See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319248346

Effect of network QoS on user QoE for a mobile video streaming service using
H.265/VP9 codec

Article  in  Procedia Computer Science · December 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.056

CITATIONS READS

12 154

2 authors:

Debajyoti Pal Vajirasak Vanijja

King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
40 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   172 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Healthcare System for aging society View project

To build a new motivational framework for online learning (MOOCs) environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Debajyoti Pal on 30 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available
Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
ProcediaComputer
ComputerScience
Science00
00(2015)
(2015)000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222

8th
8th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Advances
Advances in
in Information
Information Technology,
Technology, IAIT2016,
IAIT2016, 19-22
19-22
December
December 2016,
2016, Macau,
Macau, China
China

Effect
Effect of
of network
network QoS
QoS on
on user
user QoE
QoE for
for aa mobile
mobile video
video streaming
streaming
service
service using
using H.265/VP9
H.265/VP9 codec
codec
Debajyoti
Debajyoti Pal*,
Pal*, Vajirasak
Vajirasak Vanijja
Vanijja
IP
IPCommunications
CommunicationsLaboratory,
Laboratory,School
Schoolof
ofInformation
InformationTechnology,
Technology,King
KingMongkut’s
Mongkut’sUniversity
Universityof
ofTechnology
TechnologyThonburi,
Thonburi,Bangkok,
Bangkok,Thailand
Thailand

Abstract
Abstract

Online
Online video
video streaming
streaming isis one
one of
of the
the most
most popular
popular yetyet challenging
challengingservices
services being
being used
used today
today where
where thethe Internet
Internet Service
Service Providers
Providers
(ISP’s)
(ISP’s) need
need toto guarantee
guarantee certain
certain assured
assured service
service quality
quality level
level for
for the
the end
end user.
user. However,
However, as as the
the data
data transmission
transmission takes
takes place
place
over
over an
an unreliable
unreliable error-prone
error-prone channel;
channel; itit isis aa challenging
challenging task
task for
for the
the ISP’s.
ISP’s. Normally,
Normally, the the user
user perceived
perceived quality
quality isis best
best
expressed
expressed inin terms
terms ofof the
the Quality
Quality ofof Experience
Experience (QoE)(QoE) factor
factor oror Mean
Mean Opinion
Opinion Score
Score (MOS)
(MOS) factor.
factor. On
On the
the contrary,
contrary, thethe various
various
factors
factors that
that affect
affect the
the video
video streaming
streaming quality;
quality; commonly
commonly referred
referred to to as
as the
the Quality
Quality of
of Service
Service (QoS)
(QoS) factors,
factors, are
are relatively
relatively easier
easier
and
and economic
economic to to be
be measured
measured by by the
the service
service providers.
providers. In
In this
this paper,
paper, we we consider
consider five
five network
network layer
layer specific
specific QoS
QoS impairment
impairment
factors
factors (variable
(variable initial
initial delay,
delay, packet
packet loss,
loss, jitter,
jitter, bandwidth
bandwidth and and buffering
buffering delay)
delay) and
and try
try to
to assess
assess their
their impact
impact on on the
the QoE
QoE byby
considering
considering each
each one
one ofof them
them separately.
separately. We We useuse aa non-linear
non-linear regression
regression approach
approach to to compare
compare the the various
various QoS
QoS toto QoE
QoE mapping
mapping
models and
models and find
findout
out the
the most
most suitable/optimal
suitable/optimalmodel modelfor
forour
ourindividual
individualcases
cases based
basedupon
uponaadecision
decisionvariable.
variable.
©© 2015
2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Publishedby by Elsevier
ElsevierB.V.B.V.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibilityof of the
the organizing
organizingcommittee
committee of ofthe
the 8th
8thInternational
International Conference
Conferenceon on Advances
Advancesin in Information
Information
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information
Technology.
Technology.
Technology
Keywords:
Keywords:QoS;
QoS;QoE;
QoE;MOS;
MOS;subjective
subjectivetest;
test;objective
objectivetest;
test;regression
regression

1.
1. Introduction
Introduction

Currently
Currently as
as per
per aa report
report published
published inin11 video
video traffic
traffic constitutes
constitutes more
more than
than 55%
55% of
of the
the overall
overall Internet
Internet traffic
traffic and
and itit
isis predicted
predicted to
to grow
grow atat aa very
very fast
fast pace.
pace. In
In fact,
fact, the
the traffic
traffic generated
generated by
by mobile
mobile devices
devices will
will exceed
exceed that
that of
of the
the wired
wired

**Corresponding
Correspondingauthor.
author.Tel.:
Tel.:+66958161631.
+66958161631.
E-mail
E-mailaddress:
address:debajyoti.pal@mail.kmutt.ac.th
debajyoti.pal@mail.kmutt.ac.th

1877-0509
1877-0509© ©2015
2015The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility
responsibilityof
ofthe
theorganizing
organizingcommittee
committeeof
ofthe
the8th
8thInternational
InternationalConference
Conferenceon
onAdvances
Advancesin
inInformation
InformationTechnology.
Technology.

