22.1) versus interpolation-mode (-20.4) is a very large gap that could indicate a mode-dependent failure rather than a fair comparison. Please report per-sequence results, standard deviations, and the hyperparameter settings (lambda1, lambda2, Dth) used in each ablation.
  4. [III-D and Table II] The latency comparison is asymmetric: M3-CVC is measured on an NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU while VTM-17.0 is measured on an Intel Xeon Gold 6230 CPU. This does not support the stated conclusion that M3-CVC is faster overall, since the comparison confounds codec with hardware. Please either provide VTM on GPU (if an implementation exists), M3-CVC on CPU (with appropriate caveats), or clearly frame the result as a hardware-specific demonstration rather than a codec-level latency comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II-A] Equation (1) defines D(Fn, Fl) with weights lambda1, lambda2 and threshold Dth, but no specific values or sensitivity analysis are given for these hyperparameters; please report the chosen values in the experiments.
  2. [II-B] The multi-round dialogue prompts are described only in words and illustrated in Fig. 2; for reproducibility, include the exact prompt templates or provide a link to the released code.
  3. [III-A] The text says the keyframe encoder is pretrained with a commit loss and the denoising network's linear layers are fine-tuned, but the number of training iterations, learning rate, batch size, and evaluation protocol for the learned baselines (DCVC-DC and DCVC-FM) are not reported.
  4. [III-A] The CLIP-sim metric is also used as one component of the keyframe selection criterion, so there is a mild evaluation alignment between content selection and the semantic fidelity metric; this should be acknowledged, even though the test data is disjoint from training.
  5. [III-C and Table I] Table I's row labels do not indicate which values are averages over how many trials; please add the number of runs and the metric used (the text says LPIPS, but some BD-rate values are positive, suggesting a possible sign convention issue that should be clarified).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the central comparison is empirical, though the unquantified LMM text bitrate is a validity gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

M3-CVC is an empirical system evaluation rather than a derivation. The keyframe selection score D(Fn, Fl) = λ1(1−fClip(Fn, Fl)) + λ2 fRaft(Fn, Fl) − Dth is a pre-processing heuristic for choosing keyframes; it is not a fitted parameter and is not used to define the quality metrics. The reported comparisons in Fig. 4 are against external anchors (H.264/H.265/H.266 via x264/x265/VTM, DCVC-DC, DCVC-FM) on standard test sets (UVG, MCL-JCV, HEVC Class B/C) with models trained on MSR-VTT, so test performance is not a re-statement of training inputs or of the selection criterion. No 'prediction' in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted value: the only trained component is the keyframe VQVAE-style encoder and the fine-tuned linear layers of the denoising network, trained with L_commit and Lt on text-image pairs; those losses do not contain the test metrics or the VVC comparison. The self-citations (Refs. [4] and [8]) are background survey/compression papers by overlapping authors but are not load-bearing: the framework does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or ansatz from these references. One genuine weakness is that the bpp values used for the ultra-low-bitrate claim are never defined over the full bitstream: Section II-B states that the LMM descriptions D_i^F and D_i^C are LZW losslessly compressed, and Section III-A only says 'bits per pixel (bpp)' without stating whether these text bits are included. If text bits are excluded, the RD comparison with VVC overstates compression efficiency; this is a missing accounting/support issue and a correctness risk, not a circularity of the derivation. The use of CLIP in both keyframe selection and the CLIP-sim metric creates a mild evaluation alignment, but it is not a circular reduction because keyframe selection is a heuristic choice rather than a parameter fitted to the test metric. For circularity, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and should not be penalized beyond 0.

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

The central claim rests on the capability of pre-trained LMM and diffusion models, on the appropriateness of the chosen metrics, and on the unstated assumption that text overhead is negligible. The ledger lists these dependencies.

free parameters (4)
  • keyframe selection weights lambda1, lambda2 and threshold Dth
    Tunable in Eq. (1); ablation shows performance varies from -9.7% to -18.9% depending on setting, but exact values are not reported.
  • number of LMM dialogue turns = 4 (from ablation)
    Ablation shows BD-rate improves from -9.4% with 1 turn to -19.5% with 4 turns; the final framework uses 4 turns, so it is a tuned parameter.
  • vocabulary size and latent output dimensions = 256; 32x32 or 64x64
    Design choices in Section II-C that directly control bitrate versus reconstruction quality.
  • video reconstruction mode = interpolation
    Ablation shows interpolation achieves -20.4% BD-rate while prediction worsens to +22.1%; the choice is made post hoc based on results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Qwen-VL-Instruct-7B can extract sufficient hierarchical spatiotemporal information from a keyframe and clip through a multi-round dialogue.
    The entire text-based representation depends on this capability.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion can reconstruct a keyframe from its quantized latent and text description.
    Used in Section II-C for keyframe decoding.
  • domain assumption SEINE can generate the intermediate frames of a video clip from one keyframe (and possibly the next) plus a text description.
    Used in Section II-D; reconstruction fidelity hinges on this.
  • domain assumption The bitrate reported includes the losslessly compressed text descriptions.
    The paper states LZW encoding is applied to DF_i and DC_i but never reports the resulting text bitrate or how it is included in the bpp.
  • domain assumption Automatic metrics LPIPS and CLIP-sim are appropriate quality measures for ultra-low bitrate video.
    The paper uses only these metrics and does not report PSNR or other distortion metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of M3-CVC: Controllable Video Compression with Multimodal Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCPX23EN

