[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video

Published: 27 August 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Improving users' quality of experience (QoE) is crucial for sustaining the advertisement and subscription based revenue models that enable the growth of Internet video. Despite the rich literature on video and QoE measurement, our understanding of Internet video QoE is limited because of the shift from traditional methods of measuring video quality (e.g., Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio) and user experience (e.g., opinion scores). These have been replaced by new quality metrics (e.g., rate of buffering, bitrate) and new engagement centric measures of user experience (e.g., viewing time and number of visits). The goal of this paper is to develop a predictive model of Internet video QoE. To this end, we identify two key requirements for the QoE model: (1) it has to be tied in to observable user engagement and (2) it should be actionable to guide practical system design decisions. Achieving this goal is challenging because the quality metrics are interdependent, they have complex and counter-intuitive relationships to engagement measures, and there are many external factors that confound the relationship between quality and engagement (e.g., type of video, user connectivity). To address these challenges, we present a data-driven approach to model the metric interdependencies and their complex relationships to engagement, and propose a systematic framework to identify and account for the confounding factors. We show that a delivery infrastructure that uses our proposed model to choose CDN and bitrates can achieve more than 20\% improvement in overall user engagement compared to strawman approaches.

References

[1]
Buyer's Guide: Content Delivery Networks. http://goo.gl/B6gMK.
[2]
Cisco study. http://goo.gl/tMRwM.
[3]
Driving Engagement for Online Video. http://goo.gl/pO5Cj.
[4]
Microsoft Smooth Streaming. http://goo.gl/6JOXh.
[5]
P.800 : Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.800-199608-I/en.
[6]
P.910: Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. http://goo.gl/QjFhZ.
[7]
Peak signal to noise ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio.
[8]
SPEC philosophy. http://www.spec.org/spec/#philosophy.
[9]
Turbobytes: How it works. http://www.turbobytes.com/products/optimizer/.
[10]
Video quality metrics. http://goo.gl/Ga9Xz.
[11]
Vqeg. http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/vqeg-home.aspx.
[12]
S. Akhshabi, L. Anantakrishnan, C. Dovrolis, and A. C. Begen. What Happens when HTTP Adaptive Streaming Players Compete for Bandwidth? In Proc. NOSSDAV, 2012.
[13]
S. Akhshabi, A. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. An Experimental Evaluation of Rate Adaptation Algorithms in Adaptive Streaming over HTTP. In MMSys, 2011.
[14]
R. H. Allen and R. D. Sriram. The Role of Standards in Innovation. Elsevier: Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 2000.
[15]
A. Balachandran, V. Sekar, A. Akella, S. Seshan, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang. A quest for an internet video quality-of-experience metric. In Hotnets, 2012.
[16]
K. Chen, C. Huang, P. Huang, and C. Lei. Quantifying skype user satisfaction. In SIGCOMM, 2006.
[17]
S. Chikkerur, V. Sundaram, M. Reisslein, and L. J. Karam. Objective video quality assessment methods: A classification, review, and performance comparison. In IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 2011.
[18]
N. Cranley, P. Perry, and L. Murphy. User perception of adapting video quality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2006.
[19]
H. Deng, G. Runger, and E. Tuv. Bias of importance measures for multi-valued attributes and solutions. In ICANN, 2011.
[20]
F. Dobrian, V. Sekar, A. Awan, I. Stoica, D. A. Joseph, A. Ganjam, J. Zhan, and H. Zhang. Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2011.
[21]
J. Esteban, S. Benno, A. Beck, Y. Guo, V. Hilt, and I. Rimac. Interactions Between HTTP Adaptive Streaming and TCP. In Proc. NOSSDAV, 2012.
[22]
A. Finamore, M. Mellia, M. Munafo, R. Torres, and S. G. Rao. Youtube everywhere: Impact of device and infrastructure synergies on user experience. In Proc. IMC, 2011.
[23]
A. Halevy, P. Norvig, and F. Pereira. The unreasonable effectiveness of data. In IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2009.
[24]
L. Huang, J. Jia, B. Yu, B. G. Chun, P. Maniatis, and M. Naik. Predicting Execution Time of Computer Programs Using Sparse Polynomial Regression. In Proc. NIPS, 2010.
[25]
A. Khan, L. Sun, and E. Ifeachor. Qoe prediction model and its applications in video quality adaptation over umts networks. In IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2012.
[26]
S. S. Krishnan and R. K. Sitaraman. Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. In IMC, 2012.
[27]
B. Liu, M. Hu, and W. Hsu. Intuitive Representation of Decision Trees Using General Rules and Exceptions. In Proc. AAAI, 2000.
[28]
X. Liu, F. Dobrian, H. Milner, J. Jiang, V. Sekar, I. Stoica, and H. Zhang. A case for a coordinated internet video control plane. In SIGCOMM, 2012.
[29]
A. Mahimkar, Z. Ge, A. Shaikh, J. Wang, J. Yates, Y. Zhang, and Q. Zhao. Towards Automated Performance Diagnosis in a Large IPTV Network. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 2009.
[30]
V. Menkvoski, A. Oredope, A. Liotta, and A. C. Sanchez. Optimized online learning for qoe prediction. In BNAIC, 2009.
[31]
T. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.
[32]
R. K. P. Mok, E. W. W. Chan, X. Luo, and R. K. C. Chang. Inferring the QoE of HTTP Video Streaming from User-Viewing Activities . In SIGCOMM W-MUST, 2011.
[33]
L. Plissonneau and E. Biersack. A Longitudinal View of HTTP Video Streaming Performance. In MMSys, 2012.
[34]
I. Sodagar. The MPEG-DASH Standard for Multimedia Streaming Over the Internet. IEEE Multimedia, 2011.
[35]
H. H. Song, Z. Ge, A. Mahimkar, J. Wang, J. Yates, Y. Zhang, A. Basso, and M. Chen. Q-score: Proactive Service Quality Assessment in a Large IPTV System. In Proc. IMC, 2011.
[36]
M. Watson. Http adaptive streaming in practice. In MMSys - Keynote, 2011.
[37]
I. H. Witten and E. Frank. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.
[38]
C. Wu, B. Li, and S. Zhao. Diagnosing Network-wide P2P Live Streaming Inefficiencies. In Proc. INFOCOM, 2009.
[39]
W. Xu, L. Huang, A. Fox, D. Patterson, and M. Jordan. Detecting large-scale system problems by mining console logs. In Proc. SOSP, 2009.
[40]
H. Yin et al. Inside the Bird's Nest: Measurements of Large-Scale Live VoD from the 2008 Olympics.
[41]
H. Yu, D. Z. B. Y. Zhao, and W. Zheng. Understanding User Behavior in Large-Scale Video-on-Demand Systems. In Proc. Eurosys, 2006.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Mustang: Improving QoE for Real-Time Video in Cellular Networks by Masking JitterACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/367239920:9(1-23)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
  • (2024)An In-depth Study of Bandwidth Allocation across Media Sources in Video ConferencingProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3681007(7696-7704)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
  • (2024)SODA: An Adaptive Bitrate Controller for Consistent High-Quality Video StreamingProceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2024 Conference10.1145/3651890.3672260(613-644)Online publication date: 4-Aug-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
        ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review  Volume 43, Issue 4
        October 2013
        595 pages
        ISSN:0146-4833
        DOI:10.1145/2534169
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        • cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCOMM '13: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference on SIGCOMM
          August 2013
          580 pages
          ISBN:9781450320566
          DOI:10.1145/2486001
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 27 August 2013
        Published in SIGCOMM-CCR Volume 43, Issue 4

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. human factors
        2. measurement
        3. peformance
        4. video quality

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)322
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30
        Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Mustang: Improving QoE for Real-Time Video in Cellular Networks by Masking JitterACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/367239920:9(1-23)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2024
        • (2024)An In-depth Study of Bandwidth Allocation across Media Sources in Video ConferencingProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia10.1145/3664647.3681007(7696-7704)Online publication date: 28-Oct-2024
        • (2024)SODA: An Adaptive Bitrate Controller for Consistent High-Quality Video StreamingProceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2024 Conference10.1145/3651890.3672260(613-644)Online publication date: 4-Aug-2024
        • (2024)Characterizing User Platforms for Video Streaming in Broadband NetworksProceedings of the 2024 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference10.1145/3646547.3688435(563-579)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2024
        • (2024)DIGITWISEProceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference10.1145/3625468.3647613(78-88)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
        • (2024)Real-Time CNN Training and Compression for Neural-Enhanced Adaptive Live StreamingIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2024.337737246:9(6023-6039)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2024
        • (2024)Inferring Video Streaming Quality of Real-Time Communication Inside NetworkIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology10.1109/TCSVT.2024.337560434:8(7756-7770)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2024
        • (2024)A Framework for Tradeoff Between Location Privacy Preservation and Quality of Experience in Location Based ServicesIEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology10.1109/OJVT.2024.33641845(428-439)Online publication date: 2024
        • (2024)QoE Evaluation Model Based on EEGWireless Multimedia Computational Communications10.1007/978-3-031-64155-8_2(5-39)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2024
        • (2023)Demystifying the QoS and QoE of Edge-hosted Video Streaming Applications in the Wild with SNESetProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36267231:4(1-29)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2023
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Login options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media