1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Information
­Technology
10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.056
 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222 215
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

networks by 20182. Normally, video streaming is done on traditional mobile/handheld devices having screen size
between 4 inches to 10 inches, either over mobile networks or Wi-Fi. A survey done by Accenture3 show that around
82% of customer defections is due to frustration over the product or service and the inability of the provider/operator
to deal with this effectively. Thus, the only way to succeed in such a situation is to continuously monitor the QoE
and improve it as and when required.
There is a clear cut distinction between QoE and QoS. Authors in paper4 have defined QoS as “the ability of the
network to provide a service with an assured service level”, while QoE as “how a user perceives the usability of a
service when in use- how satisfied he or she is with a service”. Thus, intrinsically QoS is a purely technical concept
best expressed and understood in terms of networks and network elements. On the contrary QoE can be thought of
as the superset or the effect that the QoS parameters can have on the overall experience of an end user. Thus, we
must have proper techniques that can reliably map the various QoS factors to user QoE.
There are a lot of QoS metrics that can be related to the QoE of a video streaming service5,6. These QoS metrics
can come from the video compression and encoding technology being used, type of the video being streamed and
those which are induced by the network layer. The scope of this paper is limited only to the network level QoS. QoS
measurement is pretty easy, straightforward and cost-effective by the ISP’s7. On the other hand, measuring the QoE
is a rather complicated and costly affair8,9,10. QoE is generally measured either through a subjective, objective or a
hybrid approach11. Subjective approach is an extremely accurate technique though costly and time consuming; hence
not feasible always12,13. Typically, the human observers watch and rate the videos on a Mean Opinion Score (MOS)
scale in these tests14. On the other hand, the objective approach uses some algorithm or mathematical model(s) to
predict the QoE by collecting relevant information from the various Internet layers15,16,17. The objective techniques
that are used should faithfully reproduce the individual QoS factors to the overall QoE score. Hybrid approach
combines the subjective and objective techniques into one.
QoS to QoE mapping has been attempted by researchers previously. Authors in paper18 find the relation between
bit-rate, packet loss rate and jitter to QoE. They establish a logarithmic relationship. A cloud based multimedia
model and its relationship to delay, packet loss, jitter and throughput has been presented in19. Similar types of
mapping techniques have also been presented in other papers20,21. However, in both these papers the authors did not
verify the results of QoS-QoE mapping with corresponding subjective tests.
All the existing research has focused on older generation codecs like H.264 and MPEG-2. However, with an
increase in video traffic, codecs like H.265/HEVC and VP9 are gaining in popularity because of their superior
performance to compression ratio22,23. The performance of these current generation codecs against various network
impairments is of considerable interest. Hence, for the present paper we choose the codecs H.265 and VP9 at full
HD resolution that is representative of the modern day video streaming scenario. Unlike the existing research
approach, we follow a hybrid scheme, wherein at first we conduct a subjective test to gather the MOS. Then, using
suitable mathematical technique (non-linear regression approach) we map the individual QoS parameters to QoE. At
this point, we compare all the existing mapping functions presented till date with the results that we obtain from the
mathematical analysis and choose the optimal model based upon a decision variable which has been explained later.
To the best of our knowledge all the existing research has focused on packet loss, jitter and throughput as the
primary network QoS factors. However, in this paper we introduce two more factors viz. variable initial delay and
buffering delay that can affect the viewing quality too. Details about all the parameters have been given at a later
section.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses about our research methodology. In section 3 we
provide the result analysis. Finally, in section 4 we conclude about the results that we obtain and the scope for future
work.

