Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2486001.2486025acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

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 These have been replaced by new quality metrics (e.g., rate of buffering, bitrate) and new engagement centric measures of user experience (e.g., viewing time and number of visits).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)QoE optimization based on Adaptive Bitrate Control for Multi-party Interactive Live Streaming2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)10.1109/CSCWD61410.2024.10580564(291-296)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
  • (2024)Cost-effective live video streaming for internet of connected vehicles using heterogeneous networksAd Hoc Networks10.1016/j.adhoc.2023.103334153:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)QUTY: Towards Better Understanding and Optimization of Short Video QualityProceedings of the 14th Conference on ACM Multimedia Systems10.1145/3587819.3590984(173-182)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

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

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        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
        • 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
        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]

        Sponsors

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 27 August 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

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

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article

        Conference

        SIGCOMM'13
        Sponsor:
        SIGCOMM'13: ACM SIGCOMM 2013 Conference
        August 12 - 16, 2013
        Hong Kong, China

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGCOMM '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 38 of 246 submissions, 15%;
        Overall Acceptance Rate 462 of 3,389 submissions, 14%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)334
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)45
        Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)QoE optimization based on Adaptive Bitrate Control for Multi-party Interactive Live Streaming2024 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)10.1109/CSCWD61410.2024.10580564(291-296)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
        • (2024)Cost-effective live video streaming for internet of connected vehicles using heterogeneous networksAd Hoc Networks10.1016/j.adhoc.2023.103334153:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024
        • (2023)QUTY: Towards Better Understanding and Optimization of Short Video QualityProceedings of the 14th Conference on ACM Multimedia Systems10.1145/3587819.3590984(173-182)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2023
        • (2023)Quitting Ratio-Based Bitrate Ladder Selection Mechanism for Adaptive Bitrate Video StreamingIEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2023.323716825(8418-8431)Online publication date: 2023
        • (2022)Distributed Gateway Selection for Video Streaming in VANET Using IP MulticastACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications10.1145/349138818:3(1-24)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2022
        • (2022)QoE-Aware Content Oriented Path Optimization Framework with Egress Peer Engineering2022 Tenth International Symposium on Computing and Networking (CANDAR)10.1109/CANDAR57322.2022.00013(36-45)Online publication date: Nov-2022
        • (2022)ABRaider: Multiphase Reinforcement Learning for Environment-Adaptive Video StreamingIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.317520910(53108-53123)Online publication date: 2022
        • (2021)Efficient Volumetric Video Streaming Through Super ResolutionProceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications10.1145/3446382.3448663(106-111)Online publication date: 24-Feb-2021
        • (2021)Practically Deploying Heavyweight Adaptive Bitrate Algorithms With Teacher-Student LearningIEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking10.1109/TNET.2020.304866629:2(723-736)Online publication date: Apr-2021
        • (2021)QoE-driven HAS Live Video Channel Placement in the Media CloudIEEE Transactions on Multimedia10.1109/TMM.2020.299917623(1530-1541)Online publication date: 2021
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Login options

        Figures

        Tables

        Media

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media