intelligent and adaptive middleware to improve user-perceived qos in multimedia applications pedro...
TRANSCRIPT
Intelligent and Adaptive Middleware to Improve User-Perceived QoS in Multimedia Applications
Pedro M. Ruiz, Juan A. Botia,
Antonio Gomez-Skarmeta
University of Murcia
Terena Networking Conference 2004
Rhodes, June 2004
2
Drivers for adaptive applications
• E2E QoS requires local resource management• Terminals are heterogeneous and media adaptation is
needed• Network conditions are unpredictably changing and not
under control (e.g. Ad hoc nets, PLC networks, etc.)• QoS in terms of bandwidth and delay cannot be
guaranteed just with network-layer QoS mechanisms• In these cases, user-perceived QoS can be improved
using applications being able to adapt to:– Network conditions– QoS Violations– Shortage of local resources (eg. CPU, Memory, etc.)– User preferences
3
Adaptive Applications
4
Video Quality vs. Bandwidth
Non-linear
Perception
1190 Kbps
300 Kbps
210 Kbps
140 Kbps
70 Kbps
50 Kbps
30 Kbps
10 FPS, SQCIF both for MJPEG and H.263
5
Towards user-awareness...
• Traditional approaches based on profiles– Simple and easy to implement– Usually are not fine-grained enough– Are not able to capture the perceptual preferences
• Adaptations based on low level parameters (e.g. Bandwidth, packet losses, etc)– Do not really consider user preferences– Perceptual QoS is not linearly related to those low level metrics
• Previous works focused on evaluating the impact of each parameter on the user perception– There is not a real model of the user, particularly when multiple
parameters can be tuned simultaneously (e.g. codecs, frame rates, etc.)
6
App. Layer
Audio Video ... Slides
QoS signaling
Net. Layer Mon Adaptation Logic
QoS signaling
Net.Layer Mon Adaptation Logic
TCP/UDP
IP
MAC
PHY
TCP/UDP
IP
MAC
PHY
Audio Video ... Slides
App. Layer
Architecture for Multimedia Adaptive Applications
Type Seq # Loss % Delay User pref Estimated BW
Audio CodecVideo CodecFrame Rate
SizeQuantization
...
7
Basic Adaptation Logic
8
Why applications aware of the user-perceived QoS?
• There are many ways to adapt data-rates to the available bandwidth– Audio & Video Codecs– Video Quantization factor– Audio sampling rate– Video frame rate– Video size– Component selection– Buffering
• Not trivial to select a new combination of settings satisfying the users– Reduce frame size?, reduce frame rate?, change codec?
• Traditional adaptive applications improve user-perceived QoS but they offer sub-optimal solutions
• Adaptive applications should be able to deal with the user perception of QoS!
Which combination would be preferred by the user?
9
Our proposal for user awareness
• Use of machine learning techniques to help at modeling the user perceived QoS– Number of possible combinations of application
settings is big enough!– Perceptual QoS may change from one indivudual to
another and it is extemely complex to be analitically modelled
– A “black box” model may resemble the user-satisfaction without needing to understand the complex processes involved in user perception
10
Modelling user-perceived QoS
• Difficult to model, due to the subjective aspects involved
• We apply a rule induction machine learning algorithm over learned data
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
0 20 40 60 80
Time(s)
BW 33, 56, 88, 128, 384Kb/sACOD PCM, G.711u, G722, GSMVCOD MJPEG, H263FSIZE CIF, QCIF, 160x128Quant 5, 10, 15, 30, 60FPS 2..24Loss% 0..100%Score 1..5 (according to MOS)
Initial data-set(864 entries)
SLIPPER algorithm with t=5
Set of rules representing user-perceived QoS
11
if matchConfidence { [QFVIDEO >= 60, VIDCOD = MJPEG, FSIZE = QCIF, LOSS <= 10, FPS >= 6] -> 2.8792 [AUDCOD = GSM, BW >= 80, QFVIDEO >= 30, FSIZE = QCIF, FPS <= 6] -> 1.4357 [AUDCOD = GSM, BW >= 128, LOSS = 0, QFVIDEO >= 30, FPS >= 3, VIDCOD = MJPEG] -> 1.7013 [] -> -2.4188} > 0 then 5 else if matchConfidence { [BW >= 384, QFVIDEO >= 40, FSIZE <= 2] -> 2.7121 [QFVIDEO >= 30, VIDCOD = MJPEG, LOSS <= 3, AUDCOD = G722, BW >=80] -> 1.1756 [FSIZE = CIF, QFVIDEO >= 30, LOSS <= 3, AUDCOD = G722, BW >= 80] -> 1.4437 [] -> -1.5044} > 0 then 4 else if matchConfidence { [LOSS >= 30] -> 2.1188 [QFVIDEO <= 5] -> 1.4142 [LOSS >= 16, FPS <= 3] -> 1.5438 [] -> -1.0984207275826066} > 0 then 1 else if matchConfidence { [LOSS >= 16] -> 1.9109 [QFVIDEO <= 10, FSIZE = QCIF] -> 1.5861 [FSIZE = 160X128, QFVIDEO <= 40, VIDCOD = H.263] -> 1.2546 [] -> -0.3953} > 0 then 2 else 3
Rules Generated by SLIPPERSome of the lessons learnt from rules
Higher FR => higher QoS but user’s prefer lower FR (not below 4 FPS) provided that the video is bigger
In most cases PCM audio is not required. The bandwidth savings can be used to improve other components
Audio QoS has greater impact
Etc..
12
Empirical Results
• Scenario– Real MMARP-based ad
hoc network– Path specifically selected
to guarantee variability
• Application– ISABEL-Lite with
extensions
• Trials– Traditional multimedia
application– Adaptive multimedia
application
13
Total Losses
14
Histogram audio/video loss-rate
15
User’s Mean Opinion Scores
16
Conclusions and Future Work
• Adaptive applications have demonstrated to be effective in wireless and mobile scenarios
• The machine learning user’s modelling has shown to be effective
• Applications aware to the user-perceived QoS have demonstrated to offer to better satisfy user’s QoS expectations in a real ad hoc wireless networks
• Optimization on the triggering of the adaptation have demonstrated Future work include among others– Reinforcement learning inside the terminal– Combination with user profiling mechanisms
Intelligent and Adaptive Middleware to Improve User-Perceived QoS in Multimedia Applications
Pedro M. Ruiz, Juan A. Botia,
Antonio Gomez-Skarmeta
University of Murcia
Terena Networking Conference 2004
Rhodes, June 2004