1 developing a predictive model of quality of experience for internet video athula balachandran...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Developing a Predictive Model ofQuality of Experience for Internet Video
Athula Balachandran
Carnegie Mellon University
2
Content
1 Why do quality of experience(QoE)?
2 Where are the challenges?
3 How to do ?
4 Implication and evaluation
3
Content
11 Why do quality of experience(QoE)? Why do quality of experience(QoE)?
2 Where are the challenges?
3 How to do ?
4 Implication and evaluation
4
Why?
Tow main revenue models:
1.Subscription
2.Advertisement
advertisement
subscription
5
Why?
Tow main revenue models:
1.Subscription
2.Advertisement
advertisement
subscription
The more you watch, The more we profit.
6
Why?
Tow main revenue models:
1.Subscription
2.Advertisement
advertisement
subscription
The more you watch, The more we profit.
Improving users’ quality of experience(QoE) is crucial
7
Content
1 Why do quality of experience(QoE)?
22 Where are the challenges? Where are the challenges?
3 How to do ?
4 Implication and evaluation
8
Era changed & Requirement improve
■Video quality: PSNR(Peak Signal-to-Noise Ration)
<average bitrate, join time, buffering ration, rate of buffering>
■ User experience: User Opinion Scores
User’s Engagement-centric( viewing time , number of visits)
9
Era changed & Requirement improve
■Video quality: PSNR(Peak Signal-to-Noise Ration)
<average bitrate, join time, buffering ration, rate of buffering>
■ User experience: User Opinion Scores
User’s Engagement-centric( viewing time , number of visits)
Average bitrate: HD(High-Definition) SD(Standard-Definition) LD(Low-
Definition)
Join time: load time
Buffering ratio: buffer_time/(buffer_time+play_time)
Rate of buffering: frequency of buffering
10
Challenge scope
Video quality User engagement
1.Video quality interdependence
2.Complex relationship
3.Confound factors influence
bitrate
Join time
bufratio
…
Visits num
Viewing time
…
Time of day
Type of video
…
11
Challenge 1 quality interdependence
Among video quality are subtle interdependence
1.Video quality interdependence
bitrate
Join time
bufratio
…
12
Challenge 2 complex relationship
Relationship between quality and engagement2.Complex relationship
bitrate
Join time
Visits num
Viewing time
…
13
Challenge 3 confound factors
Confound factors affect quality -> engagement
3.Confound factors influence
Type of Device
Type of video
…
14
Content
1 Why do quality of experience(QoE)?
2 Where are the challenges?
33 How to do ? How to do ?
4 Implication and evaluation
15
Compare current work
16
Compare current work
1.Model consider complex relationship and confound factors
2.Provide strategy for system design
17
Requirements for predictive model
Tackling relationship (quality->engagement) and interdependency (among quality)
Tackling confounding factors 1.Identifying the import confounding factors2.Address the confounding factors
18
Compare methods for tackling relation
Compare the accuracy of tackling relationship( quality -> engagement) and interdependency (among quality)
19
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
20
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Entropy:
Condition entropy:
Information gain:
Relative Information gain:
21
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Entropy:
Condition entropy:
Information gain:
Relative Information gain:
……
22
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
23
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
24
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
GE-1: A1<=4 ■ [sup=40%,con=100%]GE-2:A1>4 ○ [sup=60%,con=82%] Except: A1>7,A2<=2.5 ■ [sup=20%,con=86%] Except:A1<8.5,A2>1.8,A2<=2.5 ○ [sup=14%,con=100%]
25
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
GE-1: A1<=4 ■ [sup=40%,con=100%]GE-2:A1>4 ○ [sup=60%,con=82%] Except: A1>7,A2<=2.5 ■ [sup=20%,con=86%] Except:A1<8.5,A2>1.8,A2<=2.5 ○ [sup=14%,con=100%]
■ ○ Total
A1<=4 24 0 24
A1 > 4 6.45 29.55 36
Total 30.45 29.55 60
χ2(A1<=4 ■) = (24-30.45)^2/30.45 = 1.37χ2(A1>4 ○) = (29.55-29.55)^2/29.55 = 0
26
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
GE-1: A1<=4 ■ [sup=40%,con=100%]GE-2:A1>4 ○ [sup=60%,con=82%] Except: A1>7,A2<=2.5 ■ [sup=20%,con=86%] Except:A1<8.5,A2>1.8,A2<=2.5 ○ [sup=14%,con=100%]
■ ○ Total
A1>4,A2<=2.5,A1>7 6.45 1.05 7.5
A1>4,A2<=2.5,A1<=7 0 7.5 7.5
Total 6.45 8.55 15
χ2(..A1>7 ■) = (6.45-6.45)^2/6.45 = 0χ2(..A1<=7 ○) = (7.05-8.55)^2/8.55 = 0.26
1.Dif 2.sig 3. n(current) >= n(former) +1
27
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
GE-1: A1<=4 ■ [sup=40%,con=100%]GE-2:A1>4 ○ [sup=60%,con=82%] Except: A1>7,A2<=2.5 ■ [sup=20%,con=86%] Except:A1<8.5,A2>1.8,A2<=2.5 ○ [sup=14%,con=100%]
28
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
29
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
Round3: compare Tolerance
30
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
Round3: compare Tolerance
31
Confounding factors-Identify
----3 round filter for all possible Con. Factors----
Round1: calculate Information Gain
Round2: compare Compacted Decision Tree
Round3: compare Tolerance
32
Confounding factors-Address
Compare tow candidate way:
33
Confounding factors-Address
Compare tow candidate way:
Add as a new feature
Split data by Con. factors
34
Content
1 Why do quality of experience(QoE)?
2 Where are the challenges?
3 How to do ?
44 Implication and evaluation Implication and evaluation
35
Implication for system design
For an example model:buffering ratio, rate of buffering,
join time
Estimate all possible combinations
36
Implication for system design
Thanks！