Table 2. BD-rate comparison of all... | Emerald Publishing

Table 2.

BD-rate comparison of all evaluated methods across the six tested data sets. For the UVG and MCL-JCV data sets, we report the values published in the original VCT paper (Mentzer et al., 2022)

Model	UVG (%)	MCL-JCV (%)	HEVC-B (%)	HEVC-C (%)	HEVC-D (%)	HEVC-E (%)
VCT	0	0	0	0	0	0
ATEM-Pool	12.56	7.30	7.11	6.37	5.48	4.74
ATEM-MLP	8.09	9.30	11.05	10.99	10.74	17.33
ATEM-Conv	−8.03	−4.34	−6.91	−5.73	−5.09	−10.10
ATEM-Hybrid AC	−13.63	−9.35	−13.39	−14.98	−15.99	−18.32
ATEM-Hybrid CA	−16.64	−11.71	−16.80	−18.88	−19.78	−21.54
ATEM-Swin	−14.86	−11.06	−15.33	−17.02	−18.52	−21.62
HM-16.26	−12.87	−12.18	−5.88	−5.82	−3.37	−56.02
VTM-13.2	−36.59	−33.19	−32.72	−31.96	−29.75	−70.89

Model	UVG (%)	MCL-JCV (%)	HEVC-B (%)	HEVC-C (%)	HEVC-D (%)	HEVC-E (%)
VCT	0	0	0	0	0	0
ATEM-Pool	12.56	7.30	7.11	6.37	5.48	4.74
ATEM-MLP	8.09	9.30	11.05	10.99	10.74	17.33
ATEM-Conv	−8.03	−4.34	−6.91	−5.73	−5.09	−10.10
ATEM-Hybrid AC	−13.63	−9.35	−13.39	−14.98	−15.99	−18.32
ATEM-Hybrid CA	−16.64	−11.71	−16.80	−18.88	−19.78	−21.54
ATEM-Swin	−14.86	−11.06	−15.33	−17.02	−18.52	−21.62
HM-16.26	−12.87	−12.18	−5.88	−5.82	−3.37	−56.02
VTM-13.2	−36.59	−33.19	−32.72	−31.96	−29.75	−70.89

Source(s): Authors’ own work