MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014813176 · doi:10.1109/icc42927.2021.9500258

An Early Benchmark of Quality of Experience Between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 using Lighthouse

2021· preprint· en· W3014813176 on OpenAlexaff
Darius Saif, Chung–Horng Lung, Ashraf Matrawy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Computer networkHypertext Transfer ProtocolImplementationMetric (unit)Latency (audio)Protocol (science)ThroughputQuality of experienceOperating systemQuality of serviceTelecommunicationsThe InternetEngineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Google’s QUIC (GQUIC) is an emerging transport protocol designed to reduce HTTP latency. Deployed across its platforms and positioned as an alternative to TCP+TLS, GQUIC is feature rich: offering reliable data transmission and secure communication. It addresses TCP+TLS’s (i) Head of Line Blocking (HoLB), (ii) excessive round-trip times on connection establishment, and (iii) entrenchment. Efforts by the IETF are in progress to standardize the next generation of HTTP’s (HTTP/3, or H3) delivery, with their own variant of QUIC. While perfor-mance benchmarks have been conducted between GQUIC and HTTP/2-over-TCP (H2), few analyses, to our knowledge, have taken place between H2 and H3. In addition, past studies rely on Page Load Time as their main, if not only, metric. The purpose of this article is to benchmark the latest draft specification of H3 and dig into a user’s Quality of Experience (QoE) by using Lighthouse: an open-source (and metric diverse) auditing tool. Our findings show that, for one of H3’s early implementations, H3 is mostly worse but achieves a higher average throughput.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207