Cited by 100Image and Video Quality AssessmentNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlMultimedia Communication and Technology

Empirical study based on machine learning approach to assess the QoS/QoE correlation

Mushtaq, M. Sajid, Augustin, Brice, Mellouk, Abdelhamid·2012·2012 17th European Conference on Networks and Optical Communications

Abstract

The appearance of new emerging multimedia services have created new challenges for cloud service providers, which have to react quickly to end-users experience and offer a better Quality of Service (QoS). Cloud service providers should use such an intelligent system that can classify, analyze, and adapt to the collected information in an efficient way to satisfy end-users' experience. This paper investigates how different factors contributing the Quality of Experience (QoE), in the context of video streaming delivery over cloud networks. Important parameters which influence the QoE are: network parameters, characteristics of videos, terminal characteristics and types of users' profiles. We describe different methods that are often used to collect QoE datasets in the form of a Mean Opinion Score (MOS). Machine Learning (ML) methods are then used to classify a preliminary QoE dataset collected using these methods. We evaluate six classifiers and determine the most suitable one for the task of QoS/QoE correlation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/noc.2012.6249939

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 parameters of Mushtaq et al.'s models are not disclosed, and the significance of selected features, particularly viewer-related ones, is not disclosed, making their usefulness and practicality in real-life deployment questionable.

    “The parameters of the models are not disclosed, and neither is the significance of the selected features in particular the viewer-related ones, whose usefulness and practicality in real-life deployment are questionable.”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mushtaq, M. S., Augustin, B., & Mellouk, A.
Affiliations
Université Paris-Est Créteil (FR)
Venue
2012 17th European Conference on Networks and Optical Communications
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2012-06
Pages
1-7
OpenAlex
W2086253016
Cited by
100
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5
FWCI
5.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Conference on Networks and Optical Communications (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multimedia Communication and Technology
Keywords
quality of experience, quality of service, video streaming, cloud networks, mean opinion score, classifier comparison, user experience, network parameters, terminal characteristics

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