You are on page 1of 23

Euro NF Ph.D.

Euro-NF Ph D Course on QoE

-Quantitative Relationships Between QoE and QoS
Markus Fiedler

How to derive QoE–QoS QoE QoS relationships?
• Experiments
– (Groups of) {naïve|expert} user(s) – Well-defined conditions and network stimuli

• Data collection
– Subjective: questionnaires, observations – Objective: j Measurements

• Analysis
– Trends, Trends relationships, relationships thresholds – Regressions, hypotheses, impact analysis

Dreamhack Winter 2007 – Gaming QoE .

Dreamhack Winter 2007 – Shaping / QoS measurements .

QoE in ITU-T ITU T Rec.17⋅10–6 .1080 G 1080 • Minimum level of transport layer performance required to provide satisfactory QoE for H. Rec G. duration of single error event: ≤ 16 ms • Corresponding loss period in IP packets: < 24 @ 15 15.0 0 Mbit/s … < 29 @ 18 18.262 encoded HDTV services – Jitter < 50 ms – Max.1 1 Mbit/s – Loss distance: ≤ 1 error event per 4 hours • Corresponding average IP video stream packet loss rate: ≤ 1.

Mobile videos with loss introduced MOS vs.0% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% 0. loss ratio 5 QoEMoVi PhD students + supervisors Dreamhack.2% 0. h k < 20 years Summer school 2 BTH students avg 1 0.0% 4 3 . > 20 years D Dreamhack.

QoS2. …) • We focus on one impact factor at a time • Description by partial differential equations • Consider fundamental relationships p of the type yp ∂QoE = g (QoE . . 5] afterwards . QoSi ) ∂QoSi • Maximise/minimise QoE to interval [1.Fundamental QoE–QoS QoE QoS relationships • Dependencies on network conditions typically addressed by parameter vectors [QoSi. …. . observations. measurements – Several impact factors: QoE = f(QoS1. QoE] – Results from q questionnaires.

2010] – Work supported by Euro-NF .Fundamental QoE–QoS QoE QoS relationships • Investigated set – – – – Linear Logarithmic Exponential Power QoE ∂ QoSi QoE ∂ log(QoSi) log(QoE) ∂ QoSi log( g(Q QoE) ∂ log( g(Q QoSi) • Nice properties – Seen from regressions on linear vs.. logarithmic scales – Reasoning behind each relationship • Examples – Most formulae from [Shaikh et al.

Linear relationship QoE axis • Linear scale • Additive change • • • • ∂QoE ∝ ∂QoSi QoS axis Linear scale Additive change QoE gradient independent of QoE and QoS Linear regression often the first choice Local approximation Example: – Download time perception as function of loss QoE ≈ 4.99) .3 − 31PLR (ℜ2 > 0.

3lg( 3lg(R/Mbps) (ℜ2 > 0 0. multiplication on stimuli side • Utility functions (implicit proportional fairness) • Example: – Download time perception as function of bandwidth QoE ≈ 1.Logarithmic relationship QoE axis • Linear scale • Additive change ∂QoSi ∂QoE ∝ QoSi QoS axis Logarithmic scale Multiplicative change • QoE gradient proportional to reciprocal QoS • Weber-Fechner Law (1834): – Just noticeable differences.2 1 2+3 3.99) 99) .

2007. Fiedler et al.. blockiness. 2010] • Examples – Image quality perception as function of blur.8exp(−0. … (QoP) – Download time perception as function of response time (QoD) QoE ≈ 4.15RT /s) (ℜ2 > 0.99) .Exponential relationship QoE axis • Logarithmic scale • Multiplicative change ∂QoE ∝ ∂QoSi QoE QoS axis Linear scale Additive change • QoE gradient proportional to actual QoE – Nuclear decay – Human memory – IQX hypothesis [Hossfeld et al..

613x-0.386 R² = 0.6803 3 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 PDV(ms) 500 600 700 800 .Power type relationship Power-type QoE Q E axis i • Logarithmic scale • Multiplicative change • Long tails on both axes • Examples – Session volume as function of bandwidth – Video perception as function of jitter 6 5 4 OS ∂QoE ∂QoSi ∝ QoE QoSi QoS Q S axis i Logarithmic scale Multiplicative change −0.6(PDV /ms) ( ℜ ≈ 0.39 2 QoE ≈ 14.68) OS vs PDV (ms) y = 14.

Provisioning delivery hysteresis Provisioning-delivery • Different types of QoE and QoS parameter – Distinguish between – Success and failure – Resource and problem – Promise-making and promise-keeping • Examples p • Provisioning-delivery hysteresis – Derivation – Examples .

5) 5) • Resource measure Q Sr QoS – The higher. (e g 99.g.Different types of QoE and QoS parameters • Success rating QoE Q E – The higher. the better – Throughput • Success measure • Failure rating QoE – The higher.99 99 99 %) – Packet success ratio • Failure measure – – – – QoSf • Watch the signs! The higher. the worse – Cancellation rate – Churn rate QoSs – Availability (e. the better – Mean Opinion Score (1 (1.. the worse P k tl Packet loss ratio ti Delay jitter Reordering .

2010] [ ] QoE QoSf .Skype: MOS = f(packet loss ratio) [Fiedler et al..

Skype: MOS = f(reordered ratio) [Fiedler et al.. [ . 2010] ] QoE QoSf .

1030/download: [Fiedler et al.G 1030/download: MOS = f(session time) G. [ .. 2010] ] QoE QoSf .

. [ . 2010] ] QoE QoS r . 2002] [Fiedler et al.Web: Cancel-rate Cancel rate = f(delivery bandwidth) [Khirman & Henriksen.

2010] [ ] QoE QoS r .Web: MOS = f(throughput) [Shaikh et al..

Basic shapes Q E QoE resource F L I P QoE FLIP QoE problem QoSr QoSf QoSs QoE Relationship? p QoS r .

[Fiedler H f ld 2010] .Provisioning delivery hysteresis for web Provisioning-delivery 1 – PLR [Fi dl & Hossfeld.

. l 2010] .Provisioning delivery hysteresis for video Provisioning-delivery Potential for savings To be avoided [Zi [Zinner et t al.

fiedler@bth.Conclusion • Given you are to study QoE–QoS relationships – Get users involved – it’s fun! – Try objective measurements of user action • Check out [ETSI STF 354] – Play y with the logscale g button on both axes • Eventually.se . offsets need to be taken away – Interprete the outcome • Additive Additi or multiplicative lti li ti change? h ? Implications? I li ti ? • Please let me know of new fundamental relationships and examples you publish: markus.