@misc{pith2026241115798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: M3-CVC: Controllable Video Compression with Multimodal Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCPX23EN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15798}
}
read the original abstract

Traditional and neural video codecs commonly encounter limitations in controllability and generality under ultra-low-bitrate coding scenarios. To overcome these challenges, we propose M3-CVC, a controllable video compression framework incorporating multimodal generative models. The framework utilizes a semantic-motion composite strategy for keyframe selection to retain critical information. For each keyframe and its corresponding video clip, a dialogue-based large multimodal model (LMM) approach extracts hierarchical spatiotemporal details, enabling both inter-frame and intra-frame representations for improved video fidelity while enhancing encoding interpretability. M3-CVC further employs a conditional diffusion-based, text-guided keyframe compression method, achieving high fidelity in frame reconstruction. During decoding, textual descriptions derived from LMMs guide the diffusion process to restore the original video's content accurately. Experimental results demonstrate that M3-CVC significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art VVC standard in ultra-low bitrate scenarios, particularly in preserving semantic and perceptual fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of proposed M3-CVC framework performed via a neural encoder to produce entropy coding as another part of the encoded bitstream. Upon decoding, we utilize text-to-image diffusion model to reconstruct the keyframe. For each video clip, the LMM extracts segment￾level information, which is losslessly encoded consequently. On the decoder side, text description and its corresponding restored keyframe act as condi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-round dialogue-based visual information extraction strategy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of generative image codec for keyframe compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The R-D performance evaluation with LPIPS and CLIP-sim performed on HEVC Class B, Class C, UVG, and MCL-JCV Datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual quality comparison between ground truth Video, VVC and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    When Video Coding Meets Multimodal Large Language Models: A Unified Paradigm for Video Coding

    Zhang, Pingping and Li, Jinlong and Wang, Meng and Sebe, Nicu and Kwong, Sam and Wang, Shiqi (2024). When Video Coding Meets Multimodal Large Language Models: A Unified Paradigm for Video Coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08093

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Wiegand, Thomas and Sullivan, Gary J and Bjontegaard, Gisle and Luthra, Ajay. (2003). Overview of the H. 264/A VC video coding standard. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems for video technology , 13(7), 560–576

    work page 2003

  3. [2]

    Sullivan, Gary J and Ohm, Jens-Rainer and Han, Woo-Jin and Wiegand, Thomas. (2012). Overview of the high efficiency video coding (HEVC) standard. IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems for video technology , 22(12), 1649–1668

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Bross, Benjamin and Wang, Ye-Kui and Ye, Yan and Liu, Shan and Chen, Jianle and Sullivan, Gary J and Ohm, Jens-Rainer. (2021). Overview of the versatile video coding (VVC) standard and its applications. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 31(10), 3736– 3764

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Zheng, Qi and Fan, Yibo and Huang, Leilei and Zhu, Tianyu and Liu, Jiaming and Hao, Zhijian and Xing, Shuo and Chen, Chia-Ju and Min, Xiongkuo and Bovik, Alan and Tu, Zhengzhong. (2024). Video Quality Assessment: A Comprehensive Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04508

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Li, Jiahao and Li, Bin and Lu, Yan. (2023). Neural video compression with diverse contexts., 22616–22626

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Li, Jiahao and Li, Bin and Lu, Yan. (2024). Neural video compression with feature modulation., 26099–26108

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Mentzer, Fabian and Agustsson, Eirikur and Ball ´e, Johannes and Minnen, David and Johnston, Nick and Toderici, George. (2022). Neural video compression using gans for detail synthesis and propagation., 562–578

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Zheng, Qi and Wang, Haozhi and Liu, Zihao and Liu, Jiaming and Liu, Peiye and Hao, Zhijian and Lu, Yanheng and Niu, Dimin and Zhou, Jinjia and Jing, Minge and Fan, Yibo. (2024). Unicorn: Unified Neural Image Compression with One Number Reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08210

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Chen, Bolin and Chen, Jie and Wang, Shiqi and Ye, Yan. (2024). Generative face video coding techniques and standardization efforts: A review., 103–112

