mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Codebook Capacity Governs Perceptual Quality Across Resolutions in Hierarchical Discrete Video Compression

arXiv 2607.23366 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026eess.IV cs.CV cs.MMcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Learned video codecs based on continuous latent representations typically require resolution-specific retraining or rate-distortion (RD) recalibration when scaling to new spatial resolutions, because entropy models and Lagrangian weights are tightly coupled to the operating point. We investigate whether hierarchical discrete latent codecs exhibit the same sensitivity. Using a controlled empirical study of MS-VQ-VAE video compression across codebook sizes K ∈ 128,256,512,1024 and resolutions 64×64, 128×128, and 256×256 on UCF101, we show that perceptual quality (LPIPS) depends strongly on codebook capacity but only negligibly on spatial resolution. Fitting a log-linear model Q(K,r) = αlog2 K + βlog2 r + γ to all 12 operating points yields α=-0.0094 (t=-6.6, p<0.001) and β=-0.0009 (t=-0.43, p=0.68, not significant), with R2=0.82. Codebook capacity is therefore roughly 10× more influential than spatial resolution per log-unit increase. In parallel, bottom-level entropy efficiency η=H(z)/log2 K remains stable or improves with resolution (84-87% at 64×64; 92-94% at 256×256), confirming that larger spatial grids are utilized more efficiently rather than less. Across all resolutions and codebook sizes, our models outperform H.264 on LPIPS at matched or lower bitrate, with gains of 25-52% at 128×128 and 21-37% over H.265 at 256×256. These findings suggest that codebook size K, not spatial resolution, is the dominant design variable governing perceptual compression quality in hierarchical discrete video codecs -- a property that may simplify multi-resolution deployment and inform the design of scalable discrete tokenizers for generative video models.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

Builds on

20 of 26 references.

References · 20

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  4. 2017Neural Discrete Representation Learningcited by 4,650
  5. 2016Perceptual Losses for Real-Time Style Transfer and Super-Resolutioncited by 2,678
  6. 2018Group Normalizationcited by 1,514
  7. 2019Generating Diverse High-Fidelity Images with VQ-VAE-2cited by 1,376
  8. 2018Variational image compression with a scale hyperpriorcited by 910
  9. 2018Joint Autoregressive and Hierarchical Priors for Learned Image Compressioncited by 642
  10. 2023Language Model Beats Diffusion -- Tokenizer is Key to Visual Generationcited by 633
  11. 2023VideoPoet: A Large Language Model for Zero-Shot Video Generationcited by 479
  12. 2023Finite Scalar Quantization: VQ-VAE Made Simplecited by 425
8 more
  1. 2022MAGVIT: Masked Generative Video Transformercited by 341
  2. 2020High-Fidelity Generative Image Compressioncited by 331
  3. 2018DVC: An End-to-end Deep Video Compression Frameworkcited by 324
  4. 2021Deep Contextual Video Compressioncited by 216
  5. 2023Neural Video Compression with Diverse Contextscited by 155
  6. 2020Nonlinear Transform Codingcited by 132
  7. 2025Hierarchical Vector-Quantized Latents for Perceptual Low-Resolution Video Compressioncited by 2
  8. 2026Entropy-Coded MS-VQ-VAE with Learned Priors for Ultra-Low Bitrate Video Compressioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.