Despite recent progress in learned image compression, existing methods remain computationally expensive on resource-constrained hardware, particularly CPUs. We introduce PULSE, a practical codec that enables (1) low-latency decoding on diverse hardware platforms with an ultra-low-complexity 5.2 kMAC/pixel neural receiver, and (2) efficient bit-exact entropy coding with an integer linear CDF predictor and a meta prior. To recover compression performance under this tight budget, we introduce an agentic evolution process guided by heuristic probes that iteratively improves the architecture through human-LLM collaboration. PULSE decodes a 1080p image in 126 ms on a single CPU thread while achieving compression performance comparable to HM. After perceptual optimization, PULSE competes with larger perceptual codecs like MS-ILLM. Codes are at https://github.com/microsoft/GenCodec/tree/main/PULSE
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pulse targets practical image compression on resource-constrained hardware. Its 5.2 kMAC/pixel receiver decodes a 1080p image in 126 ms on a single thread of an AMD EPYC 9V84, while enabling bit-exact entropy coding across devices like REDMI K80 Pro. On the CLIC Professional validation set, Pulse matches HM and its perceptual variant competes with larger codecs such as MS-ILLM ( Muckley et al., 2023 ) . Latency is measured for the full decoding pipeline, including network inference and entropy decoding. Circle radius denotes the decoding complexity.
Figure 2: PULSE architecture. It consists of an encoder at 1/16 resolution, a decoupled linear CDF index decoder with a meta prior, a two-step entropy model, and a decoder with an AdaLN-modulated pixel renderer. AE and AD denote arithmetic encoding and decoding, respectively.
Figure 3: Bit-exact entropy coding path. Meta Prior transmits ζ^ to select CDFs for z^ with different content complexities. An integer linear projection maps z^ to CDF indices for entropy coding of yq .
Method
CLIC test set
LC subset
Single-thread CPU Time
Float
INT8
Float
INT8
z^→σ
z^→ CDF
Integerize full entropy model
1.5%
5.7%
3.1%
7.8%
85.9 ms
86.0 ms
+ LUT scale decoder ( Pärnamaa et al., 2026 )
29.7%
29.7%
59.6%
59.6%
0.5 ms
0.5 ms
+ Hyper scale decoder ( Ascenso et al., 2023 )
–0.1%
3.2%
2.1%
6.4%
28.1 ms
29.2 ms
+ Linear scale decoder
4.5%
4.5%
11.8%
12.0%
1.2 ms
4.1 ms
+ Linear CDF decoder
2.4%
2.4%
9.8%
9.9%
N/A
1.6 ms
Table 1: Ablation of bit-exact entropy-coding designs. BD-rate is measured on the CLIC test set and a subset of images with low content complexity (LC subset). Latency is measured for a 1080p image on one AMD EPYC 9V84 CPU thread.
Figure 4: Agentic evolution , illustrated for round E4 → E5 in the complete trajectory in Figure 10 . Layer-wise probes measure redundancy and headroom . A human researcher and an LLM agent interpret the evidence to propose fixed-budget reallocations, and validate them by training.
Figure 5: Visual comparison. Pulse achieves comparable or better visual quality after perceptual and ROI optimization. More results are in Appendix C.4 .
Figure 6: Rate–distortion curves. CLIC Professional validation results for MSE-optimized codecs (left) and perceptually optimized codecs (right). More results are in Appendix C.3 .
Table 2: Ablation studies. BD-Rate ( ↓ ) is measured in terms of PSNR and FID for the MSE- and perceptual- optimized versions, respectively. Decoder speed is measured on 1080p images on an NPU.
Method
VBR
BE
Target
Encoding
Decoding
BD-rate ↓
Params
kMAC/px
Time
Params
kMAC/px
Time
on PSNR
on FID
HEIC
✓
✓
MSE
libheif + x265
1.4 s
libheif + libde265
80 ms
+25.2%
+2680%
HM-16.25
✓
✓
MSE
HM Encoder
8.8 s
HM Decoder
98 ms
0.0%
+2450%
VTM-17.0
✓
✓
MSE
VTM Encoder
249 s
VTM Decoder
189 ms
-23.4%
+2660%
JPEG-AI
×
✓
MSE
7.1 M
56
2.6 s
4.4 M
8.1
643 ms
+37.4%
+1720%
MS-Hyperprior
×
×
MSE
14 M
112
2.1 s
12 M
109
2.4 s
-1.7%
+3830%
Table 3: Complexity and rate–distortion performance. Time measurements use 1088×1920 inputs on a single-thread CPU. BD-rate is evaluated on the CLIC Professional validation set. VBR denotes variable bitrates within one model, and BE denotes bit-exact entropy coding across platforms.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Sender
Receiver
PULSE
PULSE-S
PULSE-L
kMAC/px
Param.
kMAC/px
Param.
kMAC/px
Param.
Analysis transform
✓
×
43.22
12.1M
43.08
11.1M
43.21
12.1M
Hyper encoder
✓
×
0.45
0.30M
0.31
0.19M
0.93
0.66M
Hyper decoder
✓
✓
0.24
0.15M
0.16
0.09M
0.44
0.32M
Entropy model step-1
✓
✓
0.58
0.17M
0.48
0.13M
1.35
0.41M
Entropy model step-2
✓
✓
0.74
0.21M
0.61
0.16M
1.67
0.50M
Appendix
Table 4: Component accounting for Pulse .
Model
Pipeline
Neural inference
Others
Total
Pulse -s
Encoding
913 ms
7 ms
920 ms
Decoding
70 ms
7 ms
77 ms
Pulse
Encoding
913 ms
7 ms
920 ms
Decoding
119 ms
7 ms
126 ms
Pulse -L
Encoding
963 ms
9 ms
972 ms
Decoding
411 ms
9 ms
420 ms
Appendix
Table 5: Single-thread CPU end-to-end latency of PULSE. Others includes non-neural processing, such as entropy coding and CDF indexing.
Environment
Platform
Neural backend
CPU backend
Mismatch
Phone
REDMI K80 Pro
NPU: Snapdragon 8 Elite
Snapdragon 8 Elite
0
Laptop
HP OmniBook Ultra Flip 14
CPU: Intel Core Ultra 9 288V
Intel Core Ultra 9 288V
0
Server
GPU server
GPU: NVIDIA A100
AMD EPYC 9V84
0
Appendix
Table 6: Cross-device entropy coding bit-exact validation. Mismatch counts both CDF-index and decoded-symbol mismatches.
Model
Stage
Crop
Steps
Batch
λ range
Learning-rate schedule
MSE
LR training
512
500 k
8
24 – 672
10−3 (200k) →10−4 (200k) →10−5 (100k)
HR training
1024
50 k
8
24 – 672
10−4 (40k) →10−5 (10k)
Perceptual
Stage I LR
512
300 k
16
0.5 – 12.5
10−3 (200k) →10−4 (100k)
Stage I HR
1024
50 k
16
0.5 – 12.5
10−4 (40k) →10−5 (10k)
Stage II
1024
20 k
32
3 – 25
10−4 (10k) →10−5 (10k)
Appendix
Table 7: Training schedules.
Training variant
PSNR
LPIPS-VGG
FID
Face PSNR
Text PSNR
Stage I w/o high LPIPS weight
-0.4%
+6.0%
+5.7%
+6.1%
+1.6%
Stage II w/o GAN Loss
–3.6%
–6.4%
+49.8%
–4.1%
–4.5%
Stage II w/o ROI
+0.2%
–2.4%
–3.7%
+37.7%
+20.8%
Proposed perceptual optimization
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation study on perceptual training designs. BD-Rate is measured.
Figure 7: Rate–distortion curves on the 300-image CLIC test subset released by PICO.