    2024

  3. [10]

    Wang, Ruofan and Mao, Qi and Wang, Shiqi and Jia, Chuanmin and Wang, Ronggang and Ma, Siwei. (2022). Disentangled visual representa- tions for extreme human body video compression., 1–6

    2022

  4. [11]

    Konuko, Goluck and Valenzise, Giuseppe and Lathuili `ere, St ´ephane. (2021). Ultra-low bitrate video conferencing using deep image animation., 4210–4214

    2021

  5. [12]

    Feng, Dahu and Huang, Yan and Zhang, Yiwei and Ling, Jun and Tang, Anni and Song, Li. (2021). A generative compression framework for low bandwidth video conference., 1–6

    2021

  6. [14]

    Chen, Bolin and Yin, Shanzhi and Chen, Peilin and Wang, Shiqi and Ye, Yan. (2024). Generative Visual Compression: A Review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02140

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yin, Shukang and Fu, Chaoyou and Zhao, Sirui and Li, Ke and Sun, Xing and Xu, Tong and Chen, Enhong. (2023). A survey on multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13549

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Croitoru, Florinel-Alin and Hondru, Vlad and Ionescu, Radu Tudor and Shah, Mubarak. (2023). Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(9), 10850– 10869

    2023

  9. [17]

    Bai, Jinze and Bai, Shuai and Yang, Shusheng and Wang, Shijie and Tan, Sinan and Wang, Peng and Lin, Junyang and Zhou, Chang and Zhou, Jingren. (2023). Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lin, Bin and Zhu, Bin and Ye, Yang and Ning, Munan and Jin, Peng and Yuan, Li. (2023). Video-llava: Learning united visual representation by alignment before projection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10122

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Rombach, Robin and Blattmann, Andreas and Lorenz, Dominik and Esser, Patrick and Ommer, Bj ¨orn. (2022). High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models., 10684–10695

    2022

  12. [20]

    Chen, Haoxin and Zhang, Yong and Cun, Xiaodong and Xia, Menghan and Wang, Xintao and Weng, Chao and Shan, Ying. (2024). Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models., 7310–7320

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chen, Xinyuan and Wang, Yaohui and Zhang, Lingjun and Zhuang, Shaobin and Ma, Xin and Yu, Jiashuo and Wang, Yali and Lin, Dahua and Qiao, Yu and Liu, Ziwei. (2023). Seine: Short-to-long video diffusion model for generative transition and prediction

    2023

  14. [22]

    Zhang, Kaiwen and Zhou, Yifan and Xu, Xudong and Dai, Bo and Pan, Xingang. (2024). DiffMorpher: Unleashing the Capability of Diffusion Models for Image Morphing., 7912–7921

    2024

  15. [23]

    Radford, Alec and Kim, Jong Wook and Hallacy, Chris and Ramesh, Aditya and Goh, Gabriel and Agarwal, Sandhini and Sastry, Girish and Askell, Amanda and Mishkin, Pamela and Clark, Jack and others. (2021). Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision., 8748–8763

    2021

  16. [24]

    Teed, Zachary and Deng, Jia. (2020). Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow., 402–419

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gordon, Daniel and Kembhavi, Aniruddha and Rastegari, Mohammad and Redmon, Joseph and Fox, Dieter and Farhadi, Ali. (2018). Iqa: Visual question answering in interactive environments., 4089–4098

    2018

  18. [26]

    Careil, Marlene and Muckley, Matthew J and Verbeek, Jakob and Lathuili`ere, St ´ephane. (2023). Towards image compression with perfect realism at ultra-low bitrates

    2023

  19. [27]

    Yang, Ruihan and Mandt, Stephan. (2024). Lossy image compression with conditional diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems , 36

    2024

  20. [28]

    Van Den Oord, Aaron and Vinyals, Oriol and others. (2017). Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  21. [29]

    He, Dailan and Yang, Ziming and Peng, Weikun and Ma, Rui and Qin, Hongwei and Wang, Yan. (2022). Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space-channel contextual adaptive coding., 5718–5727

    2022

  22. [30]

    Xu, Jun and Mei, Tao and Yao, Ting and Rui, Yong. (2016). Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language., 5288– 5296

    2016

  23. [31]

    Mercat, Alexandre and Viitanen, Marko and Vanne, Jarno. (2020). UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4K sequences for video codec analysis and development., 297–302

    2020

  24. [32]

    Wang, Haiqiang and Gan, Weihao and Hu, Sudeng and Lin, Joe Yuchieh and Jin, Lina and Song, Longguang and Wang, Ping and Katsavounidis, Ioannis and Aaron, Anne and Kuo, C-C Jay. (2016). MCL-JCV: a JND- based H. 264/A VC video quality assessment dataset., 1509–1513

    2016

Pith tools

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