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 2013Publication 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 These have been replaced by new quality metrics (e.g., rate of buffering, bitrate) and new engagement centric measures of user experience (e.g., viewing time and number of visits).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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cisco study. http://goo.gl/tMRwM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Driving Engagement for Online Video. http://goo.gl/pO5Cj.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Microsoft Smooth Streaming. http://goo.gl/6JOXh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P.800 : Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality. http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.800-199608-I/en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P.910: Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. http://goo.gl/QjFhZ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Peak signal to noise ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_signal-to-noise_ratio.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. SPEC philosophy. http://www.spec.org/spec/#philosophy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Turbobytes: How it works. http://www.turbobytes.com/products/optimizer/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Video quality metrics. http://goo.gl/Ga9Xz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Vqeg. http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/vqeg-home.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Akhshabi, A. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. An Experimental Evaluation of Rate Adaptation Algorithms in Adaptive Streaming over HTTP. In MMSys, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. H. Allen and R. D. Sriram. The Role of Standards in Innovation. Elsevier: Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. Chen, C. Huang, P. Huang, and C. Lei. Quantifying skype user satisfaction. In SIGCOMM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. Cranley, P. Perry, and L. Murphy. User perception of adapting video quality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Deng, G. Runger, and E. Tuv. Bias of importance measures for multi-valued attributes and solutions. In ICANN, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Halevy, P. Norvig, and F. Pereira. The unreasonable effectiveness of data. In IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. S. S. Krishnan and R. K. Sitaraman. Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. In IMC, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. B. Liu, M. Hu, and W. Hsu. Intuitive Representation of Decision Trees Using General Rules and Exceptions. In Proc. AAAI, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. V. Menkvoski, A. Oredope, A. Liotta, and A. C. Sanchez. Optimized online learning for qoe prediction. In BNAIC, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. T. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. L. Plissonneau and E. Biersack. A Longitudinal View of HTTP Video Streaming Performance. In MMSys, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. I. Sodagar. The MPEG-DASH Standard for Multimedia Streaming Over the Internet. IEEE Multimedia, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Watson. Http adaptive streaming in practice. In MMSys - Keynote, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. I. H. Witten and E. Frank. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. C. Wu, B. Li, and S. Zhao. Diagnosing Network-wide P2P Live Streaming Inefficiencies. In Proc. INFOCOM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. H. Yin et al. Inside the Bird's Nest: Measurements of Large-Scale Live VoD from the 2008 Olympics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • 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

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          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

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGCOMM '13 Paper Acceptance Rate38of246submissions,15%Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader