skip to main content
research-article

QoE-Based Low-Delay Live Streaming Using Throughput Predictions

Published:25 October 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Recently, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)-based adaptive streaming has become the de facto standard for video streaming over the Internet. It allows clients to dynamically adapt media characteristics to the varying network conditions to ensure a high quality of experience (QoE)—that is, minimize playback interruptions while maximizing video quality at a reasonable level of quality changes. In the case of live streaming, this task becomes particularly challenging due to the latency constraints. The challenge further increases if a client uses a wireless access network, where the throughput is subject to considerable fluctuations. Consequently, live streams often exhibit latencies of up to 20 to 30 seconds. In the present work, we introduce an adaptation algorithm for HTTP-based live streaming called LOLYPOP (short for low-latency prediction-based adaptation), which is designed to operate with a transport latency of a few seconds. To reach this goal, LOLYPOP leverages Transmission Control Protocol throughput predictions on multiple time scales, from 1 to 10 seconds, along with estimations of the relative prediction error distributions. In addition to satisfying the latency constraint, the algorithm heuristically maximizes the QoE by maximizing the average video quality as a function of the number of skipped segments and quality transitions. To select an efficient prediction method, we studied the performance of several time series prediction methods in IEEE 802.11 wireless access networks. We evaluated LOLYPOP under a large set of experimental conditions, limiting the transport latency to 3 seconds, against a state-of-the-art adaptation algorithm called FESTIVE. We observed that the average selected video representation index is by up to a factor of 3 higher than with the baseline approach. We also observed that LOLYPOP is able to reach points from a broader region in the QoE space, and thus it is better adjustable to the user profile or service provider requirements.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Abdallah S. Abdallah and Allen B. Mackenzie. 2015. A cross-layer controller for adaptive video streaming over IEEE 802.11 networks. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’15). 6797--6802. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Cristina Aurrecoechea, Andrew T. Campbell, and Linda Hauw. 1998. A survey of QoS architectures. Multimedia Systems 6, 3, 138--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Athula Balachandran, Vyas Sekar, Aditya Akella, Srinivasan Seshan, Ion Stoica, and Hui Zhang. 2012. A quest for an Internet video quality-of-experience metric. In Proceedings of ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets’12). 97--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Athula Balachandran, Vyas Sekar, Aditya Akella, Srinivasan Seshan, Ion Stoica, and Hui Zhang. 2013. Developing a predictive model of quality of experience for Internet video. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM’13). 339--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Dilip Bethanabhotla, Giuseppe Caire, and Michael J. Neely. 2015. Adaptive video streaming for wireless networks with multiple users and helpers. IEEE Transactions on Communications 63, 1, 268--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayub Bokani, Mahbub Hassan, and Salil Kanhere. 2013. HTTP-based adaptive streaming for mobile clients using Markov decision process. In Proceedings of the International Packet Video Workshop (PV’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jorge Carapinha, Roland Bless, Christoph Werle, Konstantin Miller, Virgil Dobrota, Andrei Bogdan Rus, Heidrun Grob-Lipski, and Horst Roessler. 2010. Quality of service in the future Internet. In Proceedings of the ITU-T Kaleidoscope Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sharon Carmel, Tzur Daboosh, Eli Reifman, Naftali Shani, Ziv Eliraz, Dror Ginsberg, Edan Ayal, and Kfar Saba. 2002. Network Media Streaming. Patent No. US 6389473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Christopher Chatfield. 2003. The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction. Taylor 8 Francis, Abingdon, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhigang Chen, See-Mong Tan, Roy H. Campbell, and Yongcheng Li. 1995. Real time video and audio in the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cisco. 2014. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2013--2018. White Paper. Cisco Systems, San Jose, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Maxim Claeys, Steven Latre, Jeroen Famaey, and Filip De Turck. 2014. Design and evaluation of a self-learning HTTP adaptive video streaming client. IEEE Communications Letters 18, 4, 716--719. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. ComScore. 2014. U.S. Digital Future in Focus. White Paper. ComScore, Reston, VA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Conviva. 2014. Viewer Experience Report. White Paper. Conviva, Foster City, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Conviva. 2015. Internet TV: Bringing Control to Chaos. White Paper. Conviva, Foster City, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. El Essaili, D. Schroeder, D. Staehle, M. Shehada, W. Kellerer, and E. Steinbach. 2013. Quality-of-experience driven adaptive HTTP media delivery. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’13). 2480--2485. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sangtae Ha, Injong Rhee, and Lisong Xu. 2008. CUBIC: A new TCP-friendly high-speed TCP variant. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 42, 5, 64--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jia Hao, Roger Zimmermann, and Haiyang Ma. 2014. GTube: Geo-predictive video streaming over HTTP in mobile environments. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’14). 259--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Qi He, Constantinos Dovrolis, and Mostafa Ammar. 2007. On the predictability of large transfer TCP throughput. Computer Networks 51, 14, 3959--3977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Myles Hollander, Douglas A. Wolfe, and Eric Chicken. 2014. Nonparametric Statistical Methods (3rd ed.). Wiley, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Hossfeld, S. Egger, R. Schatz, M. Fiedler, K. Masuch, and C. Lorentzen. 2012. Initial delay vs. interruptions: Between the devil and the deep blue sea. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. ITU-T. 2008a. Definition of Terms Related to Quality of Service (ITU-T E.800). Recommendation. ITU-T, Geneva, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. ITU-T. 2008b. Vocabulary for Performance and Quality of Service, Amendment 2: New Definitions for Inclusion in Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100. Recommendation. ITU-T, Geneva, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ITU-T. 2014. Requirements for Low-Latency Interactive Multimedia Streaming (ITU-T F.746.1). Recommendation. ITU-T, Geneva, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Dmitri Jarnikov and Tanr Özçelebi. 2011. Client intelligence for adaptive streaming solutions. Signal Processing: Image Communication 26, 7, 378--389. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Junchen Jiang, Vyas Sekar, and Hui Zhang. 2014. Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in HTTP-based adaptive video streaming with FESTIVE. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 22, 1, 326--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Norman Lloyd Johnson, Samuel Kotz, and Narayanaswamy Balakrishnan. 1994. Continuous Univariate Distributions (2nd ed.). Wiley, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hemant Kanakia, Partho P. Mishra, and Amy R. Reibman. 1995. An adaptive congestion control scheme for real time packet video transport. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 3, 6, 671--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Hieu Le, Arash Behboodi, and Adam Wolisz. 2015a. Quality driven resource allocation for adaptive video streaming in OFDMA uplink. In Proceedings of the IEEE 26th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’15). 1277--1282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Hung T. Le, Duc V. Nguyen, Nam Pham Ngoc, Anh T. Pham, and Truong Cong Thang. 2013. Buffer-based bitrate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Communications (ATC’13). 33--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hung T. Le, Hai N. Nguyen, Nam Pham Ngoc, Anh T. Pham, Hoa Le Minh, and Truong Cong Thang. 2015b. Quality-driven bitrate adaptation method for HTTP live-streaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW’15). 1771--1776. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jean-Yves Le Boudec. 2015. Performance Evaluation of Computer and Communication Systems (Version 2.3). EPFL Press, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Blazej Lewcio, Benjamin Belmudez, Theresa Enghardt, and Sebastian Möller. 2011. On the way to high-quality video calls in future mobile networks. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX’11). 43--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Baochun Li, Zhi Wang, Jiangchuan Liu, and Wenwu Zhu. 2013. Two decades of Internet video streaming: A retrospective view. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 9, 1, 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Zhi Li, Ali C. Begen, Joshua Gahm, Yufeng Shan, Bruce Osler, and David Oran. 2014a. Streaming video over HTTP with consistent quality. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’14). 248--258. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Zhi Li, Xiaoqing Zhu, Josh Gahm, Rong Pan, Hao Hu, Ali C. Begen, and Dave Oran. 2014b. Probe and adapt: Rate adaptation for HTTP video streaming at scale. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 32, 4, 719--733. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Chenghao Liu, Imed Bouazizi, and Moncef Gabbouj. 2011. Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’11). 169--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Xi Liu, Florin Dobrian, Henry Milner, Junchen Jiang, Vyas Sekar, Ion Stoica, and Hui Zhang. 2012. A case for a coordinated Internet video control plane. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM’12). 359--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yan Liu and Jack Y. B. Lee. 2014. On adaptive video streaming with predictable streaming performance. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’14). 1164--1169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Thorsten Lohmar, Torbjörn Einarsson, Per Fröjdh, Frédéric Gabin, and Markus Kampmann. 2011. Dynamic adaptive HTTP streaming of live content. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM’11). 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Konstantin Miller, Savvas Argyropoulos, Nicola Corda, Alexander Raake, and Adam Wolisz. 2013. Optimal adaptation trajectories for block-request adaptive video streaming. In Proceedings of the Packet Video Workshop. 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Konstantin Miller, Dilip Bethanabhotla, Giuseppe Caire, and Adam Wolisz. 2015. A control-theoretic approach to adaptive video streaming in dense wireless networks. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 17, 8, 1309--1322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Konstantin Miller, Emanuele Quacchio, Gianluca Gennari, and Adam Wolisz. 2012. Adaptation algorithm for adaptive streaming over HTTP. In Proceedings of the Packet Video Workshop. 173--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Mariyam Mirza, Joel Sommers, Paul Barford, and Xiaojin Zhu. 2010. A machine learning approach to TCP throughput prediction. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 18, 4, 1026--1039. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ricky K. P. Mok, Xiapu Luo, Edmond W. W. Chan, and Rocky K. C. Chang. 2012. QDASH: A QoE-aware DASH system. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSyS’12). 11--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. MPEG. 2012. MPEG-DASH (ISO/IEC 23009-1). MPEG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. J. Padhye, V. Firoiu, D. F. Towsley, and J. F. Kurose. 2000. Modeling TCP Reno performance: A simple model and its empirical validation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 8, 2, 133--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Toon De Pessemier, Katrien De Moor, Wout Joseph, Lieven De Marez, and Luc Martens. 2013. Quantifying the influence of rebuffering interruptions on the users quality of experience during mobile video watching. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 59, 1, 47--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Huynh-Thu Quan and Mohammed Ghanbari. 2008. Temporal aspect of perceived quality in mobile video broadcasting. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 54, 3, 641--651. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams. 2006. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ulrich Reiter, Kjell Brunnström, Katrien De Moor, Mohamed-Chaker Larabi, Manuela Pereira, Antonio Pinheiro, Junyong You, and Andrej Zgank. 2014. Factors influencing quality of experience. In Quality of Experience, S. Moller and A. Raake (Eds.). Springer, 55--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Haakon Riiser, Tore Endestad, Paul Vigmostad, Carsten Griwodz, and Pal Halvorsen. 2012. Video streaming using a location-based bandwidth-lookup service for bitrate planning. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 8, 3, 1--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Michael Seufert, Sebastian Egger, Martin Slanina, Thomas Zinner, Tobias Hossfeld, and Phuoc Tran-Gia. 2014. A survey on quality of experience of HTTP adaptive streaming. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 17, 1, 469--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Kamal Deep Singh, Yassine Hadjadj-Aoul, and Gerardo Rubino. 2012. Quality of experience estimation for adaptive HTTP/TCP video streaming using H.264/AVC. In Proceedings of the IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC’12). 127--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Iraj Sodagar. 2011. The MPEG-DASH standard for multimedia streaming over the Internet. IEEE Multimedia 18, 4, 62--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wei Song and Dian W. Tjondronegoro. 2014. Acceptability-based QoE models for mobile video. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 16, 3, 738--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Thomas Stockhammer. 2011. Dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP—standards and design principles. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys’11). 133--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Gary J. Sullivan and Thomas Wiegand. 1998. Rate-distortion optimization for video compression. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 15, 6, 74--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Viswanathan Swaminathan. 2013. Are we in the middle of a video streaming revolution? ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 9, 1, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Paul Sweeting. 2014. Video in 2014: Going Live and Over the Top. Research Report. GigaOM Media, San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Truong Cong Thang, Hung T. Le, Anh T. Pham, and Yong Man Ro. 2014. An evaluation of bitrate adaptation methods for HTTP live streaming. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 32, 4, 693--705. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Guibin Tian and Yong Liu. 2012. Towards agile and smooth video adaptation in dynamic HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT’12). 109--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Sheng Wei and Viswanathan Swaminathan. 2014. Low latency live video streaming over HTTP 2.0. In Proceedings of the Network and Operating System Support on Digital Audio and Video Workshop (NOSSDAV’14). 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Thomas Wiegand, Gary J. Sullivan, Gisle Bjontegaard, and Ajay Luthra. 2003. Overview of the H. 264/AVC video coding standard. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 13, 7, 560--576. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Xiaoqi Yin, Vyas Sekar, and Bruno Sinopoli. 2014. Toward a principled framework to design dynamic adaptive streaming algorithms over HTTP. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets’14). 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Liu Yitong, Shen Yun, Mao Yinian, Liu Jing, Lin Qi, and Yang Dacheng. 2013. A study on quality of experience for adaptive streaming service. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC’13). 682--686.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Chao Zhou, Chia Wen Lin, Xinggong Zhang, and Zongming Guo. 2014. A control-theoretic approach to rate adaption for DASH over multiple content distribution servers. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 24, 4, 681--694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Chao Zhou, Xinggong Zhang, Longshe Huo, and Zongming Guo. 2012. A control-theoretic approach to rate adaptation for dynamic HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the IEEE Visual Communications and Image Processing Conference (VCIP’12). 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Xiaoqing Zhu, Zhi Li, Rong Pan, Joshua Gahm, and Rao Ru. 2013. Fixing multi-client oscillations in HTTP-based adaptive streaming: A control theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP’13). 230--235. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Xuan Kelvin Zou, Jeffrey Erman, Vijay Gopalakrishnan, Emir Halepovic, Rittwik Jana, Xin Jin, Jennifer Rexford, and Rakesh K. Sinha. 2015. Can accurate predictions improve video streaming in cellular networks? In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (HotMobile’15). 57--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. QoE-Based Low-Delay Live Streaming Using Throughput Predictions

      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 13, Issue 1
        February 2017
        278 pages
        ISSN:1551-6857
        EISSN:1551-6865
        DOI:10.1145/3012406
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2016 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: 25 October 2016
        • Accepted: 1 August 2016
        • Revised: 1 June 2016
        • Received: 1 March 2016
        Published in tomm Volume 13, Issue 1

        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