research-article

Quality Provisioning in the Internet of Things Era: Current State and Future Directions

Authors:

Vajirasak Vanijja,

Vijayakumar VaradarajanAuthors Info & Claims

IAIT '18: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology

Article No.: 3, Pages 1 - 7

https://doi.org/10.1145/3291280.3291790

Published: 10 December 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Recently there has been a tremendous growth in various Internet of Things (IoT) applications like healthcare, surveillance systems, environment monitoring, smart grids, and much more. These applications vary significantly not only with respect to their functionalities, but also in terms of the underlying technologies. The traditional approaches of evaluating the Quality of Experience (QoE) of multimedia services focus heavily on the end-user experience that might not be suitable for the IoT context. IoT focuses more on Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication, rather than Machine-to-Human or Human-to-Machine (M2H/H2M) scenarios. Therefore, we propose to extend the existing QoE concepts, by including novel influential factors like Quality of Data (QoD), and Quality of Information (QoI), along with minimizing the requirements for carrying out subjective tests for evaluating the IoT applications. Along with presenting a taxonomy of the influential factors that can affect the QoE of the IoT applications, a quality centric cross-layered IoT framework is also proposed. The overall aim of this work is to provide an initial direction as to what can be the influential factors in an IoT context, and how quality provisioning can be done, along with discussing the current challenges and future research directions.

References

[1]

B. L. R. Stojkoska, and K. V. Trivodaliev (2017). A Review of Internet of Things for Smart Home: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(3): 1454--1464.

[2]

Internet of Things market Size Worldwide 2009-2019, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/485136/global-internet-of-things-market-size/, Accessed 18th August 2018.

[3]

P. Le. Callet, S. Moller, and A. Perkis 2013. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services, Lausanne, Switzerland, Version 1.2.

[4]

Z. Akhtar and T. H. Falk (2017). Audio-Visual Multimedia Quality Assessment: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Access, 5: 21090--21117.

[5]

D. Pal, and T. Triyason (2018). A Survey of Standardized Approaches towards the Quality of Experience Evaluation for Video Services: An ITU Perspective. International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2018: 1--25.

Digital Library

[6]

M. Marjani et al. (2017). Big IoT Data Analytics: Architecture, Opportunities, and Open Research Challenges. IEEE Access, 5: 5247--5261.

[7]

Reference Guide to Quality of Experience Assessment Methodologies, ITU-T Recommendation G.1011, 2016.

[8]

Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications, ITU-T Recommendation P.910, 2008.

[9]

Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures, ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-13, 2012.

[10]

Subjective Audiovisual Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications, ITU-T Recommendation P.911, 1998.

[11]

H. J. Kim, and S. G. Choi (2014). QoE Assessment Model for Multimedia Streaming Services using QoS Parameters. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 72(3): 2163--2175.

Digital Library

[12]

J. Nightingale, Q. Wang, C. Grecos, and S. Goma (2014). The Impact of Network Impairment on Quality of Experience (QoE) in H.265/HEVC Video Streaming. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 60(2): 242--250.

[13]

D. Pal, and V. Vanijja (2017). A No-reference Modular Video Quality Prediction Model for H.265/HEVC and VP9 Codecs on a Mobile Device. Advances in Multimedia, 2017: 1--19.

Digital Library

[14]

T. Zhao, Q. Liu and C. W. Chen (2017). QoE in Video Transmission: A User Experience-Driven Strategy. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(1): 285--302.

Digital Library

[15]

U. Engelke et al. (2017). Psychophysiology-Based QoE Assessment: A Survey. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 11(1): 6--21.

[16]

D. Tsolkas, E. Liotou, N. Passas, and L. Merakos (2017). A Survey on Parametric QoE Estimation for Popular Services. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 77(1): 1--17.

Digital Library

[17]

A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari and M. Ayyash (2015). Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(4): 2347--2376.

Digital Library

[18]

Y. Ikeda, S. Kouno, A. Shiozu and K. Noritake (2016). A Framework of Scalable QoE Modeling for Application Explosion in the Internet of Things. In Proceeding of 3rd IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), 425--429.

[19]

Q. Wu, G. Ding, Y. Xu, S. Feng, Z. Du, J. Wang, and K. Long (2014). Cognitive Internet of Things: A New Paradigm beyond Connection. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(2): 129--143.

[20]

J. Mitola (2009). Cognitive Radio Architecture Evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE, 97(4): 626--641.

[21]

A. Floris, and L. Atzori (2016). Managing the Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: A Layered-based Approach. Sensors, 16(12): 2057.

[22]

C. H. Liu, J. Fan, J. W. Branch and K. K. Leung (2014). Toward QoI and Energy-Efficiency in Internet-of-Things Sensory Environments. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 2(4): 473--487.

[23]

M. A. Hossain and A. E. Saddik (2008). Quality-driven Human-Centered Approach for Service Provisioning in Ambient Environment. In 3rd ACM International Workshop on Human-centered Computing (HCC '08), 43--48.

Digital Library

[24]

J. Aráuz and T. Fynn-Cudjoe (2013). Actuator quality in the Internet of Things. In IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and Networking (SECON), 34--42.

[25]

M. Fiedler, T. Hossfeld, and P. T. Gia (2010). A Generic Quantitative Relationship between Quality of Experience and Quality of Service. IEEE Network, 24(2): 36--41.

Digital Library

[26]

P. Reichl, S. Egger, R. Schatz, and A. D'Alconzo (2010). The Logarithmic Nature of QoE and the Role of the Weber-Fechner Law in QoE Assessment. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC '10), 1--5.

[27]

D. Pal, S. Funilkul, N. Charoenkitkarn and P. Kanthamanon (2018). Internet-of-Things and Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare: An End User Perspective. IEEE Access, 6: 10483--10496.

[28]

R. Falcone, and A. Sapienza (2018). On the Users' Acceptance of IoT Systems: A Theoretical Approach. Information, 9(3): 53.

Cited By

Khamosh AAhmadi AAnwer MHamdard JAminzai SNasrat N(2023)Relationship between IoT Service User Quality and Network QoS FactorsJournal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology10.55544/jrasb.2.2.212:2(147-154)Online publication date: 4-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.55544/jrasb.2.2.21
Fizza KJayaraman PBanerjee AAuluck NRanjan R(2023)IoT-QWatch: A Novel Framework to Support the Development of Quality-Aware Autonomic IoT ApplicationsIEEE Internet of Things Journal10.1109/JIOT.2023.327841110:20(17666-17679)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3278411
Fizza KBanerjee AJayaraman PAuluck NRanjan RMitra KGeorgakopoulos D(2023)A Survey on Evaluating the Quality of Autonomic Internet of Things ApplicationsIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials10.1109/COMST.2022.320537725:1(567-590)Online publication date: Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3205377
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Quality Provisioning in the Internet of Things Era: Current State and Future Directions

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet of things

We developed a predictive model for QoE in the IoT.It is a user experience model of IoT, conceptualizing QoE and highlighting relationships with other factors.We demonstrate future IoT service categories through a heuristic quality assessment tool from ...
Data quality in internet of things

In the Internet of Things (IoT), data gathered from a global-scale deployment of smart-things, are the base for making intelligent decisions and providing services. If data are of poor quality, decisions are likely to be unsound. Data quality (DQ) is ...
Data quality and the Internet of Things
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) is driving technological change and the development of new products and services that rely heavily on the quality of the data collected by IoT devices. There is a large body of research on data quality management and ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

IAIT '18: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology

December 2018

145 pages

ISBN:9781450365680

DOI:10.1145/3291280

Copyright © 2018 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]

In-Cooperation

KMUTT: King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 December 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

IAIT 2018

IAIT 2018: The 10th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology

December 10 - 13, 2018

Bangkok, Thailand

Acceptance Rates

IAIT '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 20 of 47 submissions, 43%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 20 of 47 submissions, 43%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

8
Total Citations
View Citations
120
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)4
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Khamosh AAhmadi AAnwer MHamdard JAminzai SNasrat N(2023)Relationship between IoT Service User Quality and Network QoS FactorsJournal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology10.55544/jrasb.2.2.212:2(147-154)Online publication date: 4-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.55544/jrasb.2.2.21
Fizza KJayaraman PBanerjee AAuluck NRanjan R(2023)IoT-QWatch: A Novel Framework to Support the Development of Quality-Aware Autonomic IoT ApplicationsIEEE Internet of Things Journal10.1109/JIOT.2023.327841110:20(17666-17679)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3278411
Fizza KBanerjee AJayaraman PAuluck NRanjan RMitra KGeorgakopoulos D(2023)A Survey on Evaluating the Quality of Autonomic Internet of Things ApplicationsIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials10.1109/COMST.2022.320537725:1(567-590)Online publication date: Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2022.3205377
Sgora AChatzimisios P(2022)Defining and Assessing Quality in IoT Environments: A SurveyIoT10.3390/iot30400263:4(493-506)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/iot3040026
Saovapakhiran BNaruephiphat WCharnsripinyo CBaydere SOzdemir S(2022)QoE-Driven IoT Architecture: A Comprehensive Review on System and Resource ManagementIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.319758510(84579-84621)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3197585
Farias da Costa VOliveira Lde Souza J(2021)Internet of Everything (IoE) Taxonomies: A Survey and a Novel Knowledge-Based TaxonomySensors10.3390/s2102056821:2(568)Online publication date: 14-Jan-2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020568
Pal DTriyason TVaradarajan VZhang X(2019)Quality of Experience Evaluation of Smart-Wearables: A Mathematical Modelling Approach2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW)10.1109/ICDEW.2019.00-32(74-80)Online publication date: Apr-2019
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDEW.2019.00-32
Pal DArpnikanondt CFunilkul SVaradarajan V(2019)User Experience with Smart Voice Assistants: The Accent Perspective2019 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT)10.1109/ICCCNT45670.2019.8944754(1-6)Online publication date: Jul-2019
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT45670.2019.8944754

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten