FAST PARTITIONING DECISION STRATEGIES
FOR THE UPCOMING VERSATILE VIDEO CODING (VVC) STANDARD
Adam Wieckowski*, Jackie Ma*, Heiko Schwarz*†, Detlev Marpe*, Thomas Wiegand*‡
* †
Fraunhofer HHI Freie Universität Berlin
Video Coding & Analytics Inst. of Computer Science
Berlin, Germany Berlin, Germany
ABSTRACT
One of the key technologies in the upcoming Versatile Video
Coding (VVC) standard is the flexible partitioning.
Compared to HEVC, partitioning alone accounts for about
8.5% bitrate savings. The added flexibility comes at a cost of
large search space expansion.
This paper gives an overview of fast encoder strategies
for selecting the block partitioning in the Test Model VTM-
3.0 for VVC. In total, 13 approaches for speeding up the
block partitioning selection in an encoder are described; 8 of
these techniques were developed by the authors. 10 of the 13
methods are used in the common test conditions of the Joint
Video Experts Team (JVET); these 10 methods achieve an
overall speed-up factor of 7 at a bit rate increase of only 1.1%.
By enabling 12 approaches, a speed up factor of over 8.5 is
obtained at a bit rate increase of about 1.5%.
Index Terms— VVC, QTBT, speed-up, partitioning.
1. INTRODUCTION
Similar as its predecessor HEVC, the upcoming video coding
standard Versatile Video Coding (VVC) follows the concept
of block-based hybrid video coding. While HEVC [1] only
supports a block partitioning using quadtrees [2], the current
Test Model (VTM-3.0) for VVC uses more sophisticated and
diverse split modes. In fact, the quad tree (QT) was first
replaced by the quad-tree plus binary tree (QTBT) structure
[3]. QTBT extends the quad-split by an additional binary-tree
(BT) split in vertical or horizontal direction to allow a more
flexible partitioning of the video pictures. This QTBT
structure was then further extended by an additional ternary
split [4], which splits a block into three aligned blocks with
the center block being twice as large as the outside blocks.
Similarly to the binary split, the ternary-tree (TT) split is
supported in both horizontal and vertical direction. Figure 1
Figure 1: Partitioning modes in VTM-3.0. Quad split,
binary splits, and ternary splits.
978-1-5386-6249-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
‡
Technische Universität Berlin
Media Technology
Berlin, Germany
illustrates the different split modes that are supported in the
current Test Model VTM-3.0 of Versatile Video Coding.
The combination of QTBT and the ternary split is called
QTBTT and replaces the quad-tree structure used in HEVC.
In general, the support of additional partitioning modes
typically increases the achievable coding efficiency for a
video coding design. However, it also increases the encoder
complexity, since an encoder has to test more splitting
options to select the appropriate partitioning for a picture
region. The first test model of VVC, VTM-1.0 [5], employs
the described QTBTT partitioning, but despite of that it
supported a very similar set of coding tools as HEVC. The
more flexible partitioning yields average bit rate savings of
about 8.5% relative to HEVC [6].
In modern video encoders, as the VTM-3.0 reference
encoder, the coding modes for a block of samples is selected
by minimizing a Lagrangian rate-distortion (RD) cost [7],
J = D + λ ⋅ R, (1)
where 𝐷 represents the resulting SSD distortion between
original and reconstructed samples, 𝑅 specifies the number of
bits required for coding the block in a certain coding mode,
and 𝜆 is a constant Lagrange multiplier. When deciding
between two modes, their RD costs J are compared and the
mode with lower cost is chosen. The partitioning search is
based on the G-BFOS algorithm [2], in which a cost Js of a
split mode with N sub-blocks is defined as
Js = λ ⋅ Rs + ∑k Jk. (2)
The split cost Js is calculated from the number of bits required
for signaling the split (Rs) and the sum of the RD costs for the
resulting sub-blocks (Jk), which are given by (1) or (2). The
estimation of the optimal sub-block RD costs Jk is often a
very time consuming process. In a full encoder search, all
possible modes and their coding costs J are calculated.
A fast encoder search strategy could predict that a cost
for a certain mode would not reduce the current minimum
cost J and, then, the full evaluation process of the specific
mode could be skipped. This is particularly important for split
modes, as the estimation of Jk requires the evaluation of all
possible sub-block partitionings.