Method
PSNR
LPIPS-Alex
LPIPS-VGG
DISTS
FID
MRIC
-1.2%
+9.7%
+58.5%
+51.1%
+98.4%
MS-ILLM
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
CoD-Lite
+160%
+109.4%
-39.7%
-1.3%
+9.4%
PICO
+18.2%
+50.7%
-30.6%
-52.3%
-6%
PULSE (Perceptual)
+2.2%
+31.1%
-38.2%
-29.3%
+12.7%
PULSE-L (Perceptual)
-7.1%
+8.9%
-48.9%
-45.2%
-18.2%
Appendix
Table 9: BD-rate comparison on PICO-matched 300-image CLIC test subset. Anchor: MS-ILLM.
Figure 8: Rate-distortion curves on more benchmarks for MSE-optimized codecs.
Figure 9: Rate-distortion curves on more benchmarks for perceptual-optimized codecs.
Figure 10: Full agentic evolution process and final parameters at different scales.
Transition
Main change
Motivation
E1 → E2
Move rendering to a 1/4 -resolution grid
relieve the narrow full-resolution renderer
E2 → E3
Replace four narrow blocks with one wider block
concentrate low-resolution capacity
E3 → E4
Increase main and hyper latent capacity
address pressure in shared representations
E4 → E5
Introduce grouped pointwise convolution
reclaim entropy-model computation
E5 → E6
Reallocate internal width to the main latent
strengthen shared latent capacity
E6 → E7
Reduce FFN channels and increase decoder depth
improve nonlinear decoder processing
Appendix
Table 10: Illustrations on each evolution.
Method
Kodak
Tecnick
DIV2K
CLIC pro val
CLIC test
HEIC
+14.3%
+28.4%
+21.1%
+25.2%
+16.9%
HM-16.25
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
VTM-17.0
-21.3%
-23.8%
-22.8%
-23.4%
-23%
JPEG-AI
+54.3%
+41.2%
+33%
+37.4%
+33.2%
MS-Hyperprior
-2.2%
-4.6%
-3.3%
-1.7%
-2%
Shallow NTC
+6.3%
+9.9%
+9.3%
+13%
+11.9%
Appendix
Table 11: BD-Rate comparison on PSNR. Anchor: HM-16.25.
Method
Kodak
Tecnick
DIV2K
CLIC pro val
CLIC test
HEIC
+890%
+820%
+900%
+1420%
+1330%
HM-16.25
+840%
+800%
+880%
+1340%
+1450%
VTM-17.0
+740%
+690%
+790%
+1140%
+1250%
JPEG-AI
+830%
+700%
+760%
+1130%
+1120%
MS-Hyperprior
+1010%
+920%
+1000%
+1630%
+1640%
Shallow NTC
+1530%
+1300%
+1540%
+2410%
+2360%
Appendix
Table 12: BD-Rate comparison on LPIPS-Alex. Anchor: MS-ILLM.
Method
Kodak
Tecnick
DIV2K
CLIC pro val
CLIC test
HEIC
+330%
+340%
+290%
+520%
+530%
HM-16.25
+300%
+330%
+270%
+490%
+560%
VTM-17.0
+260%
+270%
+230%
+480%
+540%
JPEG-AI
+270%
+240%
+200%
+360%
+370%
MS-Hyperprior
+300%
+350%
+290%
+570%
+580%
Shallow NTC
+460%
+540%
+450%
+950%
+1000%
Appendix
Table 13: BD-Rate comparison on LPIPS-VGG. Anchor: MS-ILLM.
Method
Kodak
Tecnick
DIV2K
CLIC pro val
CLIC test
HEIC
+550%
+590%
+570%
+1070%
+920%
HM-16.25
+480%
+560%
+500%
+960%
+960%
VTM-17.0
+570%
+630%
+610%
+1160%
+1130%
JPEG-AI
+560%
+550%
+540%
+910%
+860%
MS-Hyperprior
+680%
+890%
+790%
+1500%
+1410%
Shallow NTC
+980%
+1090%
+1070%
+2090%
+1920%
Appendix
Table 14: BD-Rate comparison on DISTS. Anchor: MS-ILLM.
Method
Kodak
Tecnick
DIV2K
CLIC pro val
CLIC test
HEIC
+770%
+1770%
+1940%
+2680%
+4820%
HM-16.25
+630%
+1630%
+1700%
+2450%
+4890%
VTM-17.0
+730%
+1480%
+1700%
+2660%
+3820%
JPEG-AI
+530%
+1140%
+1130%
+1720%
+2540%
MS-Hyperprior
+800%
+2060%
+2120%
+3830%
+4980%
Shallow NTC
+1010%
+2800%
+2990%
+5590%
+8750%
Appendix
Table 15: BD-Rate comparison on FID. Anchor: MS-ILLM.
Figure 11: More visual examples on text contents.
Figure 12: More visual examples on natural contents.
One of the major differentiators unlocked by learned codecs relative to their hard-coded traditional counterparts is their ability to be optimized directly to appeal to the human visual system. Despite this potential, a perceptual yet practical image codec is yet to be proposed. In this work, we aim to close this gap. We conduct a comprehensive study of the key modeling choices that govern the design of a practical learned image codec, jointly optimized for perceptual quality and runtime -- including within the ablations several novel techniques. We then perform performance-aware neural architecture search over millions of backbone configurations to identify models that achieve the target on-device runtime while maximizing compression performance as captured by perceptual metrics. We combine the various optimizations to construct a new codec that achieves a significantly improved tradeoff between speed and perceptual quality. Based on rigorous subjective user studies, it provides 2.3-3x bitrate savings against AV1, AV2, VVC, ECM and JPEG-AI, and 20-40% bitrate savings against the best learned codec alternatives. At the same time, on an iPhone 17 Pro Max, it encodes 12MP images as fast as 230ms, and decodes them in 150ms -- faster than most top ML-based codecs run on a V100 GPU.
Kedar Tatwawadi, Parisa Rahimzadeh, Zhanghao Sun +5
Recent progress in learning-based image compression has demonstrated that end-to-end optimization can substantially outperform traditional codecs by jointly learning compact latent representations and probabilistic entropy models. However, many existing approaches achieve high rate-distortion efficiency at the expense of increased computational cost and limited parallelism. This paper presents ARCHE - Autoregressive Residual Compression with Hyperprior and Excitation, an end-to-end learned image compression framework that balances modeling accuracy and computational efficiency. The proposed architecture unifies hierarchical, spatial, and channel-based priors within a single probabilistic framework, capturing both global and local dependencies in the latent representation of the image, while employing adaptive feature recalibration and residual refinement to enhance latent representation quality. Without relying on recurrent or transformer-based components, ARCHE attains state-of-the-art rate-distortion efficiency: it reduces the BD-Rate by approximately 48% relative to the commonly used benchmark model of Balle et al., 30% relative to the channel-wise autoregressive model of Minnen & Singh and 5% against the VVC Intra codec on the Kodak benchmark dataset. The framework maintains computational efficiency with 95M parameters and 222ms running time per image. Visual comparisons confirm sharper textures and improved color fidelity, particularly at lower bit rates, demonstrating that accurate entropy modeling can be achieved through efficient convolutional designs suitable for practical deployment.
Sofia Iliopoulou, Dimitris Ampeliotis, Athanassios Skodras
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Patras, Patras, Greece · Dept. of Digital Media and Communication, Ionian University, Argostoli, Greece
Implicit neural representation (INR) has achieved remarkable progress in novel view synthesis and image/video coding in recent years.Compared to conventional end-to-end image codecs, INR-based compressors demonstrate significant advantages in decoding complexity. However, their practical application has been hindered by the inferior encoding speed and underutilized decoding efficiency.In this work, we propose a feedforward INR image coding architecture, Practical INR Image Codec (PIC), that computes all the necessary information for INR network in a single forward pass, achieving an encoding speed of 20 FPS. Additionally, we implement a highly optimized decoder that reaches 2000 FPS decoding speed, significantly surpassing JPEG's performance at comparable rate-distortion (RD) performance. To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first learning-based image codec that simultaneously outperforms or is comparable with JPEG in both RD performance and decoding speed while maintaining practical encoding speed. Code is available at https://github.com/actcwlf/PIC.
Xiang Liu, Jinxiang Wang, Bin Chen +5
Tsinghua University, China · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China · Peng Cheng Laboratory, China +1