Adaptive testing for video quality assessment

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

38 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Optimizing the Quality of Experience and avoiding under or over provisioning in video delivery services requires understanding of how different resources affect the perceived quality. The utility of resources, such as bit-rate, is directly calculated by proportioningthe improvement in quality over the increase in costs. However, perception of quality in video is subjective and, hence, difficultand costly to directly estimate with the commonly used ratingmethods. Two-alternative-forced choice methods such asMaximum Likelihood Difference Scaling (MLDS) introduces less biases and variability, but only deliver estimates for relativedifference in quality rather than absolute rating. Nevertheless, thisinformation is sufficient for calculating the utility of the resourceon the video quality. In this work, we are presenting an adaptiveMLDS method, which incorporates an active test selectionscheme that improves the convergence rate and decreases theneed for executing the full range of tests.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Future Television (EuroITV 2011), 29 June 2011, Lisbon, Portugal
EditorsM.J. Damásio, G. Cardoso, C. Quico, D. Geerts
Place of PublicationLisbon
PublisherCOFAC/Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias
Pages128-131
ISBN (Print)978-989-97292-0-9
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Eventconference; The 2nd International Workshop on Future Television (EuroITV 2011); 2011-06-29; 2011-06-29 -
Duration: 29 Jun 201129 Jun 2011

Conference

Conferenceconference; The 2nd International Workshop on Future Television (EuroITV 2011); 2011-06-29; 2011-06-29
Period29/06/1129/06/11
OtherThe 2nd International Workshop on Future Television (EuroITV 2011)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Adaptive testing for video quality assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this