# A Fast Algorithm for VVC Intra Coding Based on the Most Probable Partition Pattern List
## 4 Experimental Results  
In order to assess the performance of our method, we conducted experiments using the reference software VVC VTM-13.0. These experiments involved testing 21 sequences which were selected from six sequences with different resolutions as recommended by the JVET common test conditions. Our proposed algorithm was evaluated using the following four different quantization parameters (QPs): 22, 27, 32, and 37. The performance of the algorithm was measured by _Ts_ and BDBR, where _Ts_ was calculated as follows:  
\[\textit{Ts}=\frac{1}{4}\sum\
olimits_{Qpi\in\{22,27,32,37\}}\frac{\text{To}( Qpi)-Tp(Qpi)}{\text{To}(Qpi)}\times 100\% \tag{18}\]  
In the context of our evaluation, the total encoding time of the original VVC standard was represented by To while the total encoding time of our proposed method was denoted as _Tp_. Additionally, BDBR was used to measure the degree of loss in the encoding performance. A smaller BDBR value indicated a lesser loss in compression performance. By conducting these experiments and utilizing the aforementioned metrics, our aim was to evaluate and analyze the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in terms of saving encoding time and increasing compression efficiency. We tested the coding performances of the two individual algorithms, and the results are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the proposed fast partition algorithm saved 49.77% of the encoding time, and the reference line fast decision algorithm saved 5.43% of the encoding time, with a negligible loss in encoding performance. In Table 4, we present the experimental results, comparing our proposed method with the original VTM-13.0 platform as well as other fast algorithms. Our method demonstrated significant improvements in terms of encoding time and compression performance. Compared to VTM-13.0, our proposed method achieved an average reduction in encoding time of 52.26% compared to the BDBR loss of 1.23%. This indicated that our method significantly  
Figure 8: Reference line of _Ac_ under the different thresholds. improved the efficiency of the encoding process while maintaining a high compression performance. Compared to the method described in reference [11], our approach saved more encoding time. Compared with the method in reference [16], our method was superior for both the time savings and the BDBR. The method in [16] required a large amount of data to train \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Coding Sequence**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Reference [11]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Reference [16]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Algorithm in This**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **BDBR (\%)** & **Ts (\%)** & **BDBR (\%)** & **Ts (\%)** & **BDBR (\%)** & **Ts (\%)** \\ \hline Tango2 & 0.74 & 37.01 & 1.59 & 51.85 & 1.34 & 55.97 \\ Campfire & 0.66 & 34.05 & 1.61 & 50.11 & 1.43 & 50.96 \\ CatRobatl & 0.54 & 29.91 & 1.55 & 50.59 & 1.21 & 51.41 \\ DatLightRotat2 & 0.71 & 32.12 & 1.77 & 47.92 & 1.16 & 53.25 \\ ParkRunning3 & 0.68 & 32.11 & 1.39 & 54.33 & 1.41 & 51.07 \\ MarkPlace & 0.55 & 34.15 & 1.46 & 48.11 & 1.19 & 55.11 \\ Cactus & 0.61 & 30.73 & 1.31 & 44.95 & 1.32 & 50.07 \\ BasketballDrive & 0.74 & 34.48 & 0.94 & 48.33 & 1.26 & 49.61 \\ BQTerrace & 0.62 & 30.85 & 1.49 & 46.16 & 1.02 & 49.01 \\ RaceFlores & 0.46 & 27.83 & 0.98 & 51.04 & 1.35 & 54.27 \\ BasketballDrill & 0.41 & 26.55 & 1.05 & 51.18 & 1.28 & 53.21 \\ BQMall & 0.65 & 33.79 & 0.81 & 46.95 & 1.14 & 53.02 \\ PartyScene & 0.42 & 31.62 & 0.83 & 45.88 & 1.22 & 52.65 \\ RaceFlores & 0.55 & 30.17 & 1.24 & 48.33 & 1.19 & 57.21 \\ BasketballPass & 0.7 & 30.53 & 1.18 & 45.17 & 1.07 & 48.95 \\ BQSquare & 0.29 & 29.97 & 1.41 & 40.04 & 1.11 & 53.35 \\ BlowingBubbles & 0.43 & 29.34 & 0.99 & 43.86 & 1.36 & 51.15 \\ FourPeople & 0.78 & 35.63 & 0.89 & 46.68 & 1.29 & 53.77 \\ Johnny & 0.69 & 30.65 & 1.27 & 39.21 & 1.05 & 51.57 \\ KristenAndSara & 0.59 & 31.38 & 1.63 & 49.82 & 1.38 & 50.91 \\ average & 0.59 & 31.44 & 1.29 & 47.91 & 1.23 & 52.26 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of the algorithm results.