User-Centric Quality of Experience Measurement

  • Bachir Chihani
  • Khalil ur Rehman Laghari
  • Emmanuel Bertin
  • Denis Collange
  • Noël Crespi
  • Tiago H. Falk
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 130)


Quality-of-experience (QoE) produces the blue print of human perception, feelings, needs and intentions, while Quality-of-Service (QoS) is a technology centric metric used to assess the performance of a multimedia services and/or network. .It is quite important for service/content providers to understand user/customer experience requirements in order to improve the service quality or the content recommendation. With advent of 3G and 4G wireless networks, and efficient smart phones, the band-width hungry multimedia applications are becoming common in use on end-user devices. Thus,it is also important for telecom operators to understand the impact of wireless network performances on the user experience in mobile environment. On the fly evaluation of user experience for multimedia services is a challenging problem especially in mobile environments. It implies the collection and the correlation of a mixture of variables on network conditions, on the service, as well as on the user itself. This paper proposes an innovative mobile application that can be used for measuring user quality-of-experience on the fly with a high accuracy and the consideration of multiple parameters about the user, the network and the system. This application takes advantages of current advances in mobile technologies to measure user experience directly on the user device. In addition, it aims to preserve the user privacy by transmitting only estimated quality-of-experience to the service provider.


QoE QoS context mobile computing 3G UMTS video streaming machine learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chihani, B., Bertin, E., Crespi, N.: Android-based QoE Management Framework. Work in Progress report, IEEE Pervasive Computing, Issue (October/December 2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaikh, J., Fiedler, M., Collange, D.: Quality of Experience from user and network perspectives. Annals of Telecommunications 65(1-2), 47–57 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chihani, B., Bertin, E., Jeanne, F., Crespi, N.: Context-aware systems: a case study. In: International Conference on Digital Information and Communication Technology and its Applications, France (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hubbe, P., Kerboeuf, S., Leprovost, Y., Mahfoufi, Y.: An Innovative Tool for Measuring Video Streaming QoE. TECHzine Technology and Research E-ZINE (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serral-Gracià, R., Cerqueira, E., Curado, M., Yannuzzi, M., Monteiro, E., Masip-Bruin, X.: An overview of quality of experience measurement challenges for video applications in IP networks. In: International Conference on Wired/Wireless Internet Connections, Sweden (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qiao, Z.: Smarter Phone based Live QoE Measurement. In: 15th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks (ICIN 2011), Berlin, Germany (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaw, A., Kalu, E.: Numerical Methods with Applications: Abridged, 2nd edn. (2011) ISBN: 9780578057651Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nabney, I.: NetLab: Algorithms for Pattern Recognition. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rifai, H., Mohammed, S., Mellouk, A.: A brief synthesis of QoS-QoE methodologies. In: 10th International Symposium on Programming and Systems (ISPS), Algiers, Algeria (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Telecommunication Union, “Methods for Subjective Determination of Tranmission Quality,” ITU Recommendation, p.800 (August 1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ketykó, I., De Moor, K., De Pessemier, T., Verdejo, A.J., Vanhecke, K., Joseph, W., Martens, L., De Marez, L.: QoE measurement of mobile YouTube video streaming. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mobile Video Delivery (MoViD 2010), Firenze, Italy (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calyam, P., Ekicio, E., Lee, C., Haffner, M., Howes, N.: A gap-model based framework for online VVoIP QoE measurement. Journal of Communications and Networks 9(4), 446–456 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schatz, R., Egger, S.: Vienna Surfing - Assessing Mobile Broadband Quality in the Field. In: Workshop on Measurements Up the STack (W-MUST), collocated with ACM SIGCOMM, Toronto, Canada (August 2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joumblatt, D., Teixeira, R., Chandrashekar, J., Taft, N.: HostView: Annotating End-Host Performance Measurements with User Feedback. In: HotMetrics Workshop, collocated with SIGMETRICS, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collange, D., Hajji, M., Shaikh, J., Fiedler, M., Arlos, P.: User impatience and network performance. In: 8th Euro-NF Conference on Next Generation Internet (NGI), Karlskrona, Sweden (June 2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kreibich, C., Weaver, N., Nechaev, B., Paxson, V.: Netalyzr: Illuminating the edge network. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), Melbourne, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FasterFox, (accessed on March 2013)
  18. 18.
    Laghari, K.U.R., Molina, B., Palau, C.E.: QoE Aware Service Delivery in Distributed Environment. In: IEEE Workshops of International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (WAINA 2011), March 22-25, pp. 837–842 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laghari, K.U.R., Connelly, K., Crespi, N.: Toward total quality of experience: A QoE model in a communication ecosystem. IEEE Communications Magazine 50(4), 58–65 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laghari, K.R., Pham, T.T., Nguyen, H., Crespi, N.: QoM: A new quality of experience framework for multimedia services. In: Proceeding of IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), pp. 851–856 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bachir Chihani
    • 1
    • 4
  • Khalil ur Rehman Laghari
    • 3
  • Emmanuel Bertin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Denis Collange
    • 2
  • Noël Crespi
    • 4
  • Tiago H. Falk
    • 3
  1. 1.Orange LabsCaenFrance
  2. 2.Orange Labs Sophia AntipolisValbonneFrance
  3. 3.Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (EMT-INRS)MontrealCanada
  4. 4.Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, CNRS 5157EvryFrance

Personalised recommendations