Learning Optimal Lattice Vector Quantizers for End-to-end Neural Image Compression
Authors: Xi Zhang
Xiaolin Wu
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: Lattice vector quantizer
Neural image compression
Rate-distortion optimal LVQ
Primary area: machine_vision
TL;DR: This work advances the state-of-the-art end-to-end neural image compression methods by learning  the optimal shape and orientation of lattice vector quantizer cells to exploit complex inter-feature dependencies for coding gains.

Abstract: It is customary to deploy uniform scalar quantization in the end-to-end optimized Neural image compression methods, instead of more powerful vector quantization, due to the high complexity of the latter. Lattice vector quantization (LVQ), on the other hand, presents a compelling alternative, which can exploit inter-feature dependencies more effectively while keeping computational efficiency almost the same as scalar quantization. However, traditional LVQ structures are designed/optimized for uniform source distributions, hence nonadaptive and suboptimal for real source distributions of latent code space for Neural image compression tasks. In this paper, we propose a novel learning method to overcome this weakness by designing the rate-distortion optimal lattice vector quantization (OLVQ) codebooks with respect to the sample statistics of the latent features to be compressed. By being able to better fit the LVQ structures to any given latent sample distribution, the proposed OLVQ method improves the rate-distortion performances of the existing quantization schemes in neural image compression significantly, while retaining the amenability of uniform scalar quantization.

Learning Optimal Lattice Vector Quantizers for End-to-end Neural Image Compression
Xi Zhang' Xiaolin Wu
DDepartment of Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University "School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University xzhang9308@gmail. com, wu.
Abstract
it customary to deploy uniform scalar quantization in the end-to-end optimized Neural image compression methods, instead of more powerful vector quantization, due the high complexity of the latter. Lattice vector quantization (LVQ), the other hand, presents a compelling alternative, which can exploit inter-feature depen- dencies more effectively while keeping computational efficiency almost the same as scalar quantization. However, traditional LVQ structures are designed/optimized for uniform source distributions, hence nonadaptive and suboptimal for real source distributions of latent code space for Neural image compression tasks. In this paper, we propose novel learning method to overcome this weakness by designing the rate-distortion optimal lattice vector quantization (OLVQ) codebooks with respect the sample statistics of the latent features be compressed. By being able better fit the LVQ structures to any given latent sample distribution, the proposed OLVQ method improves the rate-distortion performances of existing quan- tization schemes in neural image compression significantly, while retaining the amenability uniform scalar quantization.
Introduction
Deep neural network (DNN) based image compression methods have quickly merged as the winner of rate-distortion performance over all their competitors, which is remarkable achievement considering decades of slow progress in this heavily researched field. Their successes are mostly due to the capability of DNNs learn compact and yet versatile latent representations of images. Nevertheless, all neural image compression systems will not be complete without the quantization and entropy coding modules for the learnt latent features.
Contrary to the sophistication of highly expressive non-linear latent image representations, quantizing the latent representations (the bottleneck of the autoencoder compression architecture) is done, in current prevailing practice, by uniform scalar quantizer. This design decision is apparently made in favor of the simplicity and computational efficiency. However, uniform scalar quantization inevitably limited in capturing complex inter-featur dependencies present in the latent space, leading lower coding efficiency, particularly for highly correlated skewed source distributions.
In data compression, a common approach of overcoming the limitations of scalar quantization is vector quantization (VQ), in which vector of tokens is quantized whole into VQ codeword, allowing for effective exploitation of inter-feature dependencies. But designing optimal vector quantizers is an NP-hard problem. Moreover, the VQ encoding requires the expensive nearest neighbor search in high dimensional space. One way of balancing between the complexity and compression performance is to introduce some structures into the quantizers. Lattice vector quantization (LVQ) is such approach.
"Coresponning author.
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2024).

---

(e). Scalar quantizer
[b). Lattice vector quantizers
[c]. General vector quantizer
Figure I: Two-dimensional visual examples for (a) scalar quantizer, (b) lattice vector quantizer and (c) general vector quantizer.
In LVQ, codewords spatially organized into regular -igh-siinnsinnal lattice such that both LVQ encoding and decoding operations become almost as simple as in uniform quantization while achieving smaller quantization distortions.
Figure contrasts the differences of three different types of quantizers: uniform scalar quantizer (USQ), lattice vector quantizer, and general free-form vector quantizer in two dimensions. As fully unconstrained VQ can have arbitrary Voronoi cell shapes, the VQ codewords can placed to best the source distributions among the three quantization schemes. But its lack of structures forces the VQ encoder to make a nearest neighbor decision that is expensive and not amenable to the end-to-end optimization of neural compression models. LVQ is a more efficient covering of the space than USQ and hence achieves higher coding efficiency; more importantly, the former enjoys the same advantages of the latter in easy and fast end-to-end DNN implementations [6]-
In this paper, we propose novel learning approach to adapt the LVQ geometry to distributions of latent DNN features to be compressed, and improve the rate-distortion performance of existing LVQ designs for the tasks of compressing latent features of autocncoder architecture and neuron weights in general. The key contribution of our work is to abandon the traditional LVQ design goal of pursuing the partition of vector space with congruent quantizer cells whose shape as close to hypersphere as possible. Instead, we propose method to learn the bases of the LVQ generation matrix from sample statistics for minimum distortion. Such learnt bases are able to shape and orientate the quantizer cells to capture the correlations of latent features.
Through extensive experimentation on standard benchmark datasets, we demonstrate effectiveness of our approach in significantly improving the compression performance of DNN-based image compression systems. Our method outperforms existing DNN quantization schemes terms of both rate-distortion performance and computational complexity, increasing the cost-effectiveness of DNN image compression models.
In summary, this work advances the state-of-the-ar of the end-to-end DNN image compression by learning the optimal shape and orientation LVQ cells to exploit complex inter-feature dependencies for coding gains. The proposed learning approach of adapting LVQ codebooks to the underlying data distribution opens up a promising new path towards more resource efficient, practical and yet near-optimal solutions to the problem of DNN-based visual signal compression. Moreover, with minor adjustments, our work can be generalized lossy compression of all other DNN models.
Related Work
Ballé et al. (6) pioneered the end-to-end CNN model for image compression, significantly advancing the field by integrating nonlinear transforms into the classical threc-step signal compression frame- work: transform, quantization, and entropy coding. The key advantage this CNN approach over traditional methods lies in replacing linear transforms with more powerful and complex nonlinear transforms, leveraging the distinctive capabilities of deep neural networks.
Following the groundbreaking work of Ballé er al. numerous end-to-end compression methods have emerged, further enhaneing rate-distortion (R-D) performance. These advancements have been achieved by introducing more sophisticated nonlinear transforms and more efficient context entropy models 22 29). Additionally, other works have focused on adaptive context models for entropy 7 35| 26), with CNN methods by Minnen etal. [35] 26 outperforming
estimation, including
32

---

BPG in PSNR. Further, some studies have concentrated on content content-adaptive adaptive approaches by updating encoder-side components during inference
41
37 28 A substantial body of literature [T3 30
36
33
46
20
24
47
19
21
42 has also sought to improve R-D performance or coding
efficiency. More recently, transformer- based image compression methods (50 31 have been proposed
as superior solutions over CNNs. Diffusion model-based image compression 45 methods are also being explored by many researchers.
In most published end-to-end optimized DNN image compression methods, the quantization function typically adopts a uniform scalar quantizer rather than vector quantizer. Few studies B 49
48 25 16,
[7] have delved into vector quantization in end-to-end image compression networks. Agustsson etal. 31 proposed so-called noft-to-hard vector quantization module to bridge the nearest neighbor decision process of VQ and variational backpropagation necessary for end-to-eng CNN training. Their technique is soft (continuous) relaxation of the branching operation of VQ. allowing the VQ effects to be approximated in end-to-end training. Zhu etal.[49] proposed probabilistic vector quantization with cascaded estimation to estimate means and covariances. However, the optimization goal in their work only considers the distortion term, overlooking the crucial design requirement of coding rates. More recently, Zhang et al. [48] suggested replacing scalar quantizers with pre-defined lattice quantizer to construct an end-to-end image compression system, achieving improved rate-distortion performance with minimal increase in model complexity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to investigate the learning of optimal lattice vector quantizers within end-to-end optimized DNN image compression systems.
3 Method
In this section, we introduce our method for integrating learnable lattice vector quantization (LVQ) into end-to-end optimized DNN image compression systems. We begin with brief introduction of background on lattice vector quantization. Following this, the concept of lattice and its mathematical properties are introduced. Next, we present our approach for differential lattice vector quantization, which enables the incorporation of LVQ into the backpropagation framework necessary for end-to-end training. We then describe the rate estimation based on the mixture of multivariate Gaussians, which essential for entropy coding of the quantized features. Finally, we outline our method for learning the optimal lattice codebook through end-to-end training, ensuring that the quantization scheme is tailored to the specific characteristics of the image data.
3.1 Background
Lattice vector quantization (LVQ) 18 40 is a technique used in digital signal processing and data compression for efficient representation of data. It belongs to the broader family of vector quantization methods, which involves dividing large set of vectors into smaller, representative clusters. In LVQ, the set of representative vectors is organized into regular lattice structure within a multi-dimensional space. This lattice structure is defined by set of basis vectors, known lattice vectors, which form the nodes or points of the lattice. The LVQ process involves mapping input vectors from a high-dimensional space onto the nearest lattice points, effectively quantizing the input data by selecting the closest lattice point for each input vector. This quantized representation of the original data helps in reducing the amount of data while maintaining high level of accuracy, In the context of image compression, LVQ offers significant advantages such as reduced computational complexity and memory requirements compared to other vector quantization methods.
3.2 Definition of Lattice
A lattice A in IR" is discrete subgroup of R" that spans the space R2" as a vector space over I. Mathematically, lattice can be expressed as:
A = fo E Rd
Σ bem,, my E Z},
where by, be...., bn are linearly independent vectors in R., called the basis vectors of the lattice. In other words, a vector a lattice point if it can formed as linear combination of the basis vectors scaled by integers m, E Z.
3

---

The matrix matrix-form representation of the above equation is:
A = f E R" x: = Bm, m E )
(2)
where is an nt n matrix called the basis (or generator) matrix:
B = 01 b2
b
(3)
It can be observed that lattice A is fully determined by its basis matrix B. Therefore, learning lattice codebook is equivalent to learning the basis matrix B.
The Voronoi cell of a lattice point A is defined the set of points closer to than to any other lattice points:
V(x)
E R" ||
=1 S I| - 2 v/ E A}.
The LVQ codewords are the centroids the Voronoi polyhedrons, which are of the same size.
3.3 Differential lattice vector quantization
Given lattice A and any vector v E IR" to be quantized, applying lattice vector quantization qi on involves finding the lattice point q (v) in A that closest to v. This can mathematically expressed as:
(q(()) w1| - - - v|1.
Vx E A.
(5)
This is known as the classical closest vector problem (CVP) [34 21. which is NP-complete. Addi- tionally, it is not differentiable, and thus cannot be directly integrated into the end-to-end learning scheme.
To address this challenge. we propose using Babai's Rounding Technique (BRT) [5] to estimate vector that is sufficiently close to v. although may not be the exact closest lattice point to Specifically, according to BRT, any given vector v can be quantized to sufficiently close lattice point by:
(v) BB
(6)
where |.1 represents the rounding operation. During training. the rounding operation is replaced by adding uniform noise to enable integration into end-to-end optimization.
However, our experiments revealed that the BRT-estimated lattice vector may be far away from the exact closest lattice point if the cell shape of the optimized LVQ arbitrary and unconstrained. This discrepancy causes an inconsistency between training and inference, if the learnt lattice vector quantizer is employed in the inference stage. As analyzed in (5), the BRT-estimated lattice point will approach the closest lattice point if the basis vectors of the generator matrix are mutually orthogonal. For this reason, propose impose orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix, enhancing the accuracy of the BRT-estimated lattice point and reducing the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.
The orthogonality constraint on the basis vectors (b,, i = 1,..., n) can be expressed as:
b, 0, Vi &
where b, and b, are the basis vectors in the basis matrix B. By imposing orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors, we can enhance the accuracy of the estimates provided by Babai's 's Rounding Technique (BRT) and improve training stability. This approach effectively reduces errors in practical applications, providing more reliable quantization results.
According to 23), the initialization of lattice basis matrix is also important for stable training. To this end, propose to give a good initialization of the basis matrix, by uniformly initializing B as in the following equation:
1
1
B U VS- VS
(8)
where S is the desired codebook size of learned lattice vector quantizers. The above range is derived by assuming idealized quantization on a set of linearly independent dimensions, providing us with initializing point for the lattice density.

---

3.4 Rate estimation
In the proposed LVQ-based end-to-end image compression system, the latent features are quantized to the nearest lattice vector point and then compressed using entropy coding techniques, such as arithmetic coding [39]. Entropy coding of the lattice vectors requires estimating their (conditional) probability distributions.
In end-to-end image compression methods, a mixture of Gaussians is commonly used to model the (conditional) probability distribution of latent features. Extending this approach, we propose model the probability distribution for the lattice vectors using a mixture of r--dienniioal multivariate Gaussians 49]
/ ((m)
Pm
Σ
Pax MR. Ex)da,
(9)
k=1
+ (at)
(10)
where ua and Σx the mean and covariance matrix of the k-th Gaussian component, respectively. represents the mixture coefficients, (mm is the area of Voronoi polyhedron.
Computing the integral in the equations above presents a significant numerical challenge, primarily because the integration region, (mm). forms a complex polytope in most lattice structures. Addition- ally, as dimensionality increases, the computational complexity of evaluating these integrals becomes impractical. To address this challenge, Kudo etal. 25 proposed an approach using Monte Carlo (MC) estimation approximate these irregular integrals. Specifically, they apply Quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) method, which leverages cow-discrepancy sequences, such as Faure sequences, for sampling. The QMC method offers key advantage in convergence rate over the conventional MC method, achieving nearly O(1 (M) convergence opposed the slower O(1 / /VMMM) convergence rate of traditional MC methods. However, since the MC/QMC method contains estimation error, which may lead to the encoding/decoding failure during the inference stage.
We adopt another approach to overcome the difficulty of integration over a irregular region. As discussed in Section 3.3 to reduce the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference, we apply orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix B. Given that the basis vectors are approximately orthogonal, the joint probability distribution of a lattice vector point can be approximately decomposed into the product of the probability distributions of each independent variable in the vector. Assuming that each variable in the vector m is modeled by mixture of univariate Gaussians, Equation 10 can be rewritten as:
3.3
K DxN (x; Ex)
Pm I
Σ ok
of)
(11)
[(m) k=
((m)) k=1
The parameters ok', 14 and of are predicted by neural network which is trained along with the entire compression system. Given the predicted probability distribution Equation II the estimated rate of the lattice vector can be expressed as:
R E log20m (x)) Ex loga
II
Σ ((m)) k=
ox ot)ds').
(12)
By decomposing the joint distribution in this manner, significantly reduce the computational complexity, making the method more practical and efficient. This decomposition leverages the orthogonality of the basis vectors, ensuring that the joint probability can be approximated by the product of marginal probabilities, thus enhancing the feasibility entropy estimation in high- dimensional spaces.
In addition, for lattice vector quantization, essentially involves finding the integer combination coefficients of the basis vectors that correspond to the closest lattice point. Therefore, coding the quantized features (lattice vector) equivalent to coding the integer combination coefficients (indexes) of the basis vectors. We used the latter in our experiments due to its convenience.
5

---

3.5 Learning lattice codebook via end-fo-end training
In end-to-end optimized DNN image compression methods, an image vector RN is mapped to a latent code space via a parametric nonlinear analysis transform, Y (I; 8 g.). This representation is then quantized by lattice vector quantizer, yielding -aauuete-valued vector Y (Y()) E Z ZM which can be losslessly compressed using entropy coding algorithms such as arithmetic coding [39 43 and transmitted as a sequence of bits. At the decoder side, is recovered from the compressed codes and subjected to a parametric nonlinear synthesis transform 9s (Y; Q9) to reconstruct the image L. The nonlinear parametric transforms ga (I: and gs (Y; Φg) are implemented using convolutional neural networks, with parameters 9g and by learned from a large dataset of natural images.
The training objective is to minimize both the expected length of the bitstream and the expected distortion of the reconstructed image relative to the original, resulting in a tareeddstoottooooortoooooo optimization problem:
minimize
D + X2 L R = Bi |- logg Py (gr (T))) Ei-pi [d([,, go (ga (D))
R+ + d1 D.-D-
(13)
L
Σ 6a b
where pr the (unknown) distribution of source images, and py is a discrete entropy model. X is the Lagrange multiplier that determines the desired rate-distortion trade-off and A is Lagrange multiplier for the regularization term of orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors. q (-) represents lattice vector quantization as described in Equation The first term (rate) corresponds to the cross-entropy between the marginal distribution of the latent variables and the learned entropy model, which is minimized when the two distributions match. The second term (distortion) measures the reconstruction error between the original and reconstructed images. The third term controls the orthogonality of the basis vectors for the learned lattice codebook.
4 Experiments
To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed lattice vector quantization method for end-to-end image compression, we conducted a series of experiments on widely-used image datasets. This section details the experimental setup, including the network architectures, datasets, training details, evaluation metrics, etc. We also provide comprehensive analysis of the performance of our method, highlighting its advantages in terms of rate-distortion performance and computational efficiency.
4.1 Experiment setup
In this part, we describe the experiment setup including the following four aspects: ture, context model, training and evaluation.
network architec-
Network. We aim evaluate the superiority of the proposed OLVQ method over the scalar quantizer across models with varying complexities. To this end, we selected three well-known networks that considered milestones in end-to-end image compression: Bmshj2018 [7], SwinT-ChARR [50), and LIC-TCM [31] These models range in complexity from low to high, allowing us to assess the adaptability of the LVQ to different levels of model complexity and provide more comprehensive comparison.
Context model. In addition to model complexity, also aim to evaluate the adaptability of LVQ to different context models. Specifically, we test four common context models varying in complexity from low to high: Factorized (7]. Checkerboard (20). Channel-wise Autoregressive (36], and Spatial- wise Autoregressive [35). By systematically testing the LVQ against these context models, we can determine its effectiveness in enhancing compression efficiency and adaptability. This evaluation will help us understand the benefits and limitations of LVQ in both simple and complex settings, providing valuable insights into its practical applicability in real-world image compression tasks.
Training. The training dataset comprises high-quality images carefully selected from the ImageNet dataset [15). To ensure robust and challenging training process, filter the images from ImageNet

---

to include only those with a resolution exceeding one million pixels. This ensures that the dataset consists of detailed and complex images, which are crucial for training effective image compression models. Training images are then aandom-rropped to 256 x 256 and batched into 16. This crop- based approach not only maximizes the utilization of each high-resolution image but also introduces variability, which is crucial for robust training.
We undertake the training of all combinations of the three selected networks and the four context models from scratch. Each network and context model combination is trained for 3 million iterations. We train each model using the Adam optimizer with B = 0.9, 82 = 0.999. The initial learning rate is set to 10 for the first 2M iterations, and then decayed to 10 for another 1M iterations training. All modules including the proposed learnable lattice vector quantization modules are implemented in Py TyToch and CompressAl 99. All experiments are conducted with four RTX 3090 GPUs.
In general, the latent feature of an image is represented We choose to group features by channels instead of spatial dimensions, as features across different channels at the same spatial location exhibit strong correlations, making them well-suited for lattice vector quantization. The dimension of each vector is set to 32. Consequently, the quantized output of a latent feature with an initial size of H W X C will have a size of HI W x C resulting in thicker cube with the same spatial dimensions but fewer channels.
cube with dimensions H x W C.
32
Evaluation. The trained compression models are evaluated on two widely used datasets: the Kodak dataset [14] and the CLIC validation set [8]. These datasets are chosen for their diversity and representativennss of real-world image content, making them ideal benchmarks for assessing the performance of image compression algorithms. We evaluate the different models using the Bjøntegaard delta rate (BI>-rate) [TO), metric that quantifies the average bitrate savings for the same level of reconstruction quality. The BD-rate provides a comprehensive measure of compression efficiency by comparing the rate-distortion curves of different methods. For each model, the BD-rate is computed for every image in the datasets, ensuring a thorough assessment of performance. The individual BD-rate values are then averaged across all images within each dataset, offering a robust indicator of overall compression efficiency. By utilizing BD-rate, we can objectively compare the bitrate savings achieved by our proposed optimal lattice vector quantizer (LVQ) method against traditional scalar quantizers across models of varying complexities coupled with different context models. This evaluation helps to highlight the strengths and potential limitations of our approach in practical scenarios.
4.2 Comparison with scalar quantizer
Table presents the bitrate savings achieved by the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization (LVQ) method over the scalar quantizer across different image compression networks and context models. Based on the results, we can make several observations:
Overall Performance Trends. Across all context models and network configurations, the OLVQ
method consistently achieves bitrate savings over the scalar quantizer. Besides, the effectiveness of LVQ decreases as the complexity of the context model increases.
Performance Across Networks. For Bmshj2018, the OLVQ method achieves the highest bitrate savings with this network, ranging from -22.60% with the Factorized context model to -8.31% % with the Spatial-wiss Autoregressive model. For SwinT-ChARM, the savings are more modest compared to Bmshj2018, with the highest savings of -12444% for the Factorized context model and the lowest of -2.31% % for the Spatial-wise Autoregressive model. For LIC-TCM, this network shows the least savings, with the highest at -8.51% % (Factorized) and the lowest at -0.95% (Spatial-wise Autoregressive).
Impact of Context Models. The Factorized context model consistently shows the highest bitrate savings across all networks. This suggests that simpler context models benefit more from the OLVQ method. The Checkerboard and Channel-wise Autoregressive models show intermediate savings, indicating that while LVQ is beneficial, the gains reduced as the context model becomes more complex. The Spatial-wise Autoregressive model, being the most complex, shows the least bitrate savings. This indicates that the benefits of LVQ diminish as the context model complexity increases.
In summary, the proposed OLVQ method significantly improves bitrate savings over scalar quantiza- tion, especially in simpler networks and context models. However, its effectiveness diminishes with
7

---

Table 1: Results of bitrate savings achieved by the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization (OLVQ) method over the scalar quantizer across different image compression networks and context models. The lattice vector dimension is set 32 here.
Network
Bmshj2018
SwinT-ChARM 50
LIC-TCM 31
Context model
Factorized (w/o context)
-22.60%
-12.44%
-8.51%
Checkerboard 20
-11.94%
-6.37%
-2.18%
Channel-wise Autoregressive
36
-10.61%
-5.61 %
-2.03%
Spatial-wise Autoregressive
35
-8.31%
-2.31%
-0.95%
(a) MSE Kodak
(b) MSE CLIC
(c) SSIM Kodak
(d) SSIM CLIC
Figure Rate-distortion curves for the Bmshj2018 model on the Kodak and CLIC datasets, evaluated in terms of MSE and SSIM.
the increasing complexity of the context models and networks. This indicates that while LVQ is powerful tool for improving compression efficiency, its benefits more pronounced in less complex settings. This insight can guide the choice of quantization methods based on the complexity of the image compression model and context model being used.
We also provide R-D curves for the Bmshj2018 model on the Kodak and CLIC datasets in Fig. It can be observed from these R-D curves that the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization consistently improves the existing compression models in both low and high bitrate cases. However, the performance gain is more pronounced lower bitrates. can also be observed that the proposed OLVQ method coupled with the factorized entropy model can approach the performance of the autoregressive entropy model, particularly low bitrates. For high bitrates, the autoregressive entropy model still has an edge. Given this, we believe that the proposed OLVQ method can serve as viable alternative the autoregressive entropy model, especially in scenarios where low bitrate performance is crucial and computational efficiency is a priority. The factorized entropy model, being less computationally intensive, combined with our OLVQ method, offers an attractive trade-off between performance and efficiency.
4.3 Comparison with non-lcarned lattice vector quantizers
In addition the comparison with scalar quantizer, also conduct comarisons agasin the classical non-learned lattice vector quantizers, such as Gosset lattice (E8), Barnes -all lattice (A 16) and Leech lattice (A24). Table 2 tabulates the bitrate savings achieved by classical pre-defined lattice vector quantizers and the learned optimal lattice vector quantizers over the scalar quantizer, across different image compression models (Bmshj2018 and (winT-ChARM) and context models (Factorized and Checkerboard), Based on the results, several observations can be made:
Overall Performance Comparison. The learned optimal lattice vector quantizers consistently outper- form the classical pre-defined lattice vector quantizers across all configurations, which demonstrates the effectiveness of learning the lattice structures tailored to specific (unknown) source distributions of latent space.
Impact of Lattice Dimensions. The optimized 8-dimension lattice shows significant improvements over the Gosset lattice (E8). The highest improvement is seen in Bmshj2018 model with the Factorized context, achieving 10.92% compared to -6.58%. For 16-dimension, the optimized lattice

---

Table 2: Results of bitrate savings achieved by classical pre-defined lattice vector quantizers and the learned optimal lattice vector quantizers over the scalar quantizer, across different image compression models and context models.
Auto-encoder size
Bmshj2018
SwinT-ChARM [50]
Context model
Factorized
Checkerboard
Factorized
Checkerboard
E8, Gosset lattice
-6.58%
-4.95%
-5.12%
-2.19%
Optimized 8-dimension lattice
10.92%
-6.47%
-6.03%
-3.02%
A16, Barnes-War Wall lattice
-8.15%
-6.15%
-5.23%
-3.12%
Optimized 16-dimension lattice
-15.73%
-8.82%
-7.42%
-4.64%
A24, Leech lattice
-12.82%
-7.54%
-6.69%
-3.47%
Optimized 24-dimension lattice
-20.49%
-10.71%
-10.68%
-5.89%
provides substantial bitrate savings over the Barnes-Wall lattice (A16). Notably, for Bmshj2018 with Factorized context, the optimized lattice achieves -15.73%, a marked improvement from -8.15%. For 24-dimension, the optimized lattice shows the greatest bitrate savings, particularly in the Bmshj2018 model. The highest improvement is observed in the Bmshj2018 model with Factorized context, with savings of -20.49% compared to -1.82%.
Impact of Context Models. Factorized context models generally exhibit greater savings than Checkerboard contexts. This trend is evident in both pre-defined and optimized lattices, indicating that simpler context models may benefit more from lattice optimization. The largest relative improvement by the optimized lattice over the classical lattice is seen with Factorized context, suggesting that the gains from learning the lattice structure are more pronounced in simpler context settings.
In summary, the learned optimal lattice vector quantizers demonstrate substantial improvements in bitrate savings over classical pre-defined lattice quantizers. The benefits are more pronounced in lattices and simpler context models. This trend suggests that sigher-dimensionll optimized lattices are more adaptable and efficient, providing superior performance across different models and context configurations.
4.4 Comparison with general vector quantizers
We conduct comparisons between the lattice vector quantizers (LVQ) and the general vector quantizers (GVQ) and report the bitrate savings over scalar quantizer in Table
Table 3: Results of bitrate savings achieved by the learned optimal lattice vector quantizers and general vector quantizers over uniform scalar quantizer, across different image compression models and context models.
Auto-encoder size
Bmshj2018
SwinT-ChARM (0
Context model
Factorized
Checkerboard
Factorized Checkerboard
Optimized 8-dimension LVQ
-10.92%
-6.47%
-6.03%
-3.02%
Optimized 8-dimension GVQ
-12.10%
-7.82%
-7.59%
-4. -419%
Optimized 16 16-dimension LVQ
-15.73%
-8.82%
-7.42%
-4.64%
Optimized 16-dimension GVQ
-17.59%
-10.48%
.9.41%
-6.03%
Optimized 24-dimension LVQ
-20.49%
-10.71%
-10.68%
-5.89%
Optimized 24-dimension GVQ
-22.74%
-12.80%
-13.15%
-8.28%
can be seen that, for both Bmshj2018 and SwinT-ChARM models, the optimized lattice vector quantizer is approaching the perfromance of the optimized general vector quantizer (GVQ) in terms of bitrate savings. This trend is observed across all dimensions (8, 16, and 24) and context models (Factorized and Checkerboard). Besides, increasing the dimension of the quantizer (from 8 to 24) leads to greater bitrate savings for both LVQ and GVQ. This consistent across models and context types. For instance, the bitrate savings for the Bmshj2018 model with a Factorized context model improves from 10.92% (8-dimension LVQ) 20.49% (24-dimension LVQ), and from -12, 10% (8-dimension GVQ) to -22.74% (24-dimension GVQ).