In the VTM-3.0 reference software, the coding modes
are tested sequentially. For any given block, the split modes
are tested after all non-split modes. Among the split modes,
4130 ICIP 2019
the binary splits are tested first, and the quad split is tested as
the last mode. In this paper, we describe several methods by
which unlikely modes are excluded from the mode decision
process in order to decrease the encoder run time.
2. RELATED WORK
For the HEVC quad-tree partitioning, numerous fast
encoding strategies have been proposed in the literature [2,8-
16].
Some of these methods are directly related to (1) and (2).
For example methods presented in [2] and [8] discard any
further splitting after a specific cost threshold is reached for
the coding of a current block. More precisely, the threshold
used in [2] is based on the sum of absolute transform
coefficients, whereas the threshold proposed in [8] is
obtained by weighting the split signaling rate Rs and the
current non-split cost with a context dependent parameter.
In [18], a probabilistic model for predicting the cost of
splitting is developed for QTBT; this approach is similar to
the simple predictor suggested in [8]. This strategy allows to
skip the evaluation of about 50% of the supported partitioning
modes, but results in a 1% bit rate increase (for the JEM
software) [19]. A detailed review of further methods is
beyond the scope of this paper; the interested reader is
referred to overview in [8].
With QTBTT for VVC [17] being a very recent
partitioning approach still under development, at the time of
writing, the authors are not aware of any fast encoder strategy
specifically designed for the QTBTT partitioning.
3. FAST ENCODER STRATEGIES
In the following, we briefly describe different methods for
accelerating the partitioning search in VVC. Table 1 contains
a summary of all discussed approaches. The approaches
discussed in sections 3.1.–3.5. were initially developed for
the JEM [19] software, and ported into the initial version
VVC VTM-1.0. The strategies described in sections 3.6.–
3.13. were introduced by the authors in various standard
contributions.
While additional speed-ups were introduced with the
initial adoption of QTBT [20,21], some of them are not
related to selecting the block partitioning and are thus not
discussed in this paper. Such speed-ups include an improved
selection of merge modes and a fast intra-in-inter decision.
3.1. Early Skip-based termination condition
This rule was introduced in the HEVC reference software
[22]. If the Skip mode is the best non-split mode for a current
block (in terms of the RD cost), then no split mode is tested.
The rule works well for HEVC, but yields a large loss in
coding efficiency for VVC (as shown in Table 1).
4131
3.2. BT based QT split prohibition
This rule can skip the evaluation of the quad-split, if both
binary splits were evaluated and did not reduce the coding
cost. The rule also applies if a binary split was chosen for the
current-block, but none of the sub-blocks is further split.
3.3. Adaptive QT search restriction
A minimal and maximal number of consecutive QT-splits is
adaptively calculated from already estimated neighboring
blocks. A QT split is enforced if the current depth is below
the range and a QT split is prohibited if the current depth
exceeds the range, respectively.
3.4. Depth-restricted Skip mode condition
This speed-up is similar to the method described in 3.1, but
its application is restricted to nodes at predefined depths of
the BTT (i.e. QTBTT without QT), thus only skipping the
search of relatively small portions of the partitioning space.
3.5. Block search history heuristics
This method does not control the decision to perform an RD
search for a specific split, but rather controls the RD search
for non-split modes exploiting partitioning redundancies.
With QTBTT, a specific coding block might results from
different partitioning configurations – e.g. 64×64 block might
results from a quad split at CTU (128×128) level, or a binary
vertical split followed by a binary horizontal split. In this
method, when a specific coding block is first evaluated, the
RD search results are stored. Every time this block is
evaluated again in different partitioning modes, the stored
information is used to form a set of heuristic rules governing
the selection of non-split modes used in the RD search.
3.6. Direct block re-usage
This method is similar to the approach described in 3.5. In
contrast to 3.5., the best result from the first evaluation is
directly reused instead of forming a set of heuristic rules. This
method can be applied when the causal neighborhood of a
block is in the exact same state as during the first evaluation
– i.e. they have the same CABAC engine state (except for the
partitioning-related contexts) as well as all neighboring
reconstructed samples used for prediction are the same.
3.7. QT first RD search
This method changes the order of split modes. If activated,
the quad split will be tested before the binary and ternary
splits. The binary and ternary splits are then only tested if no
further quad split is selected by the RD search in any of the
quadrants. To not interfere with the speed-up described in
3.2., the change in search order and the application of this
heuristic is conditioned on the quad-tree depth of the
neighboring blocks, which indicates the probability of a
quad-tree split being applied to the current block.
3.8. Topology-based TT split prohibition
In general, the ternary split isolates the middle of a block in a
larger block and the edges in smaller blocks. Thereby it
produces two elongated rectangular blocks at the boundary.
This method evaluates the topology resulting from evaluating
binary splits to decide the viability of testing parallel ternary
splits. If the results of binary splits do not reflect this
property, i.e., neither of the binary split sub-blocks is further
split in the same direction, the RD search for the ternary split
is skipped.
3.9. Split cost prediction
The idea behind this method [8] is to predict the resulting RD
cost J of a split without an extensive RD search, using a
simple expression Jp. The predictor uses the known best non-
split cost J0 and weights it with a configurable factor f. With
Rs being the rate required for signaling the split mode, the
predicted cost is derived by (see [8])
Jp = λ ⋅ Rs + J0 / f. (3)
If Jp > J0, then the RD search for the specific split is skipped.
The factor f is derived from the quantization parameter QP; it
is equal to 1.1 for QPs larger than 30, and 1.075 otherwise.
3.10. Skip history based speed-up
This rule is based on the skip mode. However, in contrast to
3.1. and 3.4., it also considers the history of past best coding
modes. For non-intra slices no split modes are being tested, if
for the past two consecutive coding levels (i.e. the current
block and the block for which the current block is a sub-
block) the skip mode was the best coding option.
3.11. Residual-based TT split prohibition
A ternary split is not tested for a block at the current level if
the best non-split coding mode has no residual and the
parallel binary split (tested before the ternary split) did not
reduce the RD cost.
3.12. Content-based gradient speed-up
This rule is based on the original signal. Splits in horizontal
direction are not tested if the gradient of the original block in
vertical direction is greater than the gradient in horizontal
direction and the gradient along the diagonal. Likewise, splits
in vertical direction are not tested if the gradient in horizontal
direction is greater than the gradient in vertical direction and
the gradient along the diagonal. Further, a threshold controls
the strictness of this rule.
3.13. Heuristic intra leaf cut
No further split modes are tested for blocks with size smaller
than 32×32 in all-intra configuration if the current best coding
unit has no residual and the current binary tree depth is strictly
greater than one. This rule is only applied to luma blocks.

Table 1: List of reviewed rules and their performance impact for random-access (RA) and all-intra (AI) configurations.
The speed-up impact is tested for a configuration without any partitioning speed-ups (“on”) and a
configuration with all other speed-ups included in CTC enabled (“off”). Last two rows show the combined
performance of all methods enabled in CTC, and all described methods. Inactive rules are marked cursive.
RA on RA off AI on AI off
Name Description Adoption BD-Y EncT BD-Y EncT BD-Y EncT BD-Y EncT
ECU 3.1. [22] 3.35% 37% 3.28% 80% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100%
QT_FROM_BT 3.2. [21] -0.01% 67% 0.01% 94% 0.01% 82% 0.00% 97%
ADAPT_QTD 3.3. [26] 0.00% 94% 0.04% 100% 0.01% 97% 0.00% 100%
SKIPD 3.4. [25] 0.11% 77% 0.11% 95% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100%
REUSE_HEU 3.5. [27] 0.35% 68% 0.22% 70% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100%
JEM 3.2. – 3.5. 0.47% 34% 0.38% 63% 0.02% 81% -0.02% 98%
REUSE_DIRECT 3.6. [28] -0.01% 90% 0.02% 95% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100%
BT_FROM_QT 3.7. [29] 0.09% 96% 0.04% 88% 0.06% 92% 0.05% 90%
TT_FROM_BT 3.8. [30] 0.39% 89% 0.37% 81% 0.24% 85% 0.24% 78%
SPLIT_COST 3.9. [28] 0.02% 49% 0.06% 84% 0.02% 62% 0.05% 75%
SKIP_HIST 3.10. [30] 0.07% 58% 0.07% 97% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100%
BTT_CBF 3.11. [30] 0.08% 59% 0.11% 85% 0.00% 84% -0.01% 99%
