Comparative Evaluation of User Perceived Quality Assessment of Design Strategies for HTTP-based Adaptive Streaming

HTTP-based Adaptive Streaming (HAS) is the dominant Internet video streaming application. One specific HAS approach, Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH), is of particular interest, as it is a widely deployed, standardized implementation. Prior academic research has focused on networking and protocol issues, and has contributed an accepted understanding of the performance and possible performance issues in large deployment scenarios. Our work extends the current understanding of HAS by focusing directly on the impacts of choice of the video quality adaptation algorithm on end-user perceived quality. In congested network scenarios, the details of the adaptation algorithm determine the amount of bandwidth consumed by the application as well as the quality of the rendered video stream. HAS will lead to user-perceived changes in video quality due to intentional changes in quality video segments, or unintentional perceived quality impairments caused by video decoder artifacts such as pixelation, stutters, or short or long stalls in the rendered video when the playback buffer becomes empty. The HAS adaptation algorithm attempts to find the optimal solution to mitigate the conflict between avoiding buffer stalls and maximizing video quality. In this article, we present results from a user study that was designed to provide insights into “best practice guidelines” for a HAS adaptation algorithm. Our findings suggest that a buffer-based strategy might provide a better experience under higher network impairment conditions. For the two network scenarios considered, the buffer-based strategy is effective in avoiding stalls but does so at the cost of reduced video quality. However, the buffer-based strategy does yield a lower number of quality switches as a result of infrequent bitrate adaptations. Participants in buffer-based strategy do notice the drop in video quality causing a decrease in perceived QoE, but the perceived levels of video quality, viewer frustration, and opinions of video clarity and distortion are significantly worse due to artifacts such as stalls in capacity-based strategy. The capacity-based strategy tries to provide the highest video quality possible but produces many more artifacts during playback. The results suggest that player video quality has more of an impact on perceived quality when stalls are infrequent. The study methodology also contributes a unique method for gathering continuous quantitative subjective measure of user perceived quality using a Wii remote.

[1]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  Automated QoE evaluation of Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP , 2013, 2013 Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[2]  Ali C. Begen,et al.  A Distributed Approach for Bitrate Selection in HTTP Adaptive Streaming , 2018, ACM Multimedia.

[3]  Yong Man Ro,et al.  Adaptive video streaming over HTTP with dynamic resource estimation , 2013, Journal of Communications and Networks.

[4]  Bertrand Mathieu,et al.  QUIC: Better for what and for whom? , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[5]  Ali C. Begen,et al.  Probe and Adapt: Rate Adaptation for HTTP Video Streaming At Scale , 2013, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[6]  Hans-Jürgen Zepernick,et al.  No-reference image and video quality assessment: a classification and review of recent approaches , 2014, EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing.

[7]  Cristina Nita-Rotaru,et al.  Taking a long look at QUIC: an approach for rigorous evaluation of rapidly evolving transport protocols , 2017, Internet Measurement Conference.

[8]  Xiapu Luo,et al.  QDASH: a QoE-aware DASH system , 2012, MMSys '12.

[9]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset , 2012, MMSys '12.

[10]  Muhammad Shahid,et al.  Analysis of the impact of temporal, spatial, and quantization variations on perceptual video quality , 2014, 2014 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS).

[11]  Luca De Cicco,et al.  ELASTIC: A Client-Side Controller for Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) , 2013, 2013 20th International Packet Video Workshop.

[12]  Antonio Liotta,et al.  Addressing user expectations in mobile content delivery , 2007, Mob. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Christopher Edwards,et al.  Adaptive Bitrate Selection: A Survey , 2017, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[14]  Michael Zink,et al.  Not so QUIC: A Performance Study of DASH over QUIC , 2017, NOSSDAV.

[15]  Bernard Cousin,et al.  TcpHas: TCP for HTTP adaptive streaming , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[16]  Te-Yuan Huang,et al.  A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: evidence from a large video streaming service , 2015, SIGCOMM 2015.

[17]  Fan Yang,et al.  The QUIC Transport Protocol: Design and Internet-Scale Deployment , 2017, SIGCOMM.

[18]  Ali C. Begen,et al.  Streaming video over HTTP with consistent quality , 2014, MMSys '14.

[19]  Ali C. Begen,et al.  An experimental evaluation of rate-adaptation algorithms in adaptive streaming over HTTP , 2011, MMSys.

[20]  Liam Murphy,et al.  User perception of adapting video quality , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  Dong-Qing Zhang,et al.  Assessing quality of experience for adaptive HTTP video streaming , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW).

[22]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  The QUIC Fix for Optimal Video Streaming , 2018, EPIQ@CoNEXT.

[23]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  A Survey on Bitrate Adaptation Schemes for Streaming Media Over HTTP , 2019, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[24]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  Which Adaptation Logic? An Objective and Subjective Performance Evaluation of HTTP-based Adaptive Media Streaming Systems , 2016, ArXiv.

[25]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Understanding the impact of video quality on user engagement , 2011, SIGCOMM.

[26]  Nick McKeown,et al.  Confused, timid, and unstable: picking a video streaming rate is hard , 2012, Internet Measurement Conference.

[27]  Srinivasan Seshan,et al.  A quest for an Internet video quality-of-experience metric , 2012, HotNets-XI.

[28]  Yan Zhou,et al.  Perceptual quality of video with frame rate variation: A subjective study , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[29]  Phuoc Tran-Gia,et al.  A Survey on Quality of Experience of HTTP Adaptive Streaming , 2015, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[30]  Vyas Sekar,et al.  Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with FESTIVE , 2012, CoNEXT '12.

[31]  Toon De Pessemier,et al.  Quantifying the Influence of Rebuffering Interruptions on the User's Quality of Experience During Mobile Video Watching , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[32]  Juan E. Gilbert,et al.  A User Study of Netflix Streaming , 2015, HCI.

[33]  Ragnhild Eg,et al.  Spatial flicker effect in video scaling , 2011, 2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience.

[34]  Ragnhild Eg,et al.  Flicker effects in adaptive video streaming to handheld devices , 2011, ACM Multimedia.

[35]  Moncef Gabbouj,et al.  Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming , 2011, MMSys.

[36]  Miska M. Hannuksela,et al.  Rate adaptation for dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in content distribution network , 2012, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[37]  Ali C. Begen,et al.  What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth? , 2012, NOSSDAV '12.

[38]  ITU-T Rec. P.910 (04/2008) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications , 2009 .

[39]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  An evaluation of dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP in vehicular environments , 2012, MoVid '12.

[40]  Christian Timmerer,et al.  A test-bed for the dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP featuring session mobility , 2011, MMSys.

[41]  Ramesh K. Sitaraman,et al.  Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior: Inferring Causality Using Quasi-Experimental Designs , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[42]  Koenraad Laevens,et al.  Increasing the user perceived quality for IPTV services , 2008, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[43]  M. Ghanbari,et al.  IMPACT OF JITTER AND JERKINESS ON PERCEIVED VIDEO QUALITY , 2006 .

[44]  Ingrid Heynderickx,et al.  Perceivable artifacts in compressed video and their relation to video quality , 2009, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[45]  James Martin,et al.  On the Efficacy of the Dynamic Adaptive Streaming Over HTTP (DASH) Protocol , 2013 .

[46]  O. Oyman,et al.  Quality of experience for HTTP adaptive streaming services , 2012, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[47]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures , 1995 .

[48]  Jim Martin,et al.  Characterizing Netflix bandwidth consumption , 2013, 2013 IEEE 10th Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC).

[49]  Yong Liu,et al.  Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming , 2012, CoNEXT '12.

[50]  Koenraad Laevens,et al.  Session reconstruction for HTTP adaptive streaming: Laying the foundation for network-based QoE monitoring , 2012, 2012 IEEE 20th International Workshop on Quality of Service.

[51]  Luca De Cicco,et al.  An Adaptive Video Streaming Control System: Modeling, Validation, and Performance Evaluation , 2014, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[52]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[53]  Ofer Hadar,et al.  A fair server adaptation algorithm for HTTP adaptive streaming using video complexity , 2018, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[54]  Kjell Brunnström,et al.  Subjective quality assessment of an adaptive video streaming model , 2014, Electronic Imaging.

[55]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[56]  Abbes Amira,et al.  Impact of segment size on dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP (DASH) over LAN network , 2018, Commercial + Scientific Sensing and Imaging.

[57]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  The Evolution of Video Quality Measurement: From PSNR to Hybrid Metrics , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting.

[58]  Rémi Houdaille,et al.  Shaping HTTP adaptive streams for a better user experience , 2012, MMSys '12.