Compression performance

Reproduce our current best results

We provide already encoded files as bitstreams in results/<configuration>/<dataset_name>/

• <configuration> can be image, video-low-latency, video-random-access

• <dataset_name> can be kodak, clic20-pro-valid, clic24-valid-subset, jvet.

These bitstreams allow to reproduce the results stated above qnd reflect the current best rate-distortion results achievable with Cool-chic.

For each dataset, a script decodes all the bitstreams.

(venv) python results/decode_one_dataset.py <configuration> <dataset_name> # Can take a few minutes

The file results/<configuration>/<dataset_name>/results.tsv provides the results that should be obtained.

Image compression

Image compression performance are presented on the kodak, clic20-pro-valid and jvet datasets.

The following table sums up the compression performance obtained by Cool-chic 3 against different anchors.

Dataset	vs. Cool-chic 2 [%]	vs. Cool-chic 1 [%]	vs. C3, Kim et al. [%]	vs. HEVC (HM 16.20) [%]	vs. VVC (VTM 19.1) [%]	Min decoder complexity [MAC / pixel] | Max decoder complexity [MAC / pixel]		Avg decoder complexity [MAC / pixel]
kodak	-19.4	-29.1	-1.6	-14.6	+6.6	299	2291	1841
clic20-pro-valid	-16.8	/	+3.3	-21.4	+2.3	545	2295	1897
jvet	-23.0	/	/	-13.7	+25.4	300	2301	1680

Video compression

Video compression performance are presented on the first 33 frames (~= 1 second) from the CLIC24 validation subset, composed of 30 high resolution videos. We provide results for 2 coding configurations:

• Low-delay P: address use-cases where low latency is mandatory;

• Random access: address use-cases where compression efficiency is primordial e.g. video streaming.

Dataset	Configuration	vs. HEVC (HM 16.20) [%]	vs. x265 medium. [%]	vs. x264 medium. [%]	Min decoder complexity [MAC / pixel]	Max decoder complexity [MAC / pixel]	Avg decoder complexity [MAC / pixel]
clic24-valid-subset	random-access	+60.4	+18.1	-15.5	460	460	460
clic24-valid-subset	low-latency	+122.0	+73.8	+28.9	460	460	460