MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990865544 · doi:10.1109/iwcmc.2014.6906420

QoE evaluation of multimedia transmission over wireless networks

2014· article· en· W1990865544 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojing Li, Kai Dong, Wei Song, Bradford G. Nickerson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMean opinion scoreQuality of experienceMultimediaPacket lossWireless networkQuality of serviceNetwork packetWirelessTransmission (telecommunications)Computer networkFadingVideo qualityReal-time computingChannel (broadcasting)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many simulation tools (e.g., NS-2) can examine the quality of service (QoS) of networks but cannot demonstrate the visual and auditory effects of wireless transmission on multimedia quality. This paper presents a wireless multimedia simulator (WMS), which uses a compact graphical user interface to present the real-time packet delay with the playback of streaming media over a wireless channel based on classic radio channel models and IEEE 802.11 medium access control. By using captured packets and reproduced traces, WMS can demonstrate the visual and auditory effects of fading errors, packet delay and loss. Leveraging the real-time playback function, WMS enables quality of experience (QoE) evaluation of multimedia transmission in a controlled wireless environment. We carried out QoE evaluation with 30 participants for 104 test cases comprising 2 videos and 2 audio clips produced by WMS. The valuable test results enable us to quantify the relationship of QoE in terms of mean opinion score (MOS) with network traffic load and QoS metrics such as bit error probability (BEP). We find the subjective QoE is sensitive to media content although consistent with objective QoS metrics. Statistical difference-of-means tests show the video with slower motion and fewer colours is likely to offer better delay tolerance, and audio is less sensitive to bit errors while video is more resistant to network congestion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207