Quality-aware segment transmission scheduling in peer-to-peer streaming systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In peer-to-peer (P2P) mesh-based streaming systems, each video sequence is typically divided into segments, which are then streamed from multiple senders to a receiver. The receiver needs to coordinate the senders by specifying a transmission schedule for each of them. We consider the scheduling problem in both live and on-demand P2P streaming systems. We formulate the problem of scheduling segment transmission in order to maximize the perceived video quality of the receiver. We prove that this problem is NP-Complete. We present an integer linear programming (ILP) formulation for this problem, and we optimally solve it using an ILP solver. This optimal solution, however, is computationally expensive and is not suitable for real-time streaming systems. Thus, we propose a polynomial-time approximation algorithm, which yields transmission schedules with analytical guarantees on the worst-case performance. More precisely, we show that the approximation factor is at most 3, compared to the absolutely optimal solution as a benchmark. We implement the proposed approximation and optimal algorithms in a packet-level simulator for P2P streaming systems. We also implement two other scheduling algorithms proposed in the literature and used in popular P2P streaming systems. By simulating large P2P systems and streaming nine real video sequences with diverse visual and motion characteristics, we demonstrate that our proposed approximation algorithm: (i) produces near-optimal perceived video quality, (ii) can run in real time, and (iii) outperforms other algorithms in terms of perceived video quality, smoothness of the rendered videos, and balancing the load across sending peers. For example, our simulation results indicate that the proposed algorithm outperforms heuristic algorithms used in current systems by up to 8 dB in perceived video quality and up to 20% in continuity index.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".