2. Research methodology

2.1. Subjective test

To begin with we carry out a subjective test as per the ITU-T Recommendation P.910. The test has been carried
out in a controlled laboratory environment involving 35 subjects; all between 18-35 years of age, balanced in gender
and without any visual impairments like color blindness or myopia. Before selecting the subjects we asked them to
216 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

describe the colors shown in a particular image and also gave them some demo videos for quality comparison so as to
judge their overall suitability for the experiment. No one was disqualified during this process. We also conducted a
training session with a demo video so as to familiarize the participants with the actual test conditions. Since the
subjective assessment is a very tedious and high-concentration task, hence we divided the entire session into 2 parts
of 15 minutes each, keeping aside the demo session. During the assessment the participants were left alone in order
to minimize the unwanted effects of being supervised24. We adopted the 5 point ACR method as outlined in12. The
subjects were provided with scoring sheets where they would input their assessment after watching a particular
video. After the test all the offline scores were manually entered into a computer for the purpose of data analysis.
The scores were cross checked by two different people so as to avoid any data entry error.

2.2. Video selection

The availability of publicly available video dataset for research at Full HD and upwards resolution is really very
limited. While carrying out our subjective tests, we used the publicly available SVT High Definition Multi Format
Test Set maintained by the Video Quality Experts Group (VQEG)25. We have selected four different reference
videos, each having different levels of spatial (SI) and temporal information (TI). The relevant details of the video
clips have been presented in table 1. The SI and TI values for each video clip has been calculated as per the
recommendation provided in12 and shown in fig 1. From the figure it can be observed that the SI and TI values vary
over a very wide range depending on the selected video content. As the perceived video quality depends on the
video content which has been established by researchers’ in26, hence we selected videos having a wide variety of
content level to cover the entire gamut possible. Each of the selected video sequences is of length 10s. All the 4
reference videos that have been selected are present in the raw YUV 4:2:0 formats. Microsoft network emulator was
used to create all the videos with relevant network impairments.

Table 1. Details of selected video sequences.

Sr No. Name Resolution Frame Rate
1 CrowdRun 1920 × 1080 30 fps
2 DucksTakeOff 1920 × 1080 30 fps
3 OldTown 1920 × 1080 30 fps
4 ParkJoy 1920 × 1080 30 fps

Fig. 1. SI and TI Values for Selected Video Clips Fig. 2. Various Network Parameters
 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222 217
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

2.3. Network parameters

As pointed out in the previous section, majority of the researchers have taken into consideration the effects of
packet loss, jitter and throughput while considering the QoS to QoE mapping. These are called the key performance
indicators or KPI. In this paper, we introduce two more factors viz. variable initial delay and buffering delay that we
believe has an effect on the user viewing experience and proved statistically in a later section. These two factors are
an effect of the 3 KPI’s mentioned above and hence are considered as secondary factors. Fig 2 illustrates this fact.
Next we consider the experimental setup details.

2.4. Experiment setup details

All the video samples were presented before the users on a Samsung Galaxy Note 5 having a screen resolution of
2K (1440 × 2560) pixels, 64 GB of internal storage, 4GB of RAM and running the latest version of Android
Marshmallow (6.0.1). We selected this device as it has inherent support for displaying the latest generation codecs
H.265/HEVC as well as VP9. All the videos were preloaded into the mobile and flight mode was turned on while
carrying out the experiment. The detailed experimental setup has been given in table 2.
After performing the subjective test we used the curve fitting toolbox offered by Matlab (version R2015b) for the
purpose of curve fitting and regression analysis to map the subjective test results to the individual QoS parameters.
Data analysis was carried out in IBM SPSS Statistics Desktop version 22.

Table 2. Experimental Details.

Parameter
Video Codec
Encoder Version
Video Format
Variable Initial Delay in seconds
Packet Loss in %
Jitter in milliseconds
Throughput in kbps
Buffering Delay in seconds
Details
H.265, VP9
Ffmpeg version 3.1.3
Full HD progressive (1080p)
5, 15, 25, 35, 45
0.1, 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000
5, 10, 20, 30, 40

3. Result Analysis

We recorded a total of 7,280 subjective MOS scores (104 video sequences × 35 subjects × 2 codecs). To begin
with we perform the process of outlier detection in order to remove any data inconsistency. If we represent the score
obtained by any subject as Sij, where i denotes a particular test sequence and j denotes the score obtained for that
particular test sequence, then Sij will be considered as an outlier if Sij > q3 + 1.5(q3 – q1) OR Sij < q1 – 1.5(q3 – q1), q1
and q3 being the 25th percentile and 75th percentile respectively of the score distribution30.This range is
approximately equal to 99.3% of the normally distributed data. A subject can be considered to be an outlier and all
his/her entries removed, if more than 20% of his/her scores are outliers. In our experiment following the above rules,
we did not find any outlier. The mean opinion score (MOS) has been calculated as:

n
MOSi =  Sij / N (1)
j =1

We perform a non-linear regression to find out the best fit from QoS to QoE for every individual network factors
that we have considered. We select the best mapping equation based upon a decision variable (µ) as defined in
paper30. The modeling accuracy is expressed in terms of the Sum of Squared Error (SSE), R-square change (R2),
218 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

adjusted R-square change (adjusted R2) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The single decision variable µ that
we use takes into consideration all the statistical measures as per the following equation:

(r 2 × adjusted − r 2)
μ= (2)
( SSE × RMSE )

It is clear from the above equation that a higher value of µ is always desirable.
Next, we consider the QoS factors one by one and try to find its relationship to the MOS/QoE. Figure 3 shows the
graph of packet loss vs. the MOS. Both the codecs show similar performance trend with an increase in packet loss.
However, the performance of VP9 codec is slightly better especially at higher values of packet loss. There is a sharp
fall in the MOS for packet loss greater than 0.5%. The relationship between the QoS factor (PL) and the QoE
(MOSPL) are best expressed in terms of a two factor exponential equation represented by:

MOSPL = a × exp( b×PL ) + c × exp( d ×PL ) (3)

a, b, c and d are coefficients that are found out from our experiment.
Tables 3 and 4 next page lists the value of the decision variable µ for all QoS factors that we consider here for
VP9 codec and H.265 codec respectively. They also show the value of µ for other popular QoS to QoE mapping
functions that have been widely used by researchers, including the best fit model that we find out here. The list of
the coefficients is provided in table 5.

Fig. 3. Variation of MOS with Packet Loss Fig. 4. Variation of MOS with Jitter

Table 3. Value of decision variable for different mapping functions for VP9 codec
Sr No Mapping Function µ (PL) µ (J) µ (T) µ (VID) µ (BD)
1 Linear 0.122 6.86 0.51 156.18 4.82
2 Logistic 1140.24 NC -2.49 17.22 123.22
3 Logarithmic 24.30 1563.38 5.66* NC 147.48
4 IQX 231.47 3172.50 0 64.65 NC
* * *
5 2 Factor Exponential 2407.75 6367.12 -0.045 219.34 152.12*
*Best Fit NC Not Computable

Table 4. Value of decision variable for different mapping functions for H.265 codec
 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222 219
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

Sr No Mapping Function µ (PL) µ (J) µ (T) µ (VID) µ (BD)

1 Linear 0.0456 26.56 1.72 24 4.32
2 Logistic 383.49 3436.19 NC 13.08 511.46
3 Logarithmic 5.71 3284.58 60.13* NC NC
4 IQX 508.47 2683.54 0 30.75 431.87
5 2 Factor Exponential 1132.51* 8328.25* -0.083 34.84* 871.13*
*Best Fit NC Not Computable

Fig. 4 shows the variation of MOS with jitter. As the jitter increases, the viewing quality decreases significantly.
Same trend is shown by both the codecs, although the performance of VP9 is slightly better than H.265 across all
values of jitter. In this case also the non-linear regression approach gives us a 2 factor exponential function
represented by equation 4 as the optimal fitting model between jitter (J) and the MOS (MOSJ). Tables 3 and 4 show
the value of µ; while table 5 provides the coefficient values.

MOSJ = a × exp (b× J ) + c × exp ( d × J ) (4)

Fig. 5 shows the variation of MOS with network throughput. In this case we get a logarithmic relationship
between the two as the best fit model which is represented by equation 5.

MOST = a × log(T ) + b (5)

a and b are coefficients found out from the experiment.

As evident from fig 5 the performance of VP9 is seen to be better than H.265; though for higher values of
throughput the viewing quality is more or less the same for both the codecs.

Fig. 5. Variation of MOS with Throughput Fig. 6. Variation of MOS with Variable Initial Delay

Fig 6 represents the effect of variable initial delay to the viewing quality. This was a new factor that we had
introduced in this paper and it is found to have a significant impact on the viewing quality. As we increase the delay
before the video playback starts; the MOS decreases at a rapid rate. We get an exponential relationship between the
two factors as the best fit model which is shown in equation 6.

MOSVID = a × exp( b×VID ) + c × exp ( d ×VID ) (6)

a, b, c and d are coefficients obtained from experiment.

