skip to main content
10.1145/3343031.3351014acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comyco: Quality-Aware Adaptive Video Streaming via Imitation Learning

Published:15 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning-based Adaptive Bit Rate~(ABR) method, aiming to learn outstanding strategies without any presumptions, has become one of the research hotspots for adaptive streaming. However, it is still suffering from several issues, i.e., low sample efficiency and lack of awareness of the video quality information. In this paper, we propose Comyco, a video quality-aware ABR approach that enormously improves the learning-based methods by tackling the above issues. Comyco trains the policy via imitating expert trajectories given by the instant solver, which can not only avoid redundant exploration but also make better use of the collected samples. Meanwhile, Comyco attempts to pick the chunk with higher perceptual video qualities rather than video bitrates. To achieve this, we construct Comyco's neural network architecture, video datasets and QoE metrics with video quality features. Using trace-driven and real world experiments, we demonstrate significant improvements of Comyco's sample efficiency in comparison to prior work, with 1700x improvements in terms of the number of samples required and 16x improvements on training time required. Moreover, results illustrate that Comyco outperforms previously proposed methods, with the improvements on average QoE of 7.5% - 16.79%. Especially, Comyco also surpasses state-of-the-art approach Pensieve by 7.37% on average video quality under the same rebuffering time.

References

  1. 2019. DASH Industry Forum | Catalyzing the adoption of MPEG-DASH. (2019). https://dashif.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2019. HTTP Live Streaming. https://developer.apple.com/streaming/. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anne Aaron, Zhi Li, Megha Manohara, Joe Yuchieh Lin, Eddy Chi-Hao Wu, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2015. Challenges in cloud based ingest and encoding for high quality streaming media. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 1732--1736.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Martín Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, et al. 2016. TensorFlow: A System for Large-Scale Machine Learning.. In OSDI, Vol. 16. 265--283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tasnim Abar, Asma Ben Letaifa, and Sadok El Asmi. 2017. Machine learning based QoE prediction in SDN networks. In 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC). IEEE, 1395--1400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Zahaib Akhtar and et al. 2018. Oboe: auto-tuning video ABR algorithms to network conditions. In SIGCOMM 2018. ACM, 44--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David M Beazley et al. 1996. SWIG: An Easy to Use Tool for Integrating Scripting Languages with C and C++.. In Tcl/Tk Workshop. 43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen, Yiteng Huang, and Israel Cohen. 2009. Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Abdelhak Bentaleb, Ali C Begen, and Roger Zimmermann. 2016. SDNDASH: Improving QoE of HTTP adaptive streaming using software defined networking. In Proceedings of ACM MultiMedia 2016. ACM, 1296--1305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Abdelhak Bentaleb, Bayan Taani, Ali C Begen, Christian Timmerer, and Roger Zimmermann. 2018. A Survey on Bitrate Adaptation Schemes for Streaming Media over HTTP. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cisco. 2017. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2016--2021. (2017). https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/ solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/ complete-white-paper-c11--481360.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhengfang Duanmu, Abdul Rehman, and Zhou Wang. 2018. A Quality-of- Experience Database for Adaptive Video Streaming. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 64, 2 (June 2018), 474--487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Zhengfang Duanmu, Kai Zeng, Kede Ma, Abdul Rehman, and Zhou Wang. 2017. A quality-of-experience index for streaming video. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 11, 1 (2017), 154--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. FFmpeg. [n. d.]. FFmpeg. ([n. d.]). http://ffmpeg.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Gadaleta, F. Chiariotti, M. Rossi, and A. Zanella. 2017. D-DASH: A Deep QLearning Framework for DASH Video Streaming. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking 3, 4 (Dec 2017), 703--718. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TCCN.2017.2755007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. GPAC. [n. d.]. MP4BOX. ([n. d.]). https://gpac.wp.imt.fr/mp4box/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Alain Hore and Djemel Ziou. 2010. Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM. (2010), 2366--2369.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tianchi Huang, Xin Yao, Chenglei Wu, Rui-Xiao Zhang, and Lifeng Sun. 2018. Tiyuntsong: A Self-Play Reinforcement Learning Approach for ABR Video Streaming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06166 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tianchi Huang, Rui-Xiao Zhang, Chao Zhou, and Lifeng Sun. 2018. QARC: Video Quality Aware Rate Control for Real-Time Video Streaming based on Deep Reinforcement Learning. In 2018 ACM Multimedia Conference on Multimedia Conference. ACM, 1208--1216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Te-Yuan Huang, Chaitanya Ekanadham, Andrew J. Berglund, and Zhi Li. 2019. Hindsight: Evaluate Video Bitrate Adaptation at Scale. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 86--97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304109.3306219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Te-Yuan Huang, Ramesh Johari, Nick McKeown, Matthew Trunnell, and Mark Watson. 2015. A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44, 4 (2015), 187--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ahmed Hussein, Mohamed Medhat Gaber, Eyad Elyan, and Chrisina Jayne. 2017. Imitation learning: A survey of learning methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 2 (2017), 21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Junchen Jiang, Vyas Sekar, and Hui Zhang. 2014. Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in http-based adaptive video streaming with festive. TON 22, 1 (2014), 326--340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael Laskey, Jonathan Lee, Roy Fox, Anca Dragan, and Ken Goldberg. 2017. Dart: Noise injection for robust imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.09327 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ningning Ma, Xiangyu Zhang, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Jian Sun. 2018. Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). 116--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mao. 2017. hongzimao/pensieve. (Jul 2017). https://github.com/hongzimao/ pensieveGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hongzi Mao, Ravi Netravali, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2017. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCOMM Conference. ACM, 197--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Hongzi Mao, Shaileshh Bojja Venkatakrishnan, Malte Schwarzkopf, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2019. Variance Reduction for Reinforcement Learning in Input-Driven Environments. international conference on learning representations (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Russell Mendonca, Abhishek Gupta, Rosen Kralev, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. 2019. Guided Meta-Policy Search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00956 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Volodymyr Mnih, Adria Puigdomenech Badia, Mehdi Mirza, Alex Graves, Timothy Lillicrap, Tim Harley, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2016. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 1928--1937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Alex Graves, Ioannis Antonoglou, Daan Wierstra, and Martin Riedmiller. 2013. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5602 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pavlo Molchanov, Stephen Tyree, Tero Karras, Timo Aila, and Jan Kautz. 2016. Pruning convolutional neural networks for resource efficient inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06440 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ravi Netravali, Anirudh Sivaraman, Somak Das, Ameesh Goyal, Keith Winstein, James Mickens, and Hari Balakrishnan. 2015. Mahimahi: accurate record-andreplay for HTTP. (2015), 417--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Takayuki Osa, Joni Pajarinen, Gerhard Neumann, J AndrewBagnell, Pieter Abbeel, Jan Peters, et al. 2018. An algorithmic perspective on imitation learning. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 7, 1--2 (2018), 1--179.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Pablo Gil Pereira, Andreas Schmidt, and Thorsten Herfet. 2018. Cross-Layer Effects on Training Neural Algorithms for Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGMM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. ACM, 43--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Yanyuan Qin, Shuai Hao, Krishna R Pattipati, Feng Qian, Subhabrata Sen, Bing Wang, and Chaoqun Yue. 2018. ABR streaming of VBR-encoded videos: characterization, challenges, and solutions. In Proceedings of CoNeXT 2018. ACM, 366--378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Reza Rassool. 2017. VMAF reproducibility: Validating a perceptual practical video quality metric. In Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB), 2017 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Abdul Rehman, Kai Zeng, and Zhou Wang. 2015. Display device-adapted video quality-of-experience assessment. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XX, Vol. 9394. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 939406.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Measuring Fixed Broadband Report. 2016. Raw Data Measuring Broadband America 2016. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadbandamerica/ raw-data-measuring-broadband-america-2016. (2016). [Online; accessed 19-July-2016].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Haakon Riiser, Paul Vigmostad, Carsten Griwodz, and Pål Halvorsen. 2013. Commute path bandwidth traces from 3G networks: analysis and applications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 114--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Stéphane Ross, Geoffrey Gordon, and Drew Bagnell. 2011. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics. 627--635.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kevin Spiteri, Ramesh Sitaraman, and Daniel Sparacio. 2018. From theory to practice: improving bitrate adaptation in the DASH reference player. In Proceedings of the 9th MMSys. ACM, 123--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Kevin Spiteri, Rahul Urgaonkar, and Ramesh K Sitaraman. 2016. BOLA: Nearoptimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In INFOCOM 2016, IEEE. IEEE, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. F. Tang, B. Mao, Z. M. Fadlullah, N. Kato, O. Akashi, T. Inoue, and K. Mizutani. 2018. On Removing Routing Protocol from Future Wireless Networks:AReal-time Deep Learning Approach for Intelligent Traffic Control. IEEE Wireless Communications 25, 1 (February 2018), 154--160. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWC.2017.1700244Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Yuan Tang. 2016. TF. Learn: TensorFlow's high-level module for distributed machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.04251 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Usc-Nsl. 2018. USC-NSL/Oboe. (Oct 2018). https://github.com/USC-NSL/OboeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhou Wang. 2017. Video QoE: Presentation Quality vs. Playback Smoothness. (Jul 2017). https://www.ssimwave.com/science-of-seeing/ video-quality-of-experience-presentation-quality-vs-playback-smoothness/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Francis Y Yan, Jestin Ma, Greg D Hill, Deepti Raghavan, Riad S Wahby, Philip Levis, and Keith Winstein. 2018. Pantheon: the training ground for Internet congestion-control research. In 2018 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX} {ATC} 18). 731--743.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Xiaoqi Yin, Abhishek Jindal, Vyas Sekar, and Bruno Sinopoli. 2015. A controltheoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. ACM, 325--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Comyco: Quality-Aware Adaptive Video Streaming via Imitation Learning

        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
          MM '19: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia
          October 2019
          2794 pages
          ISBN:9781450368896
          DOI:10.1145/3343031

          Copyright © 2019 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: 15 October 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          MM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate252of936submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate995of4,171submissions,24%

          Upcoming Conference

          MM '24
          MM '24: The 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
          October 28 - November 1, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader