skip to main content
research-article

QoE-Fair DASH Video Streaming Using Server-side Reinforcement Learning

Published:21 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

To design an optimal adaptive video streaming method, video service providers need to consider both the efficiency and the fairness of the Quality of Experience (QoE) of their users. In Reference [8], we proposed a server-side QoE-fair rate adaptation method that considers both efficiency and fairness of the QoE. The server uses Reinforcement Learning (RL) to select a bitrate for each client sharing the same bottleneck link to the server in a way that achieves fairness among concurrent DASH clients and imposes that bitrate by dynamically modifying the client’s Media Presentation Description (MPD) file. In this article, we extend that work to minimize the number of actions the server needs to take to keep the system in its equilibrium state. By incorporating a Recurrent Neural Network, specifically an LSTM model, we modify the server’s training algorithm to achieve improvements in both the quality and the quantity of actions the server takes to guide the client. Performance evaluation of the modified algorithm for clients running both homogeneous and heterogeneous adaptation algorithms showed that the number of server actions dropped by 14% and 22%, respectively, while QoE-fairness improved by at least 6% and 10%, respectively.

References

  1. 2012. ITU-T Recommendation G.1070 Opinion Model for Video Applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2014. ISO/IEC 23009-1, Information Technology - Dynamic Adaptive Streaming Over HTTP (DASH) - Part 1: Media Presentation Description and Segment Formats.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2020. Global Internet Phenomena Report. Sandvine, September 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2020 from https://www.sandvine.com/press-releases/sandvine-releases-2019-global-internet-phenomena-report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2020. The Mobile Internet Phenomena Report. Sandvine. Retrieved March 29, 2020 from https://www.sandvine.com/press-releases/sandvine-releases-2020-mobile-internet-phenomena-report-youtube-is-over-25-of-all-mobile-traffic.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Saamer Akhshabi, Lakshmi Anantakrishnan, Ali C. Begen, and Constantine Dovrolis. 2012. What happens when HTTP adaptive streaming players compete for bandwidth? In Proceedings of the 22nd International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’12). ACM, New York, NY, 9--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2229087.2229092Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Saamer Akhshabi, Lakshmi Anantakrishnan, Constantine Dovrolis, and Ali Begen. 2013. Server-based traffic shaping for stabilizing oscillating adaptive streaming players. In Proceeding of the 23rd ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’13). ACM, 19--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Zahaib Akhtar, Yun Seong Nam, Ramesh Govindan, Sanjay Rao, Jessica Chen, Ethan Katz-Bassett, Bruno Ribeiro, Jibin Zhan, and Hui Zhang. 2018. Oboe: Auto-tuning video ABR algorithms to network conditions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’18). CM, New York, NY, 44--58. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3230543.3230558Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Sa’di Altamimi and Shervin Shirmohammadi. 2019. Client-server cooperative and fair DASH video streaming. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3304112.3325604Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Abdelhak Bentaleb, Ali C. Begen, and Roger Zimmermann. 2018. ORL-SDN: Online reinforcement learning for SDN-enabled HTTP adaptive streaming. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 14, 3, Article 71 (Aug. 2018), 28 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3219752Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tyler Chesebro and Aleks Kamko. 2016. Learning Atari: An Exploration of the A3C Reinforcement Learning Method. Available: https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/files/70573736/download?download_frd=1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Communications Commission. [n.d.]. Raw Data - Measuring Broadband America. Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Gadaleta, F. Chiariotti, M. Rossi, and A. Zanella. 2017. D-DASH: A deep Q-learning framework for DASH video streaming. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 3, 4 (2017), 703--718.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Mahdi Hemmati. 2017. New Bandwidth Allocation Methods to Provide Quality-of-Experience Fairness for Video Streaming Services. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa, School of Electrical Engineering 8 Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mahdi Hemmati, Abdulsalam Yassine, and Shervin Shirmohammadi. 2015. A Dec-POMDP model for congestion avoidance and fair allocation of network bandwidth in rate-adaptive video streaming. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence. 1182--1189. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2015.170Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. T. Hoßfeld, L. Skorin-Kapov, P. E. Heegaard, and M. Varela. 2017. Definition of QoE fairness in shared systems. IEEE Commun. Lett. 21, 1 (2017), 184--187. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7588099.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. Huang, X. Yao, C. Wu, R. Zhang, Z. Pang, and L. Sun. 2019. Tiyuntsong: A self-play reinforcement learning approach for ABR video streaming. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME’19). 1678--1683.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tianchi Huang, Chao Zhou, Rui-Xiao Zhang, Chenglei Wu, Xin Yao, and Lifeng Sun. 2019. Comyco: Quality-aware adaptive video streaming via imitation learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM’19). ACM, New York, NY, 429--437. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3343031.3351014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Te-Yuan Huang, Nikhil Handigol, Brandon Heller, Nick McKeown, and Ramesh Johari. 2012. Confused, timid, and unstable: Picking a video streaming rate is hard. In Proceedings of the 2012 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC’12). ACM, New York, NY, 225--238. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2398776.2398800Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Jain, D.-M. Chiu, W. R. Hawe, T. Zinner, T. Hoßfeld, and P. Tran-Gia. 1984. A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system. Eastern Res. Lab. (1984), Hudson, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Junchen Jiang, Vyas Sekar, and Hui Zhang. 2014. Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with festive. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 22, 1 (Feb. 2014), 326--340. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2013.2291681Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Vijay Konda and John Tsitsiklis. 2003. On actor-critic algorithms. SIAM J. Contr. Optim. 42, 4 (2003), 1143--1166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Stefan Lederer, Christopher Muller, and Christian Timmerer. 2012. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP dataset. In Proceedings of the 3rd Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’12). ACM, New York, NY, 89--94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2155555.2155570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. De Cicco Luca, Saverio Mascolo, and Vittorio Palmisano. 2011. Feedback control for adaptive live video streaming. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM Conference on Multimedia Systems (MMSys’11). ACM, 145--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hongzi Mao, Ravi Netravali, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2017. Neural adaptive video streaming with pensieve. Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’17).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, et al. 2015. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 25, 2, 529--533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/518486aGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. A. Nadembega, A. Hafid, and T. Taleb. 2014. An integrated predictive mobile-oriented bandwidth-reservation framework to support mobile multimedia streaming. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 13, 12 (2014), 6863--6875.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Vikram Nathan, Vibhaalakshmi Sivaraman, Ravichandra Addanki, Mehrdad Khani, Prateesh Goyal, and Mohammad Alizadeh. 2019. End-to-end transport for video QoE fairness. In Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’19). ACM, New York, NY, 408--423. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342077Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Haakon Riiser, Paul Vigmostad, Carsten Griwodz, and Halvorsen Pal. 2013. Commute path bandwidth traces from 3G networks: Analysis and applications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’13). ACM, New York, NY, 114--118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2483977.2483991Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Padhye S. Floyd, M. Handley and J. Widmer. 2008. TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification (Proposed Standard). Retrieved from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Seufert, S. Egger, M. Slanina, T. Zinner, T. Hoßfeld, and P. Tran-Gia. 2015. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17, 1 (2015), 469--492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. M. Seufert, N. Wehner, and P. Casas. 2019. A fair share for all: TCP-inspired adaptation logic for QoE fairness among heterogeneous HTTP adaptive video streaming clients. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 16, 2 (2019), 475--488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Ashkan Sobhani, Abdulsalam Yassine, and Shervin Shirmohammadi. 2017. A video bitrate adaptation and prediction mechanism for HTTP adaptive streaming. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 13, 2, (Mar. 2017), 25 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3052822Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Kevin Spiteri, Rahul Urgaonkar, and Ramesh K. Sitaraman. 2016. BOLA: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’16). 1--9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2016.7524428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard Sutton and Andrew Barto. 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. The PyTorch team. 2020. PyTorch Neural Network Framework. Retrieved from https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/nn.html#lstm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Xiaoqi Yin, Abhishek Jindal, Vyas Sekar, and Bruno Sinopoli. 2015. A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM’15). ACM, New York, NY, 325--338. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2785956.2787486Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. QoE-Fair DASH Video Streaming Using Server-side Reinforcement Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications
      ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications  Volume 16, Issue 2s
      Special Issue on Smart Communications and Networking for Future Video Surveillance and Special Section on Extended MMSYS-NOSSDAV 2019 Best Papers
      April 2020
      291 pages
      ISSN:1551-6857
      EISSN:1551-6865
      DOI:10.1145/3407689
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 June 2020
      • Online AM: 7 May 2020
      • Accepted: 1 April 2020
      • Revised: 1 March 2020
      • Received: 1 December 2019
      Published in tomm Volume 16, Issue 2s

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format