# A Fast Algorithm for VVC Intra Coding Based on the Most Probable Partition Pattern List
## 4 Experimental Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Coding Sequence**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fast Partition**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Skip Reference Line 3 Decision**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **BDBR (\%)** & **Ts (\%)** & **BDBR (\%)** & **Ts (\%)** \\ \hline Tango2 & 1.11 & 47.12 & 0.04 & 5.75 \\ Campfire & 0.99 & 50.25 & 0.06 & 6.72 \\ CatRobot & 1.35 & 51.11 & 0.08 & 4.11 \\ DatLightRotat2 & 1.16 & 47.25 & 0.11 & 7.25 \\ ParkRunning3 & 1.05 & 50.11 & 0.09 & 3.21 \\ MarkPlace & 1.23 & 49.32 & 0.09 & 6.42 \\ Cactus & 1.01 & 48.75 & 0.11 & 5.21 \\ BasketballDrive & 0.88 & 50.42 & 0.21 & 7.32 \\ QTerrace & 0.71 & 52.31 & 0.33 & 4.11 \\ RaceFlores & 0.91 & 45.15 & 0.12 & 6.21 \\ BasketballDrill & 1.02 & 49.03 & 0.09 & 4.32 \\ BQMall & 1.22 & 50.62 & 0.04 & 7.21 \\ PartyScene & 1.11 & 49.32 & 0.12 & 4.21 \\ RaceFlores & 0.87 & 48.01 & 0.09 & 5.01 \\ BasketballPass & 0.96 & 52.01 & 0.14 & 6.02 \\ BQSquare & 0.93 & 51.04 & 0.13 & 6.45 \\ BlowingBubbles & 1.11 & 49.21 & 0.06 & 4.66 \\ FourPeople & 0.94 & 50.22 & 0.21 & 5.23 \\ Johnny & 0.92 & 47.42 & 0.21 & 6.69 \\ KristenAndSara & 1.08 & 50.32 & 0.09 & 4.24 \\ average & 1.02 & 49.77 & 0.12 & 5.43 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Experimental results of the different algorithms for the different test sequences. the model, and the performance of the method may have been affected if the training data were insufficient or not comprehensive enough. We plotted the corresponding curve graph for the data in Table 3, as shown in Figure 9. By observing Figure 9, it is evident that the proposed algorithm in this paper significantly saved encoding time compared to the method proposed in reference [11]. Furthermore, when compared to reference [16], the curve corresponding to the saved encoding time in the proposed algorithm is smoother, indicating that the proposed algorithm was stable for various coding sequences. The method presented in reference [16] showed significant variation in its encoding results for different coding sequences, indicating lower stability compared to our proposed algorithm. In Figure 10, we present the rate-distortion (RD) curves for the sequences Basketball-Pass and BlowingBubbles, comparing the performance of our proposed method (represented by the red curve) with that of the original encoder (represented by the black curve). Figure 10a,b shows the RD curves for BasketballPass and BlowingBubbles, respectively. For BlowingBubbles, the RD curve of the proposed method is slightly lower than that of the original encoder. For BasketballPass, the RD curve of our proposed method nearly coincides with that of the original encoder. Therefore, our algorithm effectively saved encoding time while maintaining a high RD performance. Figure 11 shows a subjective quality comparison for BasketballDrill. As we can see in Figure 11, the reconstructed frame of the proposed algorithm is nearly the same as that of the original encoder. Other sequences had similar situations, which verified the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Figure 9: Encoding time savings curves for the different algorithms [11; 16].