MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

QoE-Aware Service Provision for Mobile AR Rendering: An Agent-Driven Approach

2025· article· W7125943588 on OpenAlexaff
Conghao Zhou, Lulu Sun, Xiucheng Wang, Peng Yang, Feng Lyu, Sihan Lu, Xuemin Sherman Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningBridging (networking)Quality of experienceRendering (computer graphics)Resource (disambiguation)ServerService (business)Quality of serviceMobile device

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile augmented reality (MAR) is envisioned as a key immersive application in 6G, enabling virtual content rendering aligned with the physical environment through device pose estimation. In this paper, we propose a novel agent-driven communication service provisioning approach for edge-assisted MAR, aiming to reduce communication overhead between MAR devices and the edge server while ensuring the quality of experience (QoE). First, to address the inaccessibility of MAR application-specific information to the network controller, we establish a digital agent powered by large language models (LLMs) on behalf of the MAR service provider, bridging the data and function gap between the MAR service and network domains. Second, to cope with the user-dependent and dynamic nature of data traffic patterns for individual devices, we develop a user-level QoE modeling method that captures the relationship between communication resource demands and perceived user QoE, enabling personalized, agent-driven communication resource management. Trace-driven simulation results demonstrate that the proposed approach outperforms conventional LLM-based QoE-aware service provisioning methods in both user-level QoE modeling accuracy and communication resource efficiency.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207