MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333580688 · doi:10.1049/ibc.2015.0004

Quality-aware HTTP adaptive streaming

2015· article· en· W2333580688 on OpenAlexaff
Ali C. Begen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsCisco Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Quality (philosophy)Adaptation (eye)Video qualityRevenueReal-time computingVideo streamingMultimediaQuality of experienceAdaptive systemDistributed computingComputer networkQuality of serviceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In conventional HTTP adaptive streaming (HAS), a video content is encoded into multiple representations, and each of these representations is temporally segmented into small pieces. A streaming client makes its segment selections among the available representations mostly according to the measured network bandwidth and buffer fullness. This greatly simplifies the adaptation algorithm design, however, it does not optimize the viewer quality experience. Through experiments, we show that quality fluctuation is a common problem in HAS systems. Frequent and substantial fluctuations in quality are undesired and cause dissatisfaction, leading to revenue loss in both managed and unmanaged video services. In this paper, we argue that the impact of such quality fluctuations can be reduced if the natural variability of video content is taken into consideration. First, we examine the problem in detail and lay out a number of requirements to make such system work in practice. Then, we study the design of a client rate adaptation algorithm that yields consistent video quality even under varying network conditions. We show several results from experiments with a prototype solution. Our approach is an important step towards quality-aware HAS systems. A production-grade solution, however, needs better quality models for adaptive streaming. From this viewpoint, our study also brings up important questions for the community.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207