---

4.5 Inference time
In this subsection, we compare the inference times of three different quantization methods: uniform scalar quantizer (USQ), lattice vector quantizer (LVQ), and general vector quantizer (GVQ). Table 4 tabulates the inference times of different quantizers across varying dimensions.
Table 4:
Inference times of three different quantization methods: uniform scalar quantizer (USQ), lattice vector quantizer (LVQ), and general vector quantizer (GVQ) across different dimensions. For GVQ, the codebook size is adjusted be larger as the dimension increases.
Dimension
16
32
Quantizer
Uniform scalar quantizer (USQ)
5ms
Lattice vector quantizer (LVQ)
18ms
22ms
40ms
General vector quantizer (GVQ)
123ms
~ 216ms
~ 454ms
First, expected, the USQ demonstrates extremely low inference time (approximately 5ms), re- flecting its simplicity and efficiency. The LVQ shows moderate inference times across the evaluated dimensions. For an 8-dimensional quantization, LVQ takes about 18ms, increasing to 40ms for 32-dimensional quantization. This increase in time relatively modest compared to GVQ, indicating that LVQ scales more efficiently with dimension size. In contrast, the GVQ incurs significantly higher inference times, particularly as the dimension increases. At dimensions, GVQ takes around 123ms, which escalates to 454ms at 32 dimensions. This substantial increase highlights the computa- tional complexity associated with GVQ, especially with larger codebook sizes required for higher dimensions. Overall, the LVQ provides good balance between inference time and scalability. While not as fast as USQ, LVQ's inference times remain manageable and much lower than those of GVQ, particularly for higher-diment dimenssonaa data. This makes LVQ viable option for applications requiring efficient and scalable vector quantization.
4.6 Limitation
While the proposed OLVQ method demonstrates significant improvements in rate-distortion perfor- mance for DNN-based image compression, one limitation must be acknowledged: The proposed method is particularly well-suited for lightweight end-to-end image compression models that adopt inexpensive context models. These models typically benefit more from the enhanced exploitation of inter-feature dependencies provided by LVQ. For the heavy-duty compression models that employ complex auto-encoders and sophisticated context models, the performance gains achieved by the proposed OLVQ method are relatively modest.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we addressed the limitations of traditional lattice vector quantization (LVQ) in the context of end-to-end DNN image compression. While LVQ offers the potential to more effectively exploit inter-feature dependencies compared to uniform scalar quantization, its design has historically been suboptimal for real-world distributions of latent code spaces. To overcome this, we introduced a novel learning method that designs rate dite-distottion optimal LVQ codebooks tailored to the sample statistics of the latent features. Our proposed method successfully adapts the LVQ structures to any given latent sample distribution, significantly improving the rate-distortion performance of existing quantization schemes in DNN-based image compression. This enhancement is achieved without compromising the computational efficiency characteristic of uniform scalar quantization. Our results demonstrate that by better fitting LVQ structures to actual data distributions, one can achieve superior compression performance. paving the way for more efficient and effective image compression techniques in practical applications.
Broader Impact
The proposed OLVQ method not only advances the state of image compression technology but also offers practical benefits across multiple industries and for end-users. Its ability to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance user experiences underscores its potential for making a positive and substantial impact on both technology and society.
10

---

Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.62301313)
and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project (No.2024T170559,
References
[1] Erik Agrell and Thomas Eriksson. Optimization of lattices for quantization. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 4455)11814-1888, 1998.
[2] Erik Agrell, Thomas Eriksson, Alexander Vardy, and Kenneth Zeger. Closest point search in lattices. IEEE transactions on information theory, 48(8):2201-2114, 2002.
[3] Eirikur Agustsson, Fabian Mentzer, Michael Tschannen, Lukas Cavigelli, Radu Timofte, Luca Benini, and Luc Van Gool. Soft-to-hard vector quantization for end-to-end learning compressible representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pages 1141-1151, 2017.
[4] Eirikur Agustsson, Michael Tschannen, Fabian Mentzer, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Generative adversarial networks for extreme learned image compression. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 221-231, 2019.
[5] László Babai. On lovász' 'latizz'' reduction and the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica, 6:1-13, 1986.
[6] Johannes Ballé, Valero Laparra, and Eero P. Simoncelli. End-to-end optimized image compres- sion. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2017.
[7] Johannes Ballé, David Minnen, Saurabh Singh, Sung Jin Hwang, and Nick Johnston. Variational image compression with a scale hyperprior. 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR. OpenReview.net, 2018.
[8] Johannes Ballé, George Toderici, Luca Versari, and etal. Workshop and challenge on learned image compression. httt:://compression.... 2018.
[9] Jean Bégaint, Fabien Racapé, Simon Feltman, and Akshay Pushparaja. Compressai: a py- torch library and evaluation platform for end-to-end compression research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03022 2020.
[10] Gisle Bjontegaard. Calculation of average psnr differences between rd-curves. ITU SG16 Doc. VCEG-M33, 2001.
[11] Marlène Carcil, Matthew J Muckley, Jakob Verbeek, and Stéphane Lathuilière. Towards image compression with perfect realism ultra-low bitrates. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
[12] Zhengxue Cheng, Heming Sun, Masaru Takeuchi, and Jiro Katto. Learned image compression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules. In 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattrnn Recognition, CVPR, pages 7936-7945, 2020.
[13] Yoojin Choi, Mostafa El- El-Khamy, and Jungwon Lee. Variable rate deep image compression with conditional autoencoder. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3146-3154, 2019.
[14] Eastman Kodak Company. Kodak lossless true color image suite. graphics/kodak/ 2013.
hnttp::/rrOl us/
[15] Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large- scale hicrarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248-255. lece, 2009.
[16] Runsen Feng, Zongyu Guo, Weiping Li, and Zhibo Chen. Nvte: Nonlinear vector transform cod- ing. Proceedings of the IEEF/CVE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1101-6110, 2023.

---

[17] Ge Gao, Pei You, Rong Pan, Shunyuan Han, Yuanyuan Zhang, Yuchao Dai, and Hojae Lee. Neural image compression via attentional multi-scale back projection and frequency decompo- sition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14677-14686, 2021.
[18] Jerry D Gibson and Khalid Sayood. Lattice quantization. In Advances in electronics and electron physics, volume 72, pages 259-330. Elsevier, 1988.
[19] Dailan He, Ziming Yang. Weikun Peng, Rui Ma, Hongwei Qin, and Yan Wang. Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space-channel contextual adaptive coding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5718-5721 2022.
[20] Dailan He, Yaoyan Zheng, Baocheng Sun, Yan Wang, and Hongwei Qin, Checkerboard context model for efficient learned image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1-771-14780, 2021.
[21] Wei Jiang, Jiayu Yang, Yongqi Zhai, Peirong Ning, Feng Gao, and Ronggang Wang. Mlic: Multi-reference entropy model for learned image compression. In Proceedings of the 31 ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 7618-7627, 2023.
[22] Nick Johnston, Damien Vincent, David Minnen, Michele Covell, Saurabh Singh, Troy Chinen, Sung Jin Hwang, Joel Shor, and George Toderici. Improved lossy image compression with priming and spatially adaptive bit rates for recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4385-4393, 2018.
[23] Ahmed Khalil, Robert Piechocki, and Raul Santos-Rodriguuez Ll-vq-vae: Learnable lattice vector-quantization for efficient representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09382, 2023.
[24] Jun-Hyuk Kim, Byeongho Heo, and Jong-Seok Lee. Joint global and local hierarchical priors for learned image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pages 5992-6001 2022.
[25] Shinobu Kudo, Yukihiro Bandoh, Seishi Takamura, and Masaki Kitahara. Lvq-vae: End-to-end hyperprior-based variational image compression with lattice vector quantization. OpenReview, 2023.
[26] Jooyoung Lee, Seunghyun Cho, and Seung- Kwon Beack. Context-adaptive entropy model for end-to-end optimized image compression. 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2019.
[27] Eric Lei, Hamed Hassani, and Shirin Saeedi Bidokhti. Approaching rate-distortion limits in neural compression with lattice transform coding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07320 2024.
[28] Meng Li, Shangyin Gao, Yihui Feng. Yibo Shi, and Jing Wang. Content-oriented learned image compression. arXiv preprini arXiv:2207. 00.22207..44000 14168, 2022.
[29] Mu Li, Wangmeng Zuo, Shuhang Gu. Debin Zhao, and David Zhang. Learning convolutional networks for content content-weighted image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3214-3223, 2018.
[30] Chaoyi Lin, Jiabao Yao, Fangdong Chen, and Li Wang. A spatial rnn codec for end-to-end image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pages 13269-13277, 2020.
[31] Jinming Liu, Heming Sun, and Jiro Katto. Learned image compression with mixed transformer- cnn architectures. In Proceedings of the IEEF/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14388-14397, 2023.
[32] Fabian Mentzer, Eirikur Agustsson, Michael Tschannen, Radu Timofte, and Lue Van Gool. Conditional probability models for deep image compression. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pages 4394-4402, 2018.
12

---

[33] Fabian Mentzer, George D Toderici, Michael Tschannen, and Eirikur Agustsson. High-fidelity generative image compression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:11913- 11924, 2020.
[34] Daniele Micciancio. The hardness of the closest vector problem with preprocessing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 4211::211111 2001.
[35] David Minnen, Johannes Ballé, and George Toderici. Joint autoregressive and hierarchical priors for learned image compression. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, pages 10794-10803, 2018.
[36] David Minnen and Saurabh Singh. Channel-wise autoregressive entropy models for learned image compression. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3339 -343.333..00 IEEE, 2020.
[37] Guanbo Pan, Guo Lu, Zhihao Hu, and Dong Xu. Content adaptive latents and decoder for neural image compression. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 556-573. Springer, 2022.
[38] Oren Rippel and Lubomir Bourdev. Real-time adaptive image compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05823, 2017.
[39] Jorma Rissanen and Glen G Langdon. Arithmetic coding. IBM Journal of research and development, 23(2):149-162, 1979.
[40] Sergio D Servetto, Vinay Vaishampayan, and Neil JA Sloane. Multiple description lattice vector quantization. In Proceedings DCC'99 Data Compression Conference (Cat. No. PR00096), pages 13 22.22.15 IEEE, 1999.
[41] Chajin Shin, Hyeongmin Lee, Hanbin Son, Sangjin Lee, Dogyoon Lee, and Sangyoun Lee. Expanded adaptive scaling normalization for end to end image compression. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 390-405. Springer, 2022.
[42] Guo-Hua Wang, Jiahao Li, Bin Li, and Yan Lu. Eve: Towards real-time neural image compres- sion with mask decay. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05077 2023.
[43] Ian H Witten, Radford M Neal, and John G Cleary. Arithmetic coding for data compression. Communications of the ACM, 30(6):520-540, 1987.
[44] Fei Yang, Luis Herranz, Yongmei Cheng, and Mikhail G Mozerov. Slimmable compressive au- toencoders for practical neural image compression. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4998-5007, 2021.
[45] Ruihan Yang and Stephan Mandt. Lossy image compression with conditional diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
[46] Xi Zhang and Xiaolin Wu. Attention-guided image compression by deep reconstruction of compressive sensed saliency skeleton. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13354-13364, 2021.
[47] Xi Zhang and Xiaolin Wu. Multi-modality deep restoration of extremely compressed face videos. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(2):2024-2037, 2022.
[48] Xi Zhang and Xiaolin Wu. Lvqae: Lattice vector quantization coupled with spatially adap- tive companding for efficient learned image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10239-10248, 2023.
[49] Xiaosu Zhu, Jingkuan Song. Lianli Gao, Feng Zheng, and Heng Tao Shen. Unified multivariate gaussian mixture for efficient neural image compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17612-17621 2022.
[50] Yinhao Zhu, Yang Yang, and Taco Cohen. Transformer-based transform coding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
13

---

A Appendix supplemental material
A.1 Comparison with other VQ based image compression methods
We provide the comparison results with the following vector quantization-basees image compression methods: SHVQ (NeurIPS '17) and McQUIC (CVPR '22). From the provided table, it can be observed that the proposed OLVQ method not only outperforms these VQ-based image compression methods in terms of BD-rate but also demonstrates superior performance computational complexity, As shown, our method achieves lower BD-rates, i.e., better compression performance. At the same time, the computational complexity of our approach significantly lower than SHVQ and McQUIC, making it more practical, especially on resource-comee consurce-onstrrieed devices.
Bmshj2018 Factorized
Bmshj2018 Checkerboard
SwinT-ChARM Factorized
SwinT-ChARM Checkerboard
Quantizers
OLVQ
-20.49%
-10.71%
-10.68%
-5.89%
SHVQ
-8.23%
-5.18%
-6.55%
-1.92%
McQUIC [2]
-15.11%
-7.93%
-7.24%
-3.18%
A.2
Ablation study of orthogonal constraint
We propose to impose orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix, enhanc- ing the accuracy of the BRT-estimated lattice point and reducing the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.
The performance without the orthogonal constraint will drop by about 4.2% for BD-rate. We report the detailed performance numbers with and without the orthogonal constraint the following table. The rate-distortion curves are also provided in the rebuttal PDF.
Bmshj2018
Bmshj2018 w/o
SwinT-ChARM w/ orthugonal constraint
SwinT-ChARM w/o orthogonal constraint
Entropy Model
orthogonal constraint
orthogonal constraint
Factorized (w/o context)
-22.60%
-18.2%
-12.44%
-8.09%
Checkerboard
-11.94%
-7.94%
-6.37%
-2.25%
Chunnel-wise
-10.61%
-6.34%
-5.61%
-1.22%
Autoregressive
Spatial-wise
-8.31%
-4.20%
-2.31%
+2.08%
Autoregressive
A.3 The impact of A2 and the term L in the loss function
We conduc ablation studies to thoroughly examine how these two hyperparameters (A2 and L) affect the performance of our method.
For λz employed search strategy to identify the optimal value that yields the best performance. Our findings indicate that both excessively large and excessively small values of X2 lead to performance degradation. When X2 is too large. it overly constrains the shape of the optimized lattice codebook, resulting in a sub-optimal lattice structure. Conversely, when A2 is too small, it loosens the orthogonal constraint, causing significant gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference (Please refer to the global rebuttal for more details).
Regarding the loss term L, our initial experiments utilized the MSE metric. To further investigate, we have now included study using the SSIM metric as the loss term L. The results from this study indicate that our conclusions drawn from using the MSE metric remain valid when using the SSIM metric. Specifically, the performance trends and the effectiveness of our proposed method are consistent across both metrics.
14

---

A.4 Babai's Rounding Algorithm and Its Bound
A.4.1 Mathematical Formulation
Given a lattice A with a basis B [bj. be...., bnl. want to find lattice point v E A that is close to a target vector t E R".
Babai's 'ssssssssssss rounding algorithm involves the following steps:
1. Compute the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of the basis B, resulting in an orthogonal basis B" [b,, by b....., b;
2. Express the target vector in terms of the orthogonal basis B":
where e are the coordinates of t in the Gram-Schmidt basis 8*
3. Round each coordinate c; to the nearest integer:
c' (round(c)). round round(c..)
4. Construct the approximate lattice point:
round(c;)b
A.4.2 Example
Suppose we have a 2-dimensional lattice with basis vectors b1 and b2, and a target vector t.
1. Compute the Eram--Shmidtt basis:
b bi
(b2, b1) b |b1 1|2 (t, bi)
b9 = b2
2. Project onto bj and bj:
C1
(t, b5)
|
3. Round or and oz:
(ct), (c2)
4. Construct the approximate lattice point: round(c1)b, + (c2)60
A.4.3 Proof of the Bound
We want to show that the distance between the target vector t and the found lattice point v is bounded by half the sum of the lengths of the basis vectors.
1. Decompose the Target Vector:
cb;
Let t' be the projection of t onto the lattice:
rc
15

---

The difference between t and t' is:
n1
Σ (c ro)nd
Each term G; round(c;) is most 1 in magnitude because round(c;; the nearest integer 2
to Cç.
2. Bound the Difference:
|| t'll -
10 round (ound()))))))))))))))))))))))( [
1=1
Since |q; round(c:) S 1 2- we have:
" Σ
||t - 1'll
S
Σ
b
|b:l
2 i=1
i=1
3. Reconstruct the Lattice Point: The lattice point v constructed by Babai's rounding algorithm is:
round(c)) b;
Note that t' is the projection in the Gram-Schmidt basis, while v is the actual lattice point in the original basis. Since and t' differ only by the orthogonalization process, the distance bound remains valid.
4. Final Bound: Since the Gram-Schmidt process does not increase the lengths of the basis vectors, we can state that:
t vll S 2 b
Thus, Babaï's rounding algorithm guarantees that the distance between the target vector and the found lattice point v is within half the sum of the lengths of the basis vectors.
A.5 Broader Impact
The proposed Optimal Lattice Vector Quantization (LVQ) method for image compression offers several significant and wide-reaching benefits.
Firstly, LVQ leads to more efficient storage and transmission of images, which crucial for industries that rely heavily image data, such digital media, medical imaging, and remote sensing. By reducing the file sizes without compromising image quality. LVQ helps in lowering storage costs and bandwidth requirements. This efficiency not only results in cost savings but also reduces the environmental impact by decreasing the energy consumption associated with data storage and transmission infrastructure.
Secondly, the enhanced image compression achieved through LVQ can result in faster image loading times and reduced latency in applications like web browsing, video streaming, and online gaming. Im- proved compression translates to quicker data transfer and reduced buffering, significantly enhancing the user experience. This is particularly beneficial in regions with limited bandwidth high-latency networks, where efficient data compression can make substantial difference in accessibility and performance.
Furthermore, the advancements in image compression technology provided by LVQ have broader implications for various fields. In digital media, for example, it enables higher quality streaming services and better user experiences. of high-resolution images, which are critical for accurate diagnosis and treatment. In remote sensing, improved compression allows for faster processing and analysis satellite images, aiding in timely decision-making and response in fields such as disaster management and environmental monitoring.
medical imaging, it facilitates the efficient storage and sharing
Overall, the proposed LVQ method not only advances the state image compression technology but also offers practical benefits across multiple industries and for end-users. Its ability to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance user experiences underscores its potential for making a positive and substantial impact on both technology and society.
16

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: The abstract and introduction clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations.
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or
NA answer to this question will not perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results be expected to generalize other settings.
is fine include aspirational goals as motivation as long is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question:
Does the paper discuss the limitations the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
The limitations of the proposed method are discussed in the paper before the section of conclusion.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point any strong assumptions and how robust the results are violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not be used reliably provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and faimess.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [Yes].
17

---

The paper provide the full set of assumptions and the complete (and correct) proof for all theoretical result.
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: We disclose, in the section 4.1 and the supplementary material, all the informa- tion needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurlPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make clear how reproduce that algorithm. (b) If the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
18

---

Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
The source code will be available before the NeurlPS conference.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.co cc/
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (c.g., for a new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https
//nips //ipss.cc/pill wwtpcccpppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee httpa////giieee/eeeSSbiiiiisssss (oooeooomisssssseeeeeeee sww.iissiiiiiiyiiicc for more details.
The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary understand the results?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification:
All the training and test details are provided in the section 4.1.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core the paper to a level of detail that is necessary appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [No].
Justification: The paper does not provide the error bars other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confi- dence intervals, statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for
example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall with given experimental conditions).
19

---

The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation the standard error of the mean.
It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative rates).
show in tables or
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures tables in the text.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: All these information are provided in the section 4.1.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary failed experiments that didn't It make it into the paper).
9. Code Of Ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics httpt::/neuripss.co httpe//ssssst/////opppooooooo/aa
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: The research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., there a special consid- eration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive socictal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]..
Justification: The broader impacts are discussed at the end of the paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact why the paper does not address societal impact.
20

---

Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), faireess considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper deseribe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA].
Justification: The paper poses no such risks.
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Question:
Answer: [Yes].
Justification: The creators original owners of assets used in the paper are properly credited. The license and terms of use are explicitly mentioned and properly respected.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset used and, if possible, include URL
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (c.g., website). the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcone com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
21

---

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's s creators.
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
The paper does not release new assets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details the dataset/code/moodl as part their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsoureing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA].
Justification:
The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/review based the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA].
Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.
22


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "TuqxdsyqgH", "reviewer": "Reviewer_B5jh", "summary": "In this paper, the authors proposed learning the lattice vector quantization for the end-to-end neural image compression. Their method is based on the learning the orthogonal basis function, and each vector is represented as the linear combination of the basis function during training, and they used orthogonality of the basis function to decompose the marginal of the entropy distribution. They showed that their method outperformed existing non-learned lattice vector quantization, and their proposal has significant gain in the simple entropy model (Factorized entropy model) but for the complex autoregressive entropy model their gains are less.", "questions": "1) The proposed method has significant gain with respect to the factorized entropy model compared to the autoregressive entropy model, so whether the proposed method on the factorized entropy model can approximate the performance of the autoregressive entropy model? what will be the performance gap b/w the proposed method on the factorized entropy model and the autoregressive entropy model? if the performance gap is small, then whether the proposed method can be used to replace the autoregressive entropy model?\n\n2) Which method or paper did you use to compute the results of the generalized vector quantization ?", "limitations": "the limitations are addressed", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1) The paper proposed learning based lattice vector quantization for the end-to-end neural image compression. The code books of the lattice vector quantization are assumed to be orthogonal basis functions, and the use of the Babai’s Rounding Technique for the quantization is interesting during the training time.\n2) Marginalization of the multi-variate gaussian distribution entropy model due to the orthogonality of the basis functions\n2) Bit-rate savings over the pre-defined lattice vector quantization", "weaknesses": "1) The performance of the lattice vector quantization is compared with scalar quantization, non-learned lattice vector quantization, and general vector quantization. The description of the general vector quantization or reference to it is missing in the experimental section, to know which paper is used comparison.\n2) The authors mentioned that they learn the entropy model over the quantized latent vectors with learned lattice vector quantization, but in the experiments, authors mentioned that they code the integer combination of indices in the bitstream. The learned entropy model for the quantized latent vectors might not be optimal to code the integer combination of indices.\n3) The performance of the proposed method does not have significant gain in the context models, as the most recent end-to-end neural image compression methods are based on the autoregressive model, thus applying the proposed method might not have a significant gain.\n4) The toy example plots are missing in the paper, which would help to understand the structure of the partition generated by the proposed method.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "- **W1. [General vector quantization]**  \nWe build the general vector quantization model based on NVTC (CVPR'23) [1].  \n&nbsp;\n- **W2. [Entropy model]**  \nSorry for the discrepancy. The entropy model is optimized over the lattice quantized vectors and used to code the same vectors into the bitstream. The idea of coding the integer combination coefficients is still under investigation.   \n&nbsp;\n- **W3. [Limited gain with autoregressive model]**   \nWe acknowledge this limitation and have discussed it in the paper.\nHowever, as well known, context models, especially autoregressive ones, tend to slow down the coding speed dramatically. Our method is meant to build LIGHTWEIGHT models for deployment on edge devices. As these devices have severe resource constraints, the model efficiency and simplicity become paramount. Forgoing computationally intensive context models offers a practical solution for real-time applications on such devices.  \n&nbsp;\n- **W4. [Toy example plots]**  \n We appreciate the value of visualizing the lattice structure generated by the proposed method. However, plotting the lattice structures in more than three dimensions remains a challenge; in fact, we have not seen such drawings in any prior literature on the topic.  \n&nbsp;\n- **Q1. [Optimized LVQ + factorized model vs. autoregressive model]**  \nWe have included R-D curves of different methods in the rebuttal PDF to address your concerns. It can be observed that the proposed learnable LVQ method coupled with the factorized entropy model can approach the performance of the autoregressive entropy model, particularly at low bitrates. For high bitrates, the autoregressive entropy model still has an edge.\nGiven this, we believe that the proposed LVQ method can serve as a viable alternative to the autoregressive entropy model, especially in scenarios where low bitrate performance is crucial and computational efficiency is a priority. The factorized entropy model, being less computationally intensive, combined with our LVQ method, offers an attractive trade-off between performance and efficiency.  \n&nbsp;\n\n[1]. Feng, R., Guo, Z., Li, W., \\& Chen, Z. NVTC: Nonlinear vector transform coding. CVPR 2023.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "NiDeJSDlcF", "reviewer": "Reviewer_4Wxt", "summary": "In this paper, the use of lattice vector quantization (LVQ) with deep learning-based image compression has been studied. The authors proposed to learn the bases of the LVQ matrix, for changing the quantization cells to better capture feature correlations and thus better coding. The experiments demonstrated significant average improvement for applying the proposed method to existing deep learning based compression models with different configurations.", "questions": "- In Table 3, how were the inference times measured? Are the GPUs fully utilized? 5ms looks too long for a GPU to perform only uniform scalar quantization.\n- Are the BD-rates measured in PSNR?", "limitations": "The authors discussed the limitations and potential impact. There are also no potential negative societal impact.\n\nOverall, I think the paper provides a simple but effective method and demonstrates promising results (although I am not especially familiar with the topic). The main issue is the lack of detailed rate-distortion performance analysis and the study of hyper-parameters. Additionally, it would be beneficial to discuss any potential impact on qualitative performance, as in image compression, quantitative results are not the sole criterion.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "- Although vector quantization could potentially be a better solution than uniform scalar quantization, its use has not been well-studied in the neural compression literature. The method proposed in this paper is simple but efficient for improving the rate-distortion (RD) performance in image compression. It only requires simple modifications to existing models with scalar quantization.\n- The proposed method can be applied to different networks with various context models. The experiments also demonstrate performance gains in all configurations.", "weaknesses": "- The proposed method has not been directly compared with other vector quantization method for image compression (except for the general vector quantization).\n- The performance of the proposed model at different bitrates is not provided. It is not clear whether the proposed method can consistently improve the compression model in both low and high bitrate cases.\n- The impact of $\\lambda_2$ and the term $L$ in the loss function has not been studied. How do they impact the performance?", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "- **W1. [Compared with other VQ based image compression methods]**  \nA good suggestion. We have addressed your concern by adding new comparison results with the following vector quantization-based image compression methods: SHVQ (NeurIPS ’17) [1] and McQUIC (CVPR ’22) [2]. From the provided table (BD-rate over uniform scalar quantizer), it can be observed that the proposed learnable LVQ method not only outperforms these VQ-based image compression methods in terms of BD-rate but also demonstrates superior performance in computational complexity. As shown, our method achieves lower BD-rates, i.e., better compression performance. At the same time, the computational complexity of our approach is significantly lower than SHVQ and McQUIC, making it more practical, especially on resource-constrained devices.    \n&nbsp;\n| Quantizers |  Bmshj2018 Factorized  |  Bmshj2018 Checkerboard  | SwinT-ChARM Factorized |  SwinT-ChARM Checkerboard |  Inference time |\n|  ----  | ----  | ----  |  ----  | ----  |  ----  | \n| Optimized LVQ | -20.49% | -10.71% | -10.68% | -5.89% | ~40ms |\n| SHVQ [1] | -8.23% | -5.18% | -6.55% | -1.92% | ~328ms |\n| McQUIC [2] | -15.11% | -7.93% | -7.24% | -3.18% |  ~771ms |\n&nbsp;\n- **W2. [Performance at different bitrates]**  \nTo address your concern, we provide the rate-distortion curves of different quantization methods in the rebuttal PDF. It can be observed that the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization consistently improves the existing compression models in both low and high bitrate cases. However, the performance gain is more pronounced at lower bitrates.  \n&nbsp;\n- **W3. [Impact of $\\lambda_2$ and the loss term L]**  \nTo address this, we have conducted ablation studies to thoroughly examine how these two hyperparameters affect the performance of our method.\n  - For $\\lambda_2$, we employed a search strategy to identify the optimal value that yields the best performance. Our findings indicate that both excessively large and excessively small values of $\\lambda_2$ can lead to performance degradation. When $\\lambda_2$ is too large, it overly constrains the shape of the optimized lattice codebook, resulting in a sub-optimal lattice structure. Conversely, when $\\lambda_2$ is too small, it loosens the orthogonal constraint, causing a significant gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference (Please refer to the global rebuttal for more details).\n  - Regarding the loss term L, our initial experiments utilized the MSE metric. To further investigate, we have now included a study using the SSIM metric as the loss term L. The results from this study indicate that our conclusions drawn from using the MSE metric remain valid when using the SSIM metric. Specifically, the performance trends and the effectiveness of our proposed method are consistent across both metrics (Please refer to the rebuttal PDF for the R-D curves of SSIM metric).  \n&nbsp;\n- **Q1. [Details of inference time]**  \nSorry for missing the details. The quantization times are not measured for quantizing a single token; instead, they are measured for quantizing a $512 \\times 512 \\times 1$ feature map. The GPU utilization is approximately 25\\%, 28\\%, and 42\\% for Uniform Scalar Quantization (USQ), Lattice Vector Quantization (LVQ), and General Vector Quantization (GVQ), respectively.  \n&nbsp;\n- **Q2. [Metric for BD-rate]** \n Yes, the BD-rates are measured in PSNR.  \n&nbsp;\n\n[1]. Agustsson, E., Mentzer, F., Tschannen, M., et al. Soft-to-hard vector quantization for end-to-end learning compressible representations. NeurIPS 2017.  \n[2]. Zhu, X., Song, J., Gao, L., et al. Unified multivariate gaussian mixture for efficient neural image compression. CVPR 2022.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "8OQqeZHXjR", "reviewer": "Reviewer_8Aj7", "summary": "- This paper proposes a method of differential lattice vector quantization for DNN image compression.\n- The authors apply BRT [5] to estimate a vector in the basis vectors B that is orthogonal, close to vector v.\n- Experiments in Table 1 compare the proposed method with scalar quantizers, and experiments in Table 2 compare the proposed method with classical pre-defined lattice vector quantizers, and claim that the proposed method is valid for BD-rate. \n- The authors claim that they have confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed method in BD-rate.", "questions": "- Why does  imposing orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors lead to enhance the accuracy and improve training stability?", "limitations": "- Section 4.5 discusses the limitations and says that the effect is modest for heavy-duty compression models, but it would be better to show what a heavy-duty model is if it can be shown in more detail.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "- Quantization is one of the fundamental and important methods in DNN image compression and this paper attempts to introduce the Lattice Vector Quantizer to DNN image compression, which is challenging and interesting.", "weaknesses": "- The evaluation of Table1 and Table2 is based on the Kodak and CLIC datasets, which are commonly used in this field, but these datasets may should be evaluated separately, as is often done in other papers for comparison.\n- It is unfortunate that the experimental results showing the effect of quantization are presented only for the final BD-rate. If only BD-rate was used, the evaluation conditions would not be clear, such as the range of bitrates evaluated. For example, it would have been desirable to show comparisons with other methods using RD-curve.\n- Furthermore, it would be more convincing if an analysis of the characteristics and behavior of the quantized values from experiment was conducted.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "- **W1. [Separated evaluation]**   \nWe provide the results which are separately evaluated in the following table (BD-rate over uniform scalar quantizer). It can be observed that the performance trend is consistent across the separate and combined evaluations.  \n&nbsp;\n| Entropy Model |  Bmshj2018 Kodak |  Bmshj2018 CLIC | SwinT-ChARM Kodak |  SwinT-ChARM CLIC | \n|  ----  | ----  | ----  |  ----  | ----  |  \n| Factorized (w/o context) | -20.61% | -23.15% | -11.16% | -13.12% |\n| Checkerboard | -10.53% | -12.49% | -5.28% |  -6.74% |\n| Channel-wise Autoregressive | -10.32% | -11.21% | -4.33% | -6.12% |\n| Spatial-wise Autoregressive | -7.12% | -8.97% | -1.98% | -2.65% |\n&nbsp;\n- **W2. [R-D curves]**   \nWe provide the RD-curves of different methods in the rebuttal PDF. It can be seen that the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization consistently improves the existing compression models in both low and high bitrate cases. However, the performance gain is more pronounced at lower bitrates.  \n&nbsp;\n- **W3. [Characteristics of generator matrix]**   \nThanks for your great suggestion. We analyze the deformation of the learned generator matrix by measuring the ratio of the longest to the shortest basis vectors, which turned out to be 6.8, indicating extreme asymmetry in the optimized lattice structure. Additionally, the angle between the longest and the shortest basis vectors is approximately 60 degrees. These characteristics of the learned generator matrix indicate that the cell shape of the optimized LVQ is significantly different from that of a uniform scalar quantizer.  \n&nbsp;\n- **Q1. [Effectiveness of orthogonal constraint]**  \nSorry, we should have made this point more clearly.   \n**The orthogonal constraint is needed to reduce the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.**  As stated in Section 3.3, because lattice vector quantization is not differentiable (and thus cannot be directly integrated into end-to-end training), we propose a differentiable alternative using Babai’s Rounding Technique (BRT). BRT estimates a vector that is sufficiently close to, but not necessarily exact, the closest lattice point. However, our experiments revealed that the BRT-estimated lattice vector may be far away from the exact closest lattice point if the cell shape of the optimized LVQ is arbitrary and unconstrained. This discrepancy causes an inconsistency between training and inference, if the learnt lattice vector quantizer is employed in the inference stage.    \nAs analyzed in [1], the BRT-estimated lattice point will match the closest lattice point if the basis vectors of the generator matrix are mutually orthogonal. For this reason, we propose to impose orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix, enhancing the accuracy of the BRT-estimated lattice point and reducing the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.    \n **The performance without the orthogonal constraint will drop by about 4.2\\% for BD-rate.** We report the detailed performance numbers (BD-rate over uniform scalar quantizer) with and without the orthogonal constraint in the following table.   \nWe will make the above clarifications in the final version.  \n&nbsp;\n| Entropy Model |  Bmshj2018 w/ orthogonal constraint |  Bmshj2018 w/o orthogonal constraint | SwinT-ChARM w/ orthogonal constraint |  SwinT-ChARM w/o orthogonal constraint | \n|  ----  | ----  | ----  |  ----  | ----  |  \n| Factorized (w/o context) | -22.60% | -18.2% | -12.44% | -8.09% |\n| Checkerboard | -11.94% | -7.94% | -6.37% |  -2.25% |\n| Channel-wise Autoregressive | -10.61% | -6.34% | -5.61% | -1.22% |\n| Spatial-wise Autoregressive | -8.31% | -4.20% | -2.31% | +2.08% |\n&nbsp;\n\n[1]. Babai L. On Lovász’ lattice reduction and the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica, 1986.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "1sDzyCxuFm", "reviewer": "Reviewer_uEQ6", "summary": "This paper proposed to optimize the codebooks of lattice vector quantization (LVQ) for improved rate-distortion performance in neural image compression. Unlike previous LVQ methods using pre-designed codebook structure, the proposed method is able to adaptively learn the optimal codebook structure for nonuniform distribution. Experimental results demonstrate the proposed method outperforms existing quantization methods for neural image compression in terms of rate-distortion-complexity performance.", "questions": "Please refer to weakness part.", "limitations": "This paper seems to lack discussions of the limitations or the potential negative societal impact.", "rating": 3, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "The idea of learnable codebook basis in lattice VQ is interesting. The proposed method has a significant performance gain and it is also compatible to various neural image codecs.", "weaknesses": "My first concern is about the correctness of entropy model design. According to Section 3.4, the distribution of the lattice vector m is factorized into the product of the distributions of its independent variables, which are modeled as a product of Gaussian Mixture Models. \nThe problem is how do you model the integer vector m as a continuous distribution? In previous methods, the quantized vector of uniform quantization is usually modeled as a Gaussian convolved with a uniform distribution, to match the integral process from continuous distribution of y to discrete distribution of y_hat. But in your paper, especially in Eq. (10, 12, 13), I don’t think it’s a typo caused by you forgetting the integral process. The rate is estimated by directly calculating the log density, which is far away from the practical rate. Moreover, in the ablation study (Table 2 and Table 4), how do you estimate the rate of traditional lattice VQ and general VQ under similar neural image coding system? Both the ablations can also achieve significant performance gain. Could you provide a description about the implementation details?\n\nMy second concern is about the effectiveness of orthogonal constraint. While I understand the orthogonal constraint can largely reduce coding complexity, the decorrelation ability should also be significantly weakened. According to Eq. (6), the quantization process is equivalent to: first rounding the linearly transformed latent and then inversely transform the rounding result. From a practical view, it's not much different from uniform scalar quantization + two MLP layers. How about the performance without orthogonal constraint?\nFinally, it would be better to provide the rate-distortion curves.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "- **W1. [Omission of integral operation]**   \nThanks for pointing out the lack of rigor in our math notation.  Hope you can understand that it is only an innocent omission of an integral symbol. \nWe will write out, in the final version, the corrected probability mass function (PMF) over the lattice quantized vector:   \n$$ p_{m} = \\int_{V(m)} \\sum_{k=1}^{K} \\mathbf{\\Phi}_k \\mathcal{N} (x; \\mu_k, \\Sigma_k) dx $$ \n\n    $$ p_{m} = \\prod_{i=1}^n \\int_{V(m^i)} \\sum_{k=1}^{K} \\mathbf{\\phi_k}^i \\mathcal{N} (x^i; \\mu_k^i, \\sigma_k^i) dx^i $$\n    where $V(m^i) = \\lbrace x^i | Q(x^i)=m^i \\rbrace$.\n&nbsp;\n- **W2. [Rate estimation of traditional LVQ and GVQ]**   \nThe rate estimation for traditional lattice VQ follows the method described in LVQ-VAE [1]. For general VQ, the rate estimation method follows the approach outlined in NVTC [2]. For more implementation details, please refer to their respective papers.  \n&nbsp;\n- **W3. [Effectiveness of orthogonal constrai]**  \nSorry, we should have made this point more clearly.   \n**The orthogonal constraint is needed to reduce the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.**  As stated in Section 3.3, because lattice vector quantization is not differentiable (and thus cannot be directly integrated into end-to-end training), we propose a differentiable alternative using Babai’s Rounding Technique (BRT). BRT estimates a vector that is sufficiently close to, but not necessarily exact, the closest lattice point. However, our experiments revealed that the BRT-estimated lattice vector may be far away from the exact closest lattice point if the cell shape of the optimized LVQ is arbitrary and unconstrained. This discrepancy causes an inconsistency between training and inference, if the learnt lattice vector quantizer is employed in the inference stage.    \nAs analyzed in [3], the BRT-estimated lattice point will match the closest lattice point if the basis vectors of the generator matrix are mutually orthogonal. For this reason, we propose to impose orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix, enhancing the accuracy of the BRT-estimated lattice point and reducing the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.    \n **The performance without the orthogonal constraint will drop by about 4.2\\% for BD-rate.** We report the detailed performance numbers with and without the orthogonal constraint in the following table.   \nWe will make the above clarifications in the final version.  \n&nbsp;\n| Entropy Model |  Bmshj2018 w/ orthogonal constraint |  Bmshj2018 w/o orthogonal constraint | SwinT-ChARM w/ orthogonal constraint |  SwinT-ChARM w/o orthogonal constraint | \n|  ----  | ----  | ----  |  ----  | ----  |  \n| Factorized (w/o context) | -22.60% | -18.2% | -12.44% | -8.09% |\n| Checkerboard | -11.94% | -7.94% | -6.37% |  -2.25% |\n| Channel-wise Autoregressive | -10.61% | -6.34% | -5.61% | -1.22% |\n| Spatial-wise Autoregressive | -8.31% | -4.20% | -2.31% | +2.08% |\n&nbsp;\n\n- We provide the RD-curves of different methods in the rebuttal PDF. It can be seen that the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization consistently improves the existing compression models in both low and high bitrate cases. However, the performance gain is more pronounced at lower bitrates.  \n&nbsp;\n\n[1]. Kudo, S., Bandoh, Y., Takamura, S., \\& Kitahara, M. LVQ-VAE: End-to-end Hyperprior-based Variational Image Compression with Lattice Vector Quantization. OpenReview 2023.  \n[2]. Feng, R., Guo, Z., Li, W., \\& Chen, Z. NVTC: Nonlinear vector transform coding. CVPR 2023.  \n[3]. Babai L. On Lovász’ lattice reduction and the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica, 1986.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:
- We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback, and are encouraged by their positive reception of our work.  
&nbsp;

