Adaptive Loop Filter Tap Constraints for Low-Latency Video Coding

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing video coding systems face challenges in efficiently applying Adaptive Loop Filters (ALF) due to high computational complexity and latency issues, particularly in the context of Versatile Video Coding (VVC), which affects the quality of reconstructed video data.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of ALF with tap constraints, including restricted neighboring fixed-filtered samples and simplified processing techniques, such as reducing block size and using fixed filters, to optimize ALF performance and reduce latency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If conventional ALF processing is applied to reconstructed video data, then video quality is improved, but computational complexity and processing latency increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevideo qualityVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the ALF processing by dividing the filter taps into two categories: constrained taps (using only causal neighboring samples) and unconstrained taps (using all neighboring samples). This segmentation allows the system to process different regions with different complexity levels, improving video quality in critical areas while reducing computational load in less critical regions, thus resolving the contradiction between quality improvement and complexity reduction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by differentiating the processing requirements for different filter taps based on their spatial relationship with the current sample. Causal taps use simplified processing (only causal neighbors) while non-causal taps use full processing (all neighbors). This local differentiation optimizes the balance between quality and complexity for each specific location in the filter kernel.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Manufacturing precision

If conventional ALF processing is applied to reconstructed video data, then video quality is improved, but processing latency increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevideo qualityVSAvoidprocessing latency
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the filter tap processing into two distinct paths: constrained taps that process only causal neighboring samples (reducing dependency chain length and latency) and unconstrained taps that process all neighboring samples (maintaining quality where needed). This segmentation enables the system to reduce processing latency for the majority of taps while preserving quality improvement where time is not critical.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by using simplified processing (partial neighborhood consideration) for causal taps rather than full processing. This partial action is sufficient for maintaining acceptable video quality in many cases, thereby reducing processing time and latency without excessively compromising quality, resolving the contradiction between quality improvement and latency reduction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Productivity

If filter taps are constrained to causal neighboring samples, then processing efficiency is improved, but filter performance may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocessing efficiencyVSAvoidfilter performance
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the filter taps into constrained and unconstrained categories, applying different processing strategies to each. Constrained taps use only causal neighbors for efficiency, while unconstrained taps use all neighbors for optimal performance. This segmentation allows the system to achieve high processing efficiency for the majority of taps while maintaining filter performance where necessary, resolving the contradiction between efficiency and performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by tailoring the neighborhood sampling strategy to each specific filter tap location. Causal taps use simplified causal-only sampling for efficiency, while non-causal taps use full neighborhood sampling for optimal performance. This localized adaptation ensures that processing efficiency is maximized where possible while maintaining filter performance in critical regions, resolving the contradiction between productivity and manufacturing precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS20260012587A1Method and Apparatus for Adaptive Loop Filter with Tap Constraints for Video Coding
Publication Date: 2026.01.08 MEDIATEK INC
  • US20260012587A1 patent drawing
  • US20260012587A1 patent drawing
  • US20260012587A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Method and apparatus for video coding using. According to one method, a current filtered output is derived from an ALF for a current sample in the current block. The current filtered output is derived from an ALF for a current sample, where the ALF comprises an input term associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples, and the neighbouring fixed-filtered samples are from a restricted area with respect to the current sample. According to another method, the ALF comprises an input term associated with a modification term corresponding to an output by filtering clipped neighbouring difference values using filter coefficients of fixed filter sets, where the neighbouring difference values are determined between neighbouring samples and a to-be-processed sample.