MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319021906 · doi:10.3390/fi15020064

Significance of Cross-Correlated QoS Configurations for Validating the Subjective and Objective QoE of Cloud Gaming Applications

2023· article· en· W4319021906 on OpenAlexaff
Nafi Ahmad, Abdul Azis Wahab, John Schormans, Ali Adib Arnab

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Internet · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality of experienceCloud computingQuality of serviceMetric (unit)MultimediaCorrelationThe InternetComputer networkWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, utilising real-internet traffic data, we modified a popular network emulator to better imitate real network traffic and studied its subjective and objective implications on QoE for cloud-gaming apps. Subjective QoE evaluation was then used to compare cross-correlated QoS metric with the default non-correlated emulator setup. Human test subjects showed different correlated versus non-correlated QoS parameters affects regarding cloud gaming QoE. Game-QoE is influenced more by network degradation than video QoE. To validate our subjective QoE study, we analysed the experiment’s video objectively. We tested how well Full-Reference VQA measures subjective QoE. The correlation between FR QoE and subjective MOS was greater in non-correlated QoS than in correlated QoS conditions. We also found that correlated scenarios had more stuttering events compared to non-correlated scenarios, resulting in lower game QoE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture InternetSame topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207