Practical Evaluation of VMAF Perceptual Video Quality for WebRTC Applications
Open accessAbstract
WebRTC is the umbrella term for several emergent technologies aimed to exchange real-time media in the Web. Like other media-related services, the perceived quality of WebRTC communication can be measured using Quality of Experience (QoE) indicators. QoE assessment methods can be classified as subjective (users’ evaluation scores) or objective (models computed as a function of different parameters). In this paper, we focus on VMAF (Video Multi-method Assessment Fusion), which is an emergent full-reference objective video quality assessment model developed by Netflix. VMAF is typically used to assess video streaming services. This paper evaluates the use of VMAF in a different type of application: WebRTC. To that aim, we present a practical use case built on the top of well-known open source technologies, such as JUnit, Selenium, Docker, and FFmpeg. In addition to VMAF, we also calculate other objective QoE video metrics such as Visual Information Fidelity in the pixel domain (VIFp), Structural Similarity (SSIM), or Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) applied to a WebRTC communication in different network conditions in terms of packet loss. Finally, we compare these objective results with a subjective evaluation using a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) scale to the same WebRTC streams. As a result, we found a strong correlation of the subjective video quality perceived in WebRTC video calls with the objective results computed with VMAF and VIFp in comparison with SSIM and PSNR and their variants.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2003.819861 · Cited by 57,892 · see citing works
The ASA Statement on <i>p</i> -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 · Cited by 6,306 · see citing works
Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment
Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., & Bovik, A. C. (2004) · The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2003.1292216 · Cited by 6,253 · cited 1× · see citing works
“• MS-SSIM: Multi-Scale SSIM, which is an advanced form of SSIM in which the evaluation is conducted through a process of sub-sampling, reminiscent of multiscale processing [27].”
MethodChallenges of QoE management for cloud applications
Hobfeld, T., Schatz, R., Varela, M., & Timmerer, C. (2012) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2012.6178831 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- García, B., López-Fernández, L., Gortázar, F., & Gallego, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (ES)
- Corresponding author
- García, Boni
- Venue
- Electronics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2019-07-31
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 854
- ISSN
- 2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2965441391
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- e-Archivo (Carlos III University of Madrid) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (ElasTest (GA-731535))
- Regional Government of Madrid (EDGEDATA-CM (P2018/TCS-4499))
- Spanish Government (LERNIM (RTC-2016-4674-7), BugBirth (RTI2018-101963-B-I00))
- 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 › Signal Processing › Video Coding and Compression Technologies
- Keywords
- VMAF, WebRTC, video quality assessment, quality of experience, objective video quality metrics, SSIM, PSNR, packet loss, mean opinion score, subjective video quality, real-time video communication, video calls
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