Advertisement

Quality of Experience Prediction of HTTP Video Streaming in Mobile Network with Random Forest

  • Yue YuEmail author
  • Yu Liu
  • Yumei Wang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 262)

Abstract

As video is witnessing a rapid growth in mobile networks, it is crucial for network service operators to understand if and how Quality of Service (QoS) metrics affect user engagement and how to optimize users’ Quality of Experience (QoE). Our aim in this paper is to infer the QoE from the observable QoS metrics using machine learning techniques. For this purpose, Random Forest is applied to predict three objective QoE metrics, i.e., rebuffering frequency, mean bitrate and bitrate switch frequency, with the initial information of each video session. In our simulation, QoE of four different video streamings are analyzed with eight different system loads. Results show that sufficient prediction accuracy can be achieved for all QoE metrics with the attributes we adopted, especially with low and middle system loads. In terms of type of streamings, the prediction of all metrics for static users performs better than mobile users. Feature selection is also implemented under the highest load to examine the effect of different attributes on each QoE metric and the correlation among attributes.

Keywords

HTTP video streaming Quality of experience Random forest Mobile networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been sponsored by Huawei Research Fund (grant No. YBN2016110032) and National Science Foundation of China (No. 61201149). The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update 2016–2021 white paper. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/vni-infographic.html. Accessed 06 June 2018
  2. 2.
    Patrick Le Callet, S.M., Perkis, A.: Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience (2012). http://www.qualinet.eu/index.php. Accessed 06 June 2018
  3. 3.
    Yin, X., Jindal, A., Sekar, V., Sinopoli, B.: A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data, pp. 325–338, London (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dimopoulos, G., Leontiadis, I., Barlet-Ros, P., Papagiannaki, K.: Measuring video QoE from encrypted traffic. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 513–526, Santa Monica (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu, Y., Elayoubi, S., Altman, E., El-Azouzi, R.: Impact of flowlevel dynamics on qoe of video streaming in wireless networks. In: 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 2715–2723, Turin (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonald, T., Proutiere, A.: A queueing analysis of data networks. Queueing Netw. 154, 729–765 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singh, K.D., Aoul, Y.H., Rubino, G.: Quality of experience estimation for adaptive HTTP/TCP video streaming using H.264/AVC. In: 2012 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 127–131, Las Vegas (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonald, T., Elayoubi, S., Lin, Y.-T.: A flow-level performance model for mobile networks carrying adaptive streaming traffic. In: IEEE Globecom, San Diego (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin, Y.-T., Bonald, T., Elayoubi, S.: Impact of chunk duration on adaptive streaming performance in mobile networks. In: 2016 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, Doha (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balachandran, A., Sekar, V., Akella, A., Seshan, S., Stoica, L., Zhang, H.: Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 Conference on SIGCOMM, pp. 339–350, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin, Y.-T., Oliveira, E.M.R., Jemaa, S.B., Elayoubi, S.E.: Machine learning for predicting QoE of video streaming in mobile networks. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 1–6. IEEE, Paris (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, Z., Liao, N., Gu, X., Wu, F., Shi, G.: Hybrid distortion ranking tuned bitstream-layer video quality assessment. In: IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 26(6), 1029–1043 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vasilev, V., Leguay, J., Paris, S., Maggi, L., Debbah, M.: Predicting QoE factors with machine learning. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2018, Kansas City (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnan, S., et al.: Video stream quality impacts viewer behavior: inferring causality using quasi-experimental designs. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 21(6), 2001–2014 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    WEKA: Data Mining Software in Java. https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka. Accessed 26 May 2018
  16. 16.
    Aggarwal, V., et al.: Prometheus: toward quality-of-experience estimation for mobile apps from passive network measurements. In: Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, p. 18. ACM, Santa Barbara (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information and Communication EngineeringBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations