JVET-AK0338 Gap analysis and suggested updates to next-generation video coding requirements draft [J. Samuelsson-Allendes, S. Deshpande, T. Ikai (Sharp)] [late]
It was suggested to establish a joint AHG with the following mandates:
- Consider and summarize input from workshop
- Suggest refinements of draft requirements
- Review m71221, m71598 (also available as JVET)
- Collect and study additional contributions on requirements (to be provided to both orgs)
Mary-Luc Champel (a WG 2 member from Xiaomi) and Justin Ridge (an SG21 vice chair and WP3/21 co-chair, Nokia/USA) were planned to be the co-chairs of this AHG, which was agreed could hold teleconference meetings (with at least two weeks advance notice).
This was agreed in the joint meeting, but it was not reflected in the AHG plans established in the meeting recommendations of MPEG WG2 (apparently by accident). WG 2 did establish an “AhG on MPEG Use Cases and Requirements” with Champel and Igor Curcio (the WG 2 Convenor from Nokia) as co-chairs. In practice, collaboration during the interim period can take place with a less formalized relationship.
It was agreed that JVET would issue a “draft experiment on non-CTC” testing, but would not issue a document with the title “CfE” from the current meeting.
BoGs (0)
Not break-out groups were established at this meeting to conduct discussion and develop recommendations on particular subjects (this section retained for future use).
Liaison communications (0)
The following liaison statements were received at this meeting (section retained as a template for future use).
…
The liaison response WG 5 N XXX was reviewed in JVET on XXday XX at XXXX-XXXX. The draft reply was also presented in the MPEG AG 3 Communication meeting XXday XX at 1500-1800.
Project planning
Software timeline
ECM 16.0 software (including all adoptions) was planned to be available 3 weeks after the meeting (12 February).
The NNVC 12.0 codebase software was planned to be available 3 weeks after the meeting (12 February).
Extensions on top of VTM23.6 software will be released as appropriate (integration and updates of SEI messages included in JVET-AK2006 by the current meeting).
Updates on top of HM18.0 and JM19.1 software will be released as appropriate (e.g., integration and updates of SEI messages included in JVET-AK1006 and JVET-AK1017 by the current meeting).
As a general rule in software development, a person who is executing a merge shall not be from the same company as the person who submitted that merge request.
Core experiment and exploration experiment planning
An EE on neural network-based video coding was established, as recorded in output document JVET-AK2023.
An EE on enhanced compression technology beyond VVC capability using techniques other than neural-network technology was also established, as recorded in output document JVET-AK2024.
Initial versions of these documents were presented and approved.
Drafting of specification text, encoder algorithm descriptions, and software
The following agreement has been established: the editorial team has the discretion to not integrate recorded adoptions for which the available text is grossly inadequate (and cannot be fixed with a reasonable degree of effort), if such a situation hypothetically arises. In such an event, the text would record the intent expressed by the committee without including a full integration of the available inadequate text.
Plans for improved efficiency and contribution consideration
The group considered it important to have the full design of proposals documented to enable proper study.
Adoptions need to be based on properly drafted working draft text (on normative elements) and HM/VTM encoder algorithm descriptions – relative to the existing drafts. Proposal contributions should also provide a software implementation (or at least such software should be made available for study and testing by other participants at the meeting, and software must be made available to cross-checkers in EEs).
Suggestions for future meetings included the following generally-supported principles:
- Normative contributions (relating to changes in bitstream/decoder) shall include draft specification text
- Proposals shall contain all details relevant for understanding and be self-contained. In cases where the document is a follow-up of a previous contribution, the overall concept and the novelties should be highlighted at minimum
- Coding tool and encoder optimization proposals shall contain Excel sheets that allow assessment on a per-sequence basis
- Algorithm description text is strongly encouraged for non-normative contributions that are intended to be included in model description documents (VTM, ECM, etc.), and that is required for inclusion in TR drafts.
- Early upload deadline to enable substantial study prior to the meeting
- Using a clock timer to ensure efficient proposal presentations (5 min) and discussions (not exercised currently)
As general guidance, it was suggested to avoid usage of company names in document titles, software modules etc., and not to describe a technology by using a company name.
General issues for experiments
It was emphasized that those rules which had been set up or refined during the 12th JVET meeting should be observed. In particular, for some CEs of some previous meetings, results were available late, and some changes in the experimental setup had not been sufficiently discussed on the JVET reflector.