- We respond below to specific points raised by each reviewer. We hope we addressed all the reviewers' concerns, and we will be happy to provide additional clarifications upon request.  
&nbsp;

- We provide R-D curves of different methods in the PDF file, as requested by multiple reviewers.  It can be observed from these R-D curves that the proposed optimal lattice vector quantization consistently improves the existing compression models in both low and high bitrate cases. However, the performance gain is more pronounced at lower bitrates.  It can also be observed that the proposed learnable LVQ method coupled with the factorized entropy model can approach the performance of the autoregressive entropy model, particularly at low bitrates. For high bitrates, the autoregressive entropy model still has an edge.
Given this, we believe that the proposed LVQ method can serve as a viable alternative to the autoregressive entropy model, especially in scenarios where low bitrate performance is crucial and computational efficiency is a priority. The factorized entropy model, being less computationally intensive, combined with our LVQ method, offers an attractive trade-off between performance and efficiency.  
&nbsp; 

- We conduct ablation studies to thoroughly examine how two hyperparameters ($\lambda_2$ and the loss term L) affect the performance of our method.
  - For $\lambda_2$, we employed a search strategy to identify the optimal value that yields the best performance. Our findings indicate that both excessively large and excessively small values of $\lambda_2$ can lead to performance degradation. When $\lambda_2$ is too large, it overly constrains the shape of the optimized lattice codebook, resulting in a sub-optimal lattice structure. Conversely, when $\lambda_2$ is too small, it loosens the orthogonal constraint, causing a significant gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference (Please refer to the global rebuttal for more details).
  - Regarding the loss term L, our initial experiments utilized the MSE metric. To further investigate, we have now included a study using the SSIM metric as the loss term L. The results from this study indicate that our conclusions drawn from using the MSE metric remain valid when using the SSIM metric. Specifically, the performance trends and the effectiveness of our proposed method are consistent across both metrics (Please refer to the rebuttal PDF for the R-D curves of SSIM metric).    
&nbsp; 

- Here we make a clarification about the effectiveness of the proposed orthogonal constraint, which are requested by multiple reviewers.       
**The orthogonal constraint is needed to reduce the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.**  As stated in Section 3.3, because lattice vector quantization is not differentiable (and thus cannot be directly integrated into end-to-end training), we propose a differentiable alternative using Babai’s Rounding Technique (BRT). BRT estimates a vector that is sufficiently close to, but not necessarily exact, the closest lattice point. However, our experiments revealed that the BRT-estimated lattice vector may be far away from the exact closest lattice point if the cell shape of the optimized LVQ is arbitrary and unconstrained. This discrepancy causes an inconsistency between training and inference, if the learnt lattice vector quantizer is employed in the inference stage.    
As analyzed in [1], the BRT-estimated lattice point will match the closest lattice point if the basis vectors of the generator matrix are mutually orthogonal. For this reason, we propose to impose orthogonal constraints on the basis vectors of the generator matrix, enhancing the accuracy of the BRT-estimated lattice point and reducing the gap between lattice vector quantization during training and inference.    
 **The performance without the orthogonal constraint will drop by about 4.2\% for BD-rate.** The detailed performance numbers (BD-rate over uniform scalar quantizer) with and without the orthogonal constraint are tabulated below.    
We will make the above clarifications in the final version.  

[1]. Babai L. On Lovász’ lattice reduction and the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica, 1986.

Meta-review: The paper presents a novel approach to lattice vector quantization (LVQ) for neural image compression, demonstrating significant improvements in rate-distortion performance. The use of orthogonal basis functions and Babai's Rounding Technique during training is particularly noted for its innovation. The learned LVQ performs better than non-learned lattice vector quantizers, as indicated in the experiments. The paper receives two weak accept, one borderline accept, and one reject. The AC examines the comments and believes the major concerns should have been addressed. Thus, the AC recommends the acceptance of the paper.
Decision: Accept (poster)