GRAD 3.12. [31] 0.45% 85% 0.44% 81% 0.23% 86% 0.26% 87%
IS_PLANAR 3.13. [31] 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.09% 90% 0.09% 87%
NONJEM-CTC 3.6. – 3.11. 0.71% 23% 0.62% 39% 0.35% 41% 0.31% 48%
NONJEM-ALL 3.6. – 3.13. 1.11% 19% 1.06% 32% 0.67% 35% 0.66% 41%
CTC 3.2. – 3.11. 1.09% 14% 0.33% 41%
ALL 3.2. – 3.13. 1.54% 12% 0.68% 34%

4132
 4. RESULTS
The individual and combined results for all described
methods are presented in Table 1. The results are based on
the test model VTM-3.0 in two configurations (for the “on”
and “off” tests). The table shows the reported luma BD rate
[6] change and the difference of run times (using geometric
means as specified for reporting in common test conditions
CTC [23]) over all CTC sequences for each described speed-
up. The table is divided into three parts. The first parts shows
the results of the speed-up rules 3.2. – 3.5., which were
inherited from [19]. A combined result for those methods is
denoted by JEM.
The second part of the table shows the speed-ups
developed by the authors 3.6. – 3.13. and incorporated into
the VVC test model [24] in various contributions. This part is
summarized showing the combined performance of the
speed-ups for all of the proposed speed-ups (NONJEM
ALL) and only the speed-ups 3.6. – 3.11., which are part of
the current common test conditions [23] (NONJEM-CTC).
In the last part of the table, the results for all combined
speed-ups are denoted as ALL (excluding ECU due to poor
performance). Speed-ups currently active in the common test
conditions [23] are presented as CTC.
Each speed-up is tested in two configurations. First in an
“on” configuration and second in an “off” configuration. In
the “on” configuration, all discussed methods but the tested
speed-up are disabled. In the “off” configuration, the speed-
up is tested against the CTC configuration, i.e. all speed-ups
3.2.-3.11. are on except for the speed-up that is to be tested.
Thus, the “off” tests show how the specified method performs
in the context of already heavily optimized partitioning
search. The differences in both measurements are discussed
in the next section. Due to high computational complexity for
the “on” tests, the results are shown for the first 49-frames.
The overall performance when speed-ups are activated in
the common test conditions for the random-access
configuration shows a 7× speed-up with a luma BD-rate loss
of 1.09%. When all speed-ups are activated the speed-up can
be increased to 8.5× with a luma BD-rate loss of about 1.5%.
The contributions by the authors to the partitioning
encoder decisions on top of the pre-existing JEM rules
accounts for a 2.5× speed-up at a 0.62% luma BD-rate loss.
When considered independently (“on” configuration), these
rules can speed-up the partitioning by a factor of over 4 for a
BD-rate loss of 0.71%.
5. DISCUSSION
In the results presented in Table 1 it is apparent that most of
the presented rules show better results in the “on” case than
in the “off” test. This can be mostly attributed to fact, that in
the “on” test, the tested search space is much larger, thus
containing more unnecessary tests.
This phenomenon is the strongest for the rules ECU,
SKIPD, SPLIT_COST, SKIP_HIST and BTT_CBF. These
4133
rules are based on the same assumption. During the encoder
search, at some point the encoder will decide for a block that
the optimal encoding is not to code any residual and possibly
use the simplest prediction – which is the Skip mode. This
might be attributed to the fact that this simple prediction is
almost perfect and no further refinement is necessary. It
might be also caused by the residual containing essential high
frequencies which are very costly to encode. In the latter case,
terminating the encoder search would degrade the coding
performance significantly. This is the reason for the poor
results obtained with the ECU method.
All of the other aforementioned methods use some form
of side-condition to confirm early termination. SKIPD will
only terminate if the remaining search space to be searched
by the G-BDOF algorithm [2] is relatively small. SKIP_HIST
checks if the decision is repeated at two consecutive levels of
the partitioning hierarchy, and BTT_CBF only skips the RD
search of a TT split if the parallel BT split did not provide a
coding improvement. The method SPLIT_COST compares
the current best non-split coding cost against the known rate
for split signaling. In this way, the condition is based on the
actual coding cost of the best candidate and as such is more
flexible and adaptive to the true coding cost.
The rules SPLIT_COST and BTT_CBF keep a
considerable part of their performance in the “off” test,
meaning that at least partially they introduce unique
termination strategies that are not encompassed by any other
speed-ups. In contrast, SKIPD and SKIP_HIST lose most of
their performance in the “off” test indicating that most of the
early terminations they introduce can be expressed using one
of the remaining rules.
The speed-ups REUSE_HEU and GRAD perform very
similar in both “on” and “off” test, implicating that they are
more or less independent from other methods.
Notably, the rules BT_FROM_QT and TT_FROM_BT,
show better performance in the “off” tests than in the “on”
tests. This indicates these methods have less interaction with
other speed-ups.
6. CONCLUSION
The upcoming video coding standard VVC utilizes a very
powerful partitioning scheme. It allows to isolate complex
patterns into simple rectangular shapes. This flexibility
creates a very large search space, which needs to be processed
efficiently. We reviewed the search rules used in the current
reference software encoder [24] with an emphasis on the
speed-ups contributed by the authors.
The overall bit rate savings introduced by the new
partitioning structure is about 8.5% [5] (with some of the
described speed-ups already included). Using the current
algorithm in the random-access configuration, the encoder
can skip searching through 86% of the partitioning search
space with a bit rate increase of only 1.09% (about 13% of
the overall partitioning gain), thus providing a 7× encoder
speed-up.
 7. REFERENCES
[1] G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm, W.-J. Han, and T. Wiegand,
“Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)
Standard,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for
Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1649–1668, 2012.
[2] D. Marpe et al., “Video Compression Using Nested Quadtree
Structures, Leaf Merging, and Improved Techniques for
Motion Representation and Entropy Coding,” IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,
vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1676–1687, 2010.
[3] J. An, Y.-W. Chen, K. Zhang, H. Huang, Y.-W. Huang, and S.
Lei, Block partitioning structure for next generation video
coding, ITU-T SG16 Doc. COM16–C966, Sep. 2015.
[4] X. Li, H.-C. Chuang, J. Chen, M. Karczewicz, L. Zhang, X.
Zhao, and A. Said, Mult-Type-Tree, document D0117, Joint
Video Exploration Team (JVET), Oct. 2016.
[5] F. Bossen, X. Li, and K. Suehring, JVET AHG report: Test
model software development (AHG3), document JVET-
K0003, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET), Jul. 2018.
[6] G. Bjøntegaard, Calculation of average PSNR differences
between RD-curves, Technical Report VCEG-M33, ITU-T
SG16/Q6, Austin, Texas, USA, 2001.
[7] G. J. Sullivan and T. Wiegand, “Rate-Distortion Optimization
for Video Compression,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine,
vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 74–90, 1998.
[8] A. Wieckowski, J. Ma, H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T.
Wiegand, “Recursive partitioning search space pruning using
split cost prediction,” in 2019 Data Compression Conference
(DCC), Snowbird, UT, 2019.
[9] G. Correa, et al., “Fast HEVC Encoding Decisions Using Data
Mining,” Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 660–673, 2015.
[10] J. Chen and L. Yu, “Effective HEVC intra coding unit size
decision based on online progressive Bayesian classification,”
in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo
(ICME): Seattle, USA, July 11-15, 2016, Seattle, WA, USA,
2016.
[11] Y. Liu, W. Tian, Y. Li and H. Yang, “Fast CU Termination
Algorithm with AdaBoost Classifier in HEVC Encoder,”
IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst., vol. E101.D, no. 9, pp. 2220–2223,
2018.
[12] M. Tang et al., “Accelerating HEVC Encoding Using Early-
Split,” Signal Processing Letters, IEEE, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 209–
213, 2018.
[13] Y. Zhang et al., “Machine learning-based coding unit depth
decisions for flexible complexity allocation in high efficiency
video coding,” (eng), IEEE transactions on image processing:
a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, vol. 24,
no. 7, pp. 2225–2238, 2015.
[14] S. Zhou, Z. Ye, and Y. Wang, “Fast HEVC CU/PU mode
decision based on ANN and texture analysis,” in 2016 Sixth
International Conference on Image Processing Theory, Tools
and Applications: IPTA 2016, Oulu, Finland, December 2016,
Oulu, Finland, 2016.
[15] H. Amer, A. Rashwan and E. Yang, “Fully Connected
Network for HEVC CU Split Decision equipped with
Laplacian Transparent Composite Model,” in 2018 Picture
Coding Symposium (PCS), San Francisco, CA, 2018.
[16] J. Chen and L. Yu, “Effective HEVC intra coding unit size
decision based on online progressive Bayesian classification,”
in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo
4134
(ICME): Seattle, USA, July 11-15, 2016, Seattle, WA, USA,
2016.
[17] B. Bross, J. Chen, and S. Liu, Versatile Video Coding (Draft
3), document JVET-L1001, Joint Video Experts Team
(JVET), Oct. 2018.
[18] Z. Wang, S. Wang, J. Zhang, S. Wang, and S. Ma,
“Probabilistic Decision Based Block Partitioning for Future
Video Coding,” IEEE transactions on image processing: a
publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, 2017.
[19] X. Li, and K. Suehring, JVET AHG report: JEM software
development (AHG3), document JVET-J0003, Joint Video
Experts Team (JVET), Apr. 2018.
[20] J. An, H. Huang, K. Zhang, Y.-W. Huang, and S. Lei,
Quadtree plus binary tree structure integration with JEM
tools, document JVET-B0023, Joint Video Exploration Team
(JVET), Feb. 2016.
[21] H. Huang, K. Zhang, Y.-W. Huang, and S. Lei, EE2.1:
Quadtree plus binary tree structure integration with JEM
tools, document JVET-C0024, Joint Video Exploration Team
(JVET), May 2016.
[22] R. H. Gweon, Y.-L. Lee, and J. Lim, Early Termination of CU
Encoding to Reduce HEVC Complexity, document JCTVC-
F045, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC),
Jul. 2011.
[23] F. Bossen, J. Boyce, X. Li, V. Seregin, and K. Suehring, JVET
common test conditions and software reference configurations
for SDR video, document JVET-L1010, Joint Video Experts
Team (JVET), Oct. 2018.
[24] F. Bossen, X. Li, and K. Suehring, JVET AHG report: Test
model software development (AHG3), document JVET-
M0003, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET). Jan. 2019.
[25] Y. Yamamoto, T. Ikai, and Y. Yasugi, AHG5: Improved fast
encoding setting, document JVET-E0023, Joint Video
Exploration Team (JVET), Jan. 2017.
[26] J Chen, Y Chen, M Karczewicz, X Li, H Liu, L Zhang, and X
Zhao, Coding tools investigation for next generation video
coding, ITU-T SG16 Doc. COM16-C806-E, Sep. 2015.
[27] H. Huang, S. Liu, Y.-W. Huang, C.-Y. Chen, and S. Lei,
AHG5: Speed-up for JEM-3.1, document JVET-D0077, Joint
Video Exploration Team (JVET), Oct. 2016.
[28] J. Ma, A. Wieckowski, H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, T. Wiegand, F.
Le Léannec, and T. Poirer, Non-CE1: Proposal for a
partitioning method by Franhofer HHI and Technicolor,
document JVET-K0220, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET),
Jul. 2018.
[29] A. Wieckowski, T. Hinz, V. George, J. Brandenburg, J. Ma, S.
De-Luxán-Hernández, B. Bross, H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T.
Wiegand, AHG10: Updated NextSoftware as an alternative
implementation of the Joint Exploration Model (JEM),
document JVET-I0034, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET),
Jan. 2018.
[30] A. Wieckowski, T. Hinz, B. Bross, T. Nguyen, J. Ma, K.
Suehring, H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T. Wiegand,
NextSoftware as Test Software, document JVET-J0095, Joint
Video Experts Team (JVET), Apr. 2018.
[31] A. Wieckowski, T. Hinz, V. George, J. Brandenburg, J. Ma, B.
Bross, H. Schwarz, D. Marpe, and T. Wiegand, NextSoftware:
An alternative implementation of the Joint Exploration Model
(JEM), document H0084, Joint Video Exploration Team
(JVET), Oct. 2017.