Group coordinated experiments have been planned as follows:
- “Core experiments” (CEs) are the coordinated experiments on coding tools which are deemed to be interesting but require more investigation and could potentially become part of a draft standard by the next meeting or in the near future.
- “Exploration experiments” (EEs) are also coordinated experiments. These are conducted on technology which is not foreseen to become part of a draft standard in the near future. The investigating methodology for assessment of such technology can also be an important part of an EE. (Further general rules for EEs, as far as deviating from the CE rules below, should be discussed in a future meeting. For the current meeting, procedures as described in the EE description document are deemed to be sufficient.)
- A CE is a test of a specific fully described technology in a specific agreed way. It is not a forum for thinking of new ideas (like an AHG). The CE coordinators are responsible for making sure that the CE description is complete and correct and has adequate detail. Reflector discussions about CE description clarity and other aspects of CE plans are encouraged.
- A description of each experiment is to be approved at the meeting at which the experiment plan is established. This should include the issues that were raised by other experts when the tool was presented, e.g., interference with other tools, contribution of different elements that are part of a package, etc. The experiment description document should provide the names of individual people, not just company names.
- Software for tools investigated in a CE will be provided in one or more separate branches of the software repository. Each CE will have a “fork” of the software, and within the CE there may be multiple branches established by the CE coordinator. The software coordinator will help coordinate the creation of these forks and branches and their naming. All JVET members will have read access to the CE software branches (using shared read-only credentials as described below).
- During the experiment, revisions of the experiment plans can be made, but not substantial changes to the proposed technology. Withdrawing parts of experiments that were intended to show the individual benefits of a tool or parts of a tool is strongly discouraged. Combination tests may not be considered in such cases. Any changes made to individual tools in a combination shall be documented.
- The CE description must match the CE testing that is done. The CE description needs to be revised if there has been some change of plans.
- The CE summary report must describe any changes that were made in the process of finalizing the CE.
- By the next meeting it is expected that at least one independent cross-checker will report a detailed analysis of each proposed feature that has been tested and confirm that the implementation is correct. Commentary on the potential benefits and disadvantages of the proposed technology in cross-checking reports is highly encouraged. Having multiple cross-checking reports is also highly encouraged (especially if the cross-checking involves more than confirmation of correct test results). The reports of cross-checking activities may (and generally should) be integrated into the CE report rather than submitted as separate documents.
- It is mandatory to report encoder optimizations made for the benefit of a tool, and if an equivalent optimization could be applied on the anchor, a comparison against the improved anchor shall be provided.
- A new proposal can be included in a CE based on group decision, regardless if an independent party has already performed a cross-check in the meeting when it was first proposed.
It is possible to define sub-experiments within particular CEs, for example designated as CEX.a, CEX.b, etc., where X is the basic CE number.
As a general rule, it was agreed that each CE should be run under the same testing conditions using one software codebase, which should be based on the group test model software codebase. An experiment is not to be established as a CE unless there is access given to the participants in (any part of) the CE to the software used to perform the experiments.
The general agreed common conditions for single-layer coding efficiency experiments for SDR video are described in the prior output document JVET-T2010.
Experiment descriptions should be written in a way such that it is understood as a JVET output document (written from an objective “third party perspective”, not a proponent perspective – e.g., not referring to methods as “improved”, “optimized”, “enhanced”, etc.). The experiment descriptions should generally not express opinions or suggest conclusions – rather, they should just describe what technology will be tested, how it will be tested, who will participate, etc. Responsibilities for contributions to CE work should identify individuals in addition to company names.
CE descriptions contain a basic description of the technology under test, but should not contain excessively verbose descriptions of a technology (at least not unless the technology is not adequately documented elsewhere). Instead, the CE descriptions should refer to the relevant proposal contributions for any necessary further detail. However, the complete detail of what technology will be tested must be available – either in the CE description itself or in documents that are referenced in the CE description that are also available in the JVET document archive.
Any technology must have at least one cross-check partner to establish a CE – a single proponent is not enough. It is highly desirable have more than just one proponent and one cross-checker.
The CE development workflow is described at:
https://vcgit.hhi.fraunhofer.de/jvet/VVCSoftware_VTM/wikis/Core-experiment-development-workflow
CE read access is available using shared accounts: One account exists for MPEG members, which uses the usual MPEG account data. A second account exists for VCEG members with account information available in the TIES informal ftp area (IFA) system at:
https://www.itu.int/ifa/t/2017/sg16/exchange/wp3/q06/vceg_account.txt
Some agreements relating to CE activities were established as follows:
- Only qualified JVET members can participate in a CE.
- Participation in a CE is possible without a commitment of submitting an input document to the next meeting. Participation was requested by contacting the CE coordinator.
- All software, results, and documents produced in the CE should be announced and made available to JVET in a timely manner.
- A JVET CE reflector will be established and announced on the main JVET reflector. Discussion of logistics arrangements, exchange of data, minor refinement of the test plans, and preparation of documents shall be conducted on the JVET CE reflector, with subject lines prefixed by “[CEx: ]”, where “x” is the number of the CE. All substantial communications about a CE other than such details shall take place on main JVET reflector. In the case that large amounts of data are to be distributed, it is recommended to send a link to the data rather than the data itself, or upload the data as an input contribution to the next meeting.
General timeline for CEs
T1= 3 weeks after the JVET meeting: To revise the CE description and refine questions to be answered. Questions should be discussed and agreed on JVET reflector. Any changes of planned tests after this time need to be announced and discussed on the JVET reflector. Initially assigned description numbers shall not be changed later. If a test is skipped, it is to be marked as “withdrawn”.
T2 = Test model software release + 2 weeks: Integration of all tools into a separate CE branch of the VTM is completed and announced to JVET reflector.
- Initial study by cross-checkers can begin.
- Proponents may continue to modify the software in this branch until T3.
- 3rd parties are encouraged to study and make contributions to the next meeting with proposed changes
T3: 3 weeks before the next JVET meeting or T2 + 1 week, whichever is later: Any changes to the CE test branches of the software must be frozen, so the cross-checkers can know exactly what they are cross-checking. A software version tag should be created at this time. The name of the cross-checkers and list of specific tests for each tool under study in the CE plan description shall be documented in an updated CE description by this time.
T4: Regular document deadline minus 1 week: CE contribution documents including specification text and complete test results shall be uploaded to the JVET document repository (particularly for proposals targeting to be promoted to the draft standard at the next meeting).
The CE summary reports shall be available by the regular contribution deadline. This shall include documentation about crosscheck of software, matching of CE description and confirmation of the appropriateness of the text change, as well as sufficient crosscheck results to create evidence about correctness (crosscheckers must send this information to the CE coordinator at least 3 days ahead of the document deadline). Furthermore, any deviations from the timelines above shall be documented. The numbers used in the summary report shall not be changed relative to the description document.
CE reports may contain additional information about tests of straightforward combinations of the identified technologies. Such supplemental testing needs to be clearly identified in the report if it was not part of the CE plan.
New branches may be created which combine two or more tools included in the CE document or the VTM (as applicable).
It is not necessary to formally name cross-checkers in the initial version of the CE description document. To adopt a proposed feature at the next meeting, JVET would like to see comprehensive cross-checking done, with analysis of whether the description matches the software, and a recommendation of the value of the tool and given tradeoffs.
The establishment of a CE does not indicate that a proposed technology is mature for adoption or that the testing conducted in the CE is fully adequate for assessing the merits of the technology, and a favourable outcome of CE does not indicate a need for adoption of the technology into a standard or test model.
Availability of specification text is important to have a detailed understanding of the technology and also to judge what its impact on the complexity of the specification will be. There must also be sufficient time to study this in detail. CE contributions without sufficiently mature draft specification text in the CE input document should not be considered for adoption.
Lists of participants in CE documents should be pruned to include only the active participants. Read access to software will be available to all members.
Establishment of ad hoc groups
The ad hoc groups established to progress work on particular subject areas until the next meeting are described in the table below. The discussion list for all of these ad hoc groups was agreed to be the main JVET reflector (jvet@lists.rwth-aachen.de).
Chairs of AHGs were asked to send draft mandates to JRO before 2000 on 21 Jan, preferably copy from the table below and sending in a word file with changemarks.
Review of AHG plans was conducted during the plenary on Wednesday 22 Jan. 2025 at 1250–1330.
Chairs | Mtg | |
J.-R. Ohm (chair), G. J. Sullivan (vice‑chair) | N | |
Draft text and test model algorithm description editing (AHG2)
| B. Bross, C. Rosewarne (co-chairs), F. Bossen, A. Browne, S. Kim, S. Liu, J.‑R. Ohm, G. J. Sullivan, A. Tourapis, Y.-K. Wang, Y. Ye (vice‑chairs) | N |
Test model software development (AHG3)
| F. Bossen, X. Li, K. Sühring (co-chairs), E. François, Y. He, K. Sharman, V. Seregin, A. Tourapis (vice‑chairs) | N |
Test material and visual assessment (AHG4)
| V. Baroncini, T. Suzuki, M. Wien (co-chairs), W. Husak, S. Iwamura, P. de Lagrange, S. Liu, X. Meng, S. Puri, A. Segall, S. Wenger (vice-chairs) | N |
Conformance testing (AHG5)
| I. Moccagatta (chair), F. Bossen, T. Ikai, S. Iwamura, H.-J. Jhu, K. Kawamura, P. de Lagrange, S. Paluri, K. Sühring, Y. Yu (vice‑chairs) | N |
ECM software development (AHG6)
| V. Seregin (chair), J. Chen, R. Chernyak, F. Le Léannec, K. Zhang (vice-chairs) | N |
ECM tool assessment (AHG7)
| X. Li (chair), L.-F. Chen, Z. Deng, J. Gan, E. François, R. Ishimoto, H.-J. Jhu, J. Lainema, X. Li, J. Pardo, A. Stein, H. Wang (vice‑chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice) |
Optimization of encoders and receiving systems for machine analysis of coded video content (AHG8)
| S. Liu, J. Ström, S. Wang, M. Zhou (AHG chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice, joint with WG 4 AHG) |
SEI message studies (AHG9)
| S. McCarthy, Y.-K. Wang (co-chairs), J. Boyce, T. Chujoh, S. Deshpande, C. Fogg, M. M. Hannuksela, P. de Lagrange, G. J. Sullivan, H. Tan, A. Tourapis, S. Wenger, P. Wu (vice-chairs) | N |
Encoding algorithm optimization (AHG10)
| K. Andersson, P. de Lagrange, A. Duenas (co-chairs), T. Ikai, T. Solovyev, A. Tourapis (vice chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice) |
Neural network-based video coding (AHG11)
| E. Alshina, F. Galpin, S. Liu, A. Segall (co-chairs), J. Li, Y. Li, R.-L. Liao, M. Santamaria, T. Shao, M. Wien, P. Wu (vice chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice), first on Feb. 5, second on March 5 |
Enhanced compression beyond VVC capability (AHG12)
| M. Karczewicz, Y. Ye, L. Zhang (co-chairs), B. Bross, R. Chernyak, X. Li, K. Naser, Y. Yu (vice-chairs) | N |
Film grain technologies (AHG13)
| W. Husak, P. de Lagrange (co-chairs), A. Duenas, X. Meng, A. Segall, G. Teniou, A. Tourapis (vice-chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice) |
NNVC software development (AHG14)
| F. Galpin (chair), R. Chang, Yue Li, Yun Li, M. Santamaria, J. N. Shingala, Z. Xie (vice chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice), first on Feb. 5, second on March 5 |
Gaming content compression (AHG15)
| S. Puri, J. Sauer (co-chairs), R. Chernyak, A. Duenas, L. Wang, V. Zakharchenko (vice chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice) |
Generative face video compression (AHG16)
| Y. Ye (chair), H.-B. Teo, Z. Lyu, S. McCarthy, S. Wang (vice chairs) | N |
Testing of video coding technology beyond CTC (AHG17)
| M. Wien (chair), E. Alshina, V. Baroncini, P. de Lagrange, Y. Ye (vice chairs) | Y
|
Ultra-low latency and packet loss resilience (AHG18)
| S. Ikonin, S. Wenger, V. Zakharchenko (co-chairs), S. Deshpande, J. Ström, X. Ma, C. Kim, S. Puri, S. Fößel (vice-chairs) | Y (tel., 2 weeks notice) |
It was confirmed that the rules which can be found in document ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/AG 2 N 046 “Ad hoc group rules for MPEG AGs and WGs” (available at https://www.mpegstandards.org/adhoc/), are consistent with the operation mode of JVET AHGs. It is pointed out that JVET does not maintain separate AHG reflectors, such that any JVET member is implicitly a member of any AHG. This shall be mentioned in the related WG Recommendations. The list above was also issued as a separate WG 5 document (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 5 N 339) in order to make it easy to reference.
Output documents
The following documents were agreed to be produced or endorsed as outputs of the meeting. Names recorded below indicate the editors responsible for the document production. Where applicable, dates of planned finalization and corresponding parent-body document numbers are also noted.
It was reminded that in cases where the JVET document is also made available as a WG 5 output document, a separate version under the WG 5 document header should be generated. This version should be sent to GJS and JRO for upload.
The list of JVET ad hoc groups was also issued as a WG 5 output document WG 5 N 339, as noted in section 9.