220 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

Fig. 7. Variation of mos with buffering delay.

Fig. 7 represents the variation of MOS with the buffering delay. In this case also the performance of VP9 is found
to be superior to H.265 across all the values of buffering delay. There is an exponential relationship between the two
factors which is given in equation 7.

MOSBD = a × exp( b×BD ) + c × exp( d ×BD ) (7)

a, b, c and d are coefficients obtained from experiment and shown in Table 5.

Now that we have provided with a mapping function between the QoS and QoE; next we consider the extent of
correlation between them. The correlation analysis is important especially for the factors, variable initial delay and
buffering delay since they are introduced for the first time. If they show a poor correlation to the overall video
quality that is being watched by the users; there is no point in including them in our study. In fact we perform a
comprehensive correlation analysis on all the factors, the results of which have been presented in table 6.

Table 5. Value of coefficients for VP9 and H.265 codec

Codec Parameter a (95% CI) b (95% CI) c (95% CI) d (95% CI)
VP9 Packet loss 2.964 -1.379 1.134 -0.0496
VP9 Jitter 11.62 -3.386 4.408 -0.3477
VP9 Throughput -1.655 -9.403 NA NA
VP9 Variable Initial Delay 1.54e+04 0.0038 -1.54e+04 0.0038
VP9 Buffering Delay 2.442 -0.1079 3.041 -0.0272
H.265 Packet loss 3.661 -1.561 0.5758 -0.0579
H.265 Jitter 4.509 -0.3713 -2.09e-16 6.729
H.265 Throughput -1.388 -7.445 NA NA
H.265 Variable Initial Delay 1.053e+05 -0.0641 -1.05e+05 -0.0641
H.265 Buffering Delay 4.264 -0.0679 0.7115 -0.0132
NA Not Applicable

Table 6. Correlation analysis of all the network factors.

Parameter Pearson Correlation Significance Level
Packet Loss -0.8742 p = 0.0425
Jitter -0.9800 p < 0.01
Throughput 0.9080 p = 0.033
Variable Initial Delay -0.9633 p < 0.01
Buffering Delay -0.9919 p < 0.01
 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222 221
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

As expected all the factors are highly correlated to the over QoE as it is evident from the table. Apart from
throughput all the other factors have a negative impact on the viewing QoE.

4. Conclusion

In this paper we have attempted to present a mapping function from QoS to QoE for mobile video streaming
services. For this purpose we have taken into account only the network layer impairments. We have not considered
any other factors from any other layer(s) that might also have an impact on the video quality. In doing so, we also
introduced two new factors viz. variable initial delay and buffering delay apart from the well-established KPI’s. The
video samples that we took were coded with the current generation H.265/HEVC and VP9 encoders due to their
excellent quality to compression ratio.
We followed a hybrid approach, wherein a subjective test was conducted first followed by an analytical approach
to best map the QoS to QoE scores. Not only we evaluated the best possible mapping equation based upon the
decision variable µ; we also compared them against other popular mapping equations used by other researchers
previously. This is important because while subjective tests are expensive and time consuming to be conducted;
mathematical techniques are effective, fast and cheap. Also, for the ISP’s it is easier to measure the QoS rather than
the QoE. We also justified the inclusion of the new factors by doing a correlation analysis which shows a great
interdependence between the two.
In this paper we considered 5 network level impairment factors; but treated them individually for the purpose of
QoS to QoE mapping. However, in a real life scenario the ultimate QoE is as a result of all the factors. So, we
propose to study the combined effect of all the factors presented here and establish a multivariate mapping model as
a part of our future work. We also ignored other application level parameters like the bit-rate, frame rate, effect of
video resolution change, etc. in this study. Ideally, the final model should include all possible cross-layer parameters
and integrate all of them together into one mapping function that will enable us to evaluate the quality. We propose
this as a part of our future work.

References

1. Cisco Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update Report 2014-2019, Cisco White Paper; 2016.
2. Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast and Methodology 2013-2018, Cisco White Paper; 2014.
3. Paul Nerger, Managing Quality of Experience for Mobile Data Services, Argo Group, Accenture and Strand Consulting; 2003.
4. Peter Brooks and Bjørn Hestnes, User Measures of Quality of Experience: Why Being Objective and Quantitative is important, in: Network
Magazine of Global Internetworking, 2010, pp. 8-13.
5. S. Inkin K. Fiedler, M. Janowski, L. Hong and A.K Dey, Factors Influencing Quality of Experience of Commonly Used Mobile Applications,
IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(4) (2012), 48-56.
6. G. Gardikis G. Xilouris, E. Pallis and A. Kourtis, Joint Assessment of Network- and Perceived-QoS in Video Delivery Networks,
Telecommunication Systems, 49(1) (2012), 75-84.
7. N. Ponomarenko, O. Ieremeiev, V. Lukin, K. Egiazarian and M. Carli, Modified Image Visual Quality Metrics for Contrast Change and Mean
Shift Accounting, in: CAD Systems in Microelectronics (CADSM), 2011, pp. 305-311.
8. K.T. Chen, C. Tu and W.C Xiao, OneClick: A Framework for Measuring Network Quality of Experience, in: IEEE INFOCOM 2009, 2009.
9. P. Campisi, M. Carli, G. Giunta and A. Neri, Tracing Watermarking for Multimedia Communication Quality Assessment, in: IEEE
International Conference on Comminications, 2002, pp. 1154-1158.
10. Y. Xu, S. E. Elayoubi, E. Altman, R. El-Azouzi and Y. Yu, Flow-Level QoE of Video Streaming in Wireless Networks, IEEE Transactions
on Mobile Computing, 15(11) (2015), 2762-2780.
11. K. Piamrat, C. Viho, J. M. Bonnin and A. Ksentini, Quality of Experience Measurements for Video Streaming over Wireless Networks, in:
6th International Conference on Information Technology for New Generation, 2009, pp.1184-1189.
12. ITU-T P.910, Subjective Video Quality Assessment Methods for Multimedia Applications, 2008.
13. ITU-T BT.500-7, Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures, 2002.
14. ITU-T P.800, Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Terminology, 2003.
15. Y. Shen, Y. Liu, N. Qiao, L. Sang and D. Yang, QoE-based Evaluation Model on Video Streaming Service Quality, in: IEEE Globecom.
16. M. H. Pinson and S. Wolf, A New Standardized Method for Objectively Measuring Video Quality, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 50(3)
17. M. Venkataraman and M. Chatterjee, Inferring video QoE in real time, IEEE Network, 25(1) (2011), 4-13.
18. P. Reichl, S. Egger, R. Schatz and A. D'Alconzo, The Logarithmic Nature of QoE and the Role of the Weber-Fechner Law in QoE
Assessment, in: IEEE International Conference on Communications, 2010, pp. 1-5.
222 Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 111 (2017) 214–222
Debajyoti Pal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

19. Jose A. Lozano, Alfonso Castro, Beatriz Fuentes, Juan Manuel González, and Álvaro Rodríguez, Adaptive QoE measurement on video
streaming IP services, in: International Conference on Network and Services Management, 2011, pp. 413-416.
20. J. Korhonen, N. Burini, J. You and E. Nadernejad, How to evaluate objective video quality metrics reliably, in: 4th International Workshop
on Quality of Multimedia Experience, 2012, pp. 57-62.
21. V. Chervenets, V. Romanchuk, H. Beshley and A. Khudyy, QoS/QoE Correlation Modified Model for QoE Evaluation on Video Service, in:
13th International Conference on Modern Problems of Radio Engineering, Telecommunications and Computer Science, 2016, pp. 664-666.
22. S. M. S. A. Majeed, S. K. Askar and M. Fleury, H.265 Codec over 4G Networks for Telemedicine System Application, in: 16th International
Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, 2014, pp. 292-297.
23. N. Ramzan, Z. Pervez and A. Amira, Quality of experience evaluation of H.265/MPEG-HEVC and VP9 comparison efficiency, in: 26th
International Conference on Microelectronics, 2014, pp. 220-223.
24. Song W, Tjondronegoro D and Docherty M, Exploration and Optimization of User Experience in Viewing Videos on a Mobile Phone,
International Journal on Software Engineering Knowledge, 20(8) (2010), 1045-1075.
25. VQEG Standard Database, maintained at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/downloads.aspx.
26. Joscowiz J. and Ardao J.C.L, Enhancements to the Opinion-Model for Video Telephony Applications, in: 5th International Latin American
Networking Conference (LANC), 2009, pp.87-94.
31. F. Battisti, M. Carli and P. Paudyal, QoS to QoE mapping model for wired/wireless video communication, in: Euro Med Telco Conference
(EMTC), 2014, pp. 1-6.

View publication stats