An Early Benchmark of Quality of Experience Between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 using Lighthouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".