Defining Quality of Experience for the Internet of Things
Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) brings a set of unique and complex challenges to the field of Quality of Experience (QoE) evaluation. The state-of-the-art research in QoE mainly targets multimedia services, such as voice, video, and the Web, to determine quality perceived by end-users. Therein, main evaluation metrics involve subjective and objective human factors and network quality factors. Emerging IoT may also include intelligent machines within services, such as health-care, logistics, and manufacturing. The integration of new technologies such as machine-to-machine communications and artificial intelligence within IoT services may lead to service quality degradation caused by machines. In this article, we argue that evaluating QoE in the IoT services should also involve novel metrics for measuring the performance of the machines alongside metrics for end-users' QoE. This article extends the legacy QoE definition in the area of IoT and defines conceptual metrics for evaluating QoE using an industrial IoT case study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Recently Minovski et al. [19,20] and Mitra et al. [12] have argued for the need to understand quality in an IoT ecosystem; within an IoT ecosystem a user can be both human and/or other systems and IoT devices.
“Recently Minovski et al. [19,20] and Mitra et al. [12] have argued for the need to understand quality in an IoT ecosystem; within an IoT ecosystem a user can be both human and/or other systems and IoT devices.”
From QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions (2021) · cites this paper as [20]
Cites
A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service
Fiedler, M., Hossfeld, T., & Tran-Gia, P. (2010) · IEEE Network · doi:10.1109/mnet.2010.5430142 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Managing the Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet of Things: A Layered-Based Approach
Floris, A., & Atzori, L. (2016) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s16122057 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QoE in IoT: a vision, survey and future directions
Fizza, K., Banerjee, A., Mitra, K., Jayaraman, P. P., Ranjan, R., Patel, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2021) · Discover Internet of Things · doi:10.1007/s43926-021-00006-7 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
“Recently Minovski et al. [19, 20] and Mitra et al. [12] have argued for the need to understand quality in an IoT ecosystem; within an IoT ecosystem a user can be both human and/or other systems and IoT devices.”
BackgroundSelf-citationModeling Quality of IoT Experience in Autonomous Vehicles
Minovski, D., Ahlund, C., & Mitra, K. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.2975418 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Minovski, D., Ahlund, C., Mitra, K., & Zhohov, R.
- Affiliations
- Luleå University of Technology (SE)
- Luleå University of Technology
- Venue
- IT Professional
- Published
- 2020-09-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 62-70
- ISSN
- 1520-9202 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-045X
- OpenAlex
- W3015823153
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IT Professional (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Keywords
- quality of experience, Internet of Things, machine-to-machine communication, Industrial Internet of Things
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
