skip to main content
research-article

User-perceived quality assessment of streaming media using reduced feature sets

Published:12 December 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

While subjective measurements are the most natural for assessing the user-perceived quality of a media stream, there are issues with their scalability and their context accuracy. We explore techniques to select application-layer measurements, collected by an instrumented media player, that most accurately predict the subjective quality rating that a user would assign to a stream. We consider three feature subset selection techniques that reduce the number of features (measurements) under consideration to ones most relevant to user-perceived stream quality. Two of the three techniques mathematically consider stream characteristics when selecting measurements, while the third is based on observation. We apply the reduced feature sets to two nearest-neighbor algorithms for predicting user-perceived stream quality. Our results demonstrate that there are clear strategies for estimating the quality rating that work well in specific circumstances such as video-on-demand services. The results also demonstrate that neither of the mathematically-based feature subset selection techniques identify a single set of features that is unambiguously influential on user-perceived stream quality, but that ultimately a combination of retransmitted and/or lost application-layer packets is most accurate for predicting stream quality.

References

  1. Ashmawi, W., Guerin, R., Wolf, S., and Pinson, M. H. 2001. On the impact of policing and rate guarantees in Diff-Serv networks: A video streaming application perspective. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Data Communications Festival. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Calyam, P., Sridharan, M., Mandrawa, W., and Schopis, P. 2004. Performance measurement and analysis of H.323 traffic. In Proceedings of the Passive and Active Measurement Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson, M. and Santay, D. 2003. NIST Net: a Linux-based network emulation tool. SIGCOMM Comput. Comm. Rev. 33, 3, 111--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Clark, A. D. 2001. Modeling the effects of burst packet loss and recency on subjective voice quality. In Proceedings of the IP Telephony Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Comscore, Inc. 2008. YouTube attracts 100 million U.S. online video viewers in October 2008. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2616.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Csizmar Dalal, A. 2009. Revisiting a QoE assessment architecture six years later: Lessons learned and remaining challenges. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Advanced Architectures and Algorithms for Internet Delivery and Applications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Csizmar Dalal, A., Bouchard, A., Cantor, S., Guo, Y., and Johnson, A. 2010. Predicting video stream quality in real time using objective stream state measurements. Tech. rep., Carleton College.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Csizmar Dalal, A., Musicant, D. R., Olson, J., McMenamy, B., Benzaid, S., Kazez, B., and Bolan, E. 2007. Predicting user-perceived quality ratings from streaming media data. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Csizmar Dalal, A. and Olson, J. 2007. Feature selection for prediction of user-perceived streaming media quality. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Evaluation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Csizmar Dalal, A. and Perry, E. 2003. A new architecture for measuring and assessing streaming media quality. In Proceedings of the Passive and Active Measurement Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Csizmar Dalal, A. and Purrington, K. 2005. Discerning user-perceived media stream quality through application-layer measurements. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multimedia Services Access Networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunham, M. H. 2002. Data Mining: Introductory and Advanced Topics. Prentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. French, H., Lin, J., Phan, T., and Csizmar Dalal, A. 2011. Real time video QoE analysis of RTMP streams. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fu, A., Keough, E., Lau, L. Y. H., Ratanamahatana, C. A., and Wong, R. 2008. Scaling and time warping in time series querying. VLDB J. 17, 4, 899--921. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. ITU. 1998. The Emodel, a computational model for use in transmission planning. Recommendation G.107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hand, D., Mannila, H., and Smyth, P. 2001. Principles of Data Mining. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Keogh, E. and Ratanamahatana, C. 2005. Exact indexing of dynamic time warping. Knowl. Inform. Syst. 7, 3, 358--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Krosnick, J. A. and Fabrigar, L. R. 1997. Survey Measurement and Process Quality. Wiley-Interscience, 141--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, M., Claypool, M., and Kinicki, R. 2002. MediaPlayer versus RealPlayer: A comparison of network turbulence. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Li, M., Li, F., Claypool, M., and Kinicki, R. 2005. Weather forecasting - predicting performance for streaming video over wireless LAN s. In Proceedings of the ACM International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mohamed, S. and Rubino, G. 2002. A study of real-time packet video quality using random neural networks. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Video Techn. 12, 12, 1071--1083. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Nichols, J., Claypool, M., Kinicki, R., and Li, M. 2004. Measurement of the congestion responsiveness of Windows streaming media. In Proceedings of the ACM International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ratanamahatana, C. A. and Keogh, E. 2004. Everything you know about dynamic time warping is wrong. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mining Temporal and Sequential Data, in Conjunction with the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sakoe, H. and Chiba, S. 1978. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Trans Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 26, 43--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Serral-Gracia, R., Yannuzzi, M., Marin-Tordera, E., Masip-Bruin, X., and Sanchez, S. 2010. Quality of experience enforcement in wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Wired/Wireless Internet Communications. E. Osipov, A. Kassler, T. Bohnert, and X. Masip-Bruin, Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6074, 180--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tan, P., Steinbach, M., and Kumar, V. 2005. Introduction to Data Mining. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Tang, R., William, M., Shaw, J., and Vevea, J. L. 1999. Towards the identification of the optimal number of relevance categories. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. 50, 3, 254--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Vlachos, M., Hadjieleftheriou, M., Gunopulos, D., and Keogh, E. 2003. Indexing multidimensional time-series with support for multiple distance measures. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Press, New York, NY, 216--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Wang, Y and Claypool, M. 2005. RealTracer: Tools for measuring the performance of RealVideo on the internet. Kluwer Multimedia Tools Appl. 27, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Wang, Y, Claypool, M., and Zuo, Z. 2001. An empirical study of RealVideo performance across the Internet. In Proceedings of the International Memory Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Wolf, S. and Pinson, M. H. 1999. Spatial-temporal distortion metrics for in-service quality monitoring of any digital video system. In Proceedings of the SPIE International Symposium on Voice, Video, and Data Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Yoon, H., Yang, K., and Shahabi, C. 2005. Feature subset selection and feature ranking for multivariate time series. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 17, 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
    ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 11, Issue 2
    December 2011
    130 pages
    ISSN:1533-5399
    EISSN:1557-6051
    DOI:10.1145/2049656
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2011 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 December 2011
    • Accepted: 1 July 2011
    • Revised: 1 April 2009
    • Received: 1 October 2008
    Published in toit Volume 11, Issue 2

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader