Cited by 111Image and Video Quality AssessmentNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlCaching and Content Delivery

Design and Evaluation of a Self-Learning HTTP Adaptive Video Streaming Client

Open access
Claeys, Maxim, Latre, Steven, Famaey, Jeroen, De Turck, Filip·2014·IEEE Communications Letters

Abstract

HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) is becoming the de facto standard for Over-The-Top (OTT)-based video streaming services such as YouTube and Netflix. By splitting a video into multiple segments of a couple of seconds and encoding each of these at multiple quality levels, HAS allows a video client to dynamically adapt the requested quality during the playout to react to network changes. However, state-of-the-art quality selection heuristics are deterministic and tailored to specific network configurations. Therefore, they are unable to cope with a vast range of highly dynamic network settings. In this letter, a novel Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based HAS client is presented and evaluated. The self-learning HAS client dynamically adapts its behaviour by interacting with the environment to optimize the Quality of Experience (QoE), the quality as perceived by the end-user. The proposed client has been thoroughly evaluated using a network-based simulator and is shown to outperform traditional HAS clients by up to 13% in a mobile network environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/lcomm.2014.020414.132649

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Q-learning client achieves on average 9.12% higher estimated MOS, with 16.65% lower standard deviation, than the traditional Microsoft ISS Smooth Streaming client.

    “The authors claim that the Q-learning client achieves in average 9.12% higher estimated MOS (program-generated), with 16.65% lower standard deviation, than the traditional Microsoft ISS Smooth Streaming (MSS) client.”
  • Data-driven approaches, in particular ML, have been employed mainly in two ways: to predict changes in network QoS and trigger adaptation to reduce rebuffering time, and to select appropriate adaptation action.

    “Data-driven approaches, in particular ML, have been employed mainly in two different ways: (1) to predict changes in network QoS, namely throughput, and trigger adaptation mechanism to reduce rebuffering time [432], and (2) to select appropriate adaptation action [102].”
  • Some works find it sufficient to correlate QoE to a single network QoS parameter, while others argue that multiple QoS parameters impact QoE and need to be considered in tandem.

    “While some find it sufficient to correlate the QoE to a single network QoS parameter [145, 240, 383, 408], e.g.delay or throughput, others argue that multiple QoS parameters impact the QoE and need to be considered in tandem as features in a QoE/QoS correlation model [89,102,114,235,287,328,432].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning). MIT Press, Mar. 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Claeys, M., Latre, S., Famaey, J., & De Turck, F.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Venue
IEEE Communications Letters
Published
2014-04
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
716-719
ISSN
1089-7798 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998431331
Cited by
111
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Communications Letters (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (318488)
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Caching and Content Delivery
Keywords
reinforcement learning, quality of experience, cellular networks, video segmentation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review