Fundamental Advantages of Considering Quality of Experience Distributions over Mean Opinion Scores

Due to biased assumptions on the underlying ordinal rating scale in subjective Quality of Experience (QoE) studies, Mean Opinion Score (MOS)-based evaluations provide results, which are hard to interpret and can be little meaningful. This paper proposes to consider the full QoE distribution for evaluating and reporting QoE results instead of only using MOS values. The QoE distribution can be represented in a concise way by using the parameters of a multinomial distribution without losing any information about the underlying QoE ratings, and even keeps backward compatibility with previous, biased MOS-based results. Considering QoE results as a realization of a multinomial distribution allows to rely on a well-established theoretical background, which enables meaningful evaluations also for ordinal rating scales. Exemplary evaluations are described in this work, which demonstrate these fundamental advantages of considering QoE distributions over MOS-based evaluations.

[1]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  John Woods,et al.  Survey on QoE\QoS Correlation Models For Multimedia Services , 2013, ArXiv.

[3]  Tobias Hoßfeld,et al.  SOS: The MOS is not enough! , 2011, 2011 Third International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience.

[4]  Josef Hadar,et al.  Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects , 1969 .

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

[6]  Peter Schelkens,et al.  Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience , 2013 .

[7]  Torrin M. Liddell,et al.  Analyzing Ordinal Data with Metric Models: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? , 2017, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

[8]  Sebastian Möller,et al.  QoE beyond the MOS: an in-depth look at QoE via better metrics and their relation to MOS , 2016, Quality and User Experience.

[9]  Lea Skorin-Kapov,et al.  Definition of QoE Fairness in Shared Systems , 2017, IEEE Communications Letters.

[10]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  A metric for distributions with applications to image databases , 1998, Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).

[11]  Raimund Schatz,et al.  Poor, Good Enough or Even Better? Bridging the Gap between Acceptability and QoE of Mobile Broadband Data Services , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[12]  Tobias Hoßfeld,et al.  QoE beyond the MOS: Added value using quantiles and distributions , 2015, 2015 Seventh International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[13]  Joseph Glaz,et al.  Simultaneous Confidence Intervals and Sample Size Determination for Multinomial Proportions , 1995 .

[14]  Alexander Raake,et al.  Quality of experience and HTTP adaptive streaming: A review of subjective studies , 2014, 2014 Sixth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[15]  Phuoc Tran-Gia,et al.  Quantification of YouTube QoE via Crowdsourcing , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia.

[16]  Lea Skorin-Kapov,et al.  No silver bullet: QoE metrics, QoE fairness, and user diversity in the context of QoE management , 2017, 2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).