Predicting the QOE of Video Streaming in Communication Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Video streaming QoE (Quality of Experience) index consists of a series of qualitative factors that are difficult to measure. On the other hand, other Video streaming indices, such as the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are easily and physically measurable. This paper introduces a method to predict QoE based on KPIs measures in (wired or wireless) communication networks. Besides the possible academic interest, the method may practically be of interest to the network operator. Indeed, to ensure compliance with the SLA (Service Level Agreement) he would like to predict how the QoE can change as a consequence of a new network management alternative. To perform prediction, the problem is that the network operator first needs to know how the KPIs would change due to the alternative, and then find a way to derive (say mathematically) the QoE from the new KPIs. The contribution of this paper is a simulation/mathematical approach to solving the problem. First, a simulation method is introduced to know how the KPIs would change as a consequence of the new alternative, and then a valid KPI/QoE mathematical relationship is introduced to derive the new QoE from the new KPIs. The paper is organized as follows: in Section 1 an introduction is given to the definition of QoE in Video streaming. In Section 2 the status of the art from the literature on the KPI/QoE mathematical models is dealt with, and a valid model is identified that derives the Video streaming QoE from the network KPIs. In Section 3, a simulated network is introduced to know how the KPIs would change as a consequence of a new network management alternative. Finally, Section 4 uses the identified mathematical relationship to predict the Video streaming QoE from the measured KPIs. The considered application is an LTE (Long Term Evolution) network, but the approach can be extended to any communication network, wired or wireless from 3G onwards.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".