Advertisement

A Hierarchical Classification Model of QoE Influence Factors

  • Lamine AmourEmail author
  • Sami Souihi
  • Said Hoceini
  • Abdelhamid Mellouk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9071)

Abstract

Quality of Service (QoS) optimization are not sufficient to ensure users needs. That’s why, operators are investigating a new concept called Quality of Experience (QoE), to evaluate the real quality perceived by users. This concept becomes more and more important, but still hard to estimate. This estimation can be influenced by a lot of factors called: Quality of Experience Influence Factors (QoE IFs). In this work, we survey and review existing approaches to classify QoE IFs. Then, we present a new modular and extensible classification architecture. Finally, regarding the proposed classification, we evaluate some QoE estimation approaches to highlight the fact that categories do not affect in the same the user perception.

Keywords

Quality of Experience (QoE) Mobile environment Quality of Experience Influence Factors (QoE IFs) Quality of Service (QoS) 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work has been funded by LiSSi laboratory from the UPEC university in the framework of the French cooperative project PoQEMoN, Pôle de Compétitivité Systematic (FUI 16).

References

  1. 1.
    Olugbara, O.O., Abe, B.T., Marwala, T.: Hyperspectral image classification using random forests and neural networks. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2012, vol. I, WCECS 2012, San Francisco, USA, 24–26 October 2012Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balachandran, A., Sekar, V., Akella, A., Seshan, S., Stoica, I., 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, October 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks, P., Hestnes, B., Heiestad, S., Aaby, C.: Communicating quality of experience data for the development of multimedia services. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication, Sophia Antipolis, France, 21–23 March 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callet, P.L., Moller, S., Perkis, A. (eds.): Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience (qoe) and related concepts. Lausanne, Switzerland, Output version of the Dagstuhl seminar 12181, European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), 3 June 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Institute for Statistics and Mathematics of WU. R software. (Wirtschafts universität Wien). http://www.r-project.org/
  6. 6.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H.: The weka data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 11(1), 10–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ickin, S., Wac, K., Fiedler, M., Janowski, L., Hong, J., Dey, A.K.: A factors influencing quality of experience of commonly-used mobile applications. IEEE Commun. Mag. 50, 48–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan, A., Sun, L., Ifeachor, E.: Qoe prediction model and its application in video quality adaptation over umts networks. IEEE Trans. Multimedia 14(2), 431–442 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris, R., Nguyen, L.T., Punchihewa, A.: An enhanced analytical framework integrating aspects of network and application performance, psychology, and content in qoe assessment for web browsing. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Technol. 2(5) (2013) (ISSN: 2279 0764)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malekipirbazari, M., Aksakalli, V.: Risk assessment in social lending via random forests. Expert Syst. Appl. J. 42, 4621–4631 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matulin, M., Mrvelj, Š.: State-of-the-practice in evaluation of quality of experience in real-life environments. Inf. Commun. Technol. Preliminary Commun. 25(3), 255–264 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Moor, K., Ketyko, I., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., De Marez, L. (eds.): Evaluating quality of experience of mobile applications and services in a living lab setting, vol. 15(3), pp. 378–391. Mobile Networks and Applications Archive, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mushtaq, M.S., Augustin, B., Mellouk, A.: Empirical study based on machine learning approach to assess the qos/qoe correlation. In: 2012 17th European Conference on Networks and Optical Communications (NOC), pp. 1–7, June 2012Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Septem Riza, L., Bergmeir, C., Herrera, F., Benitez, J.M.: Learning from data using the r package “frbs”. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp. 2149–2155 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez-Teja, F., Grampin, E.: Wekatie, a traffic classification plugin integrating tie and weka. In: Proceedings of Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 623–628, August 2014Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song, W., Tjondronegoro, D.W., Docherty, M.: Understanding user experience of mobile video: framework, measurement, and optimization. In: Tjondronegoro, D. (ed.) Mobile Multimedia: User and Technology Perspectives, pp. 3–30. INTECH Open Access Publisher, Vukovar (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stankiewicz, R., Jajszczyk, A.: A survey of qoe assurance in converged networks. Comput. Netw. 55(7), 1459–1473 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weka 3: Data Mining with Open Source Machine Learning Software in Java. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/downloading.html

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lamine Amour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sami Souihi
    • 1
  • Said Hoceini
    • 1
  • Abdelhamid Mellouk
    • 1
  1. 1.Networks and Telecommunications Department and LiSSi Laboratory - IUT C/VUniversity of Paris-Est Créteil VdMCréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations