Yeah, what bugs me about stuff like that is like they spend all this time and then they output several or minimal real testing to prove the theory It's like you're building your model to And just because it takes a long time to compute and do the testing, you'd rather publish your article and then try to get credit on something that hasn't really been proven. Look, prove your results. Study it. Ruggedize it. Make sure it works. Then, show us.

I don't believe that's what they were saying at all though. The claim appears to be that it's near lossless relative to their own baseline that uses float. Which I'd grant, since a 32x storage reduction for 0.61% loss in quality is a reasonable trade off when you've already decided to accept that ~90% is "good enough".

near lossless refers to being 89.65/90.26 = 99.32% of baseline, i'm pretty sure.