Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

VARFVV: View-Adaptive Real-Time Interactive Free-View Video Streaming with Edge Computing

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that free-view video streaming can serve 500 users on a single CPU-only edge server by reassembling pre-encoded frames instead of transcoding per user.

desk verdict Frame reassembly without transcoding is a genuinely useful idea for FVV edge streaming, but the paper doesn't yet prove the reassembled stream decodes cleanly or that the QoE gains aren't partly from in-distribution prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13630 v1 pith:SXRQMA3I submitted 2025-01-23 cs.MM

Qiang Hu , Qihan He , Houqiang Zhong , Guo Lu , Xiaoyun Zhang , Guangtao Zhai , Yanfeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MM
keywords free-viewvideostreamingedgecomputingframereassemblyviewswitchingbitallocationgraphneuralnetworkQoEWebRTC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that free-view video streaming can be scaled to hundreds of simultaneous mobile users without GPU-based transcoding by reassembling pre-encoded multiview frames at an edge server. The core idea is to encode every camera view twice, once with short GoPs for view switching and once with long GoPs for steady viewing, so the server can stitch compressed I- and P-frames along the user's chosen view track and send one stream per user. The paper further claims that a graph-neural-network popularity predictor feeding a QoE-aware bit allocator keeps perceived quality high under a fixed bit budget. If true, the system would deliver 1080p free-view video to over 500 users on a single CPU-only edge server with a 71.5 ms view-switch delay, avoiding the per-user encoding cost that limits transcode-based systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual-encoding GoP structure: each view is encoded as a view-switching representation $S_i$ with group-of-pictures size 2, so every other frame is an independently decodable I-frame, and a view-constant representation $C_i$ with group-of-pictures size 25; for even-numbered views, the I-frame positions in $S_i$ are staggered so adjacent views always have a nearby random-access point. Around this, the system synchronizes all streams by presentation timestamp, reassembles selected compressed frames into a single user stream, and serves it over WebRTC. The bit-allocation half is a QoE objective made of log-quality, inter-view quality-switch, and temporal quality-switch terms, solved by a Lagrange multiplier with Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions and a bisection search over $\lambda$; the predicted popularities entering that objective come from an attention-based spatial-temporal graph convolutional network adapted from traffic-forecasting work.

What would settle it

Feed a VARFVV-reassembled stream captured at an arbitrary switch point into a stock H.264 decoder and log decode errors or dropped frames; if any common switch pattern fails to decode cleanly, the zero-transcoding scalability claim loses its foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

VARFVV's central claim is that the expensive step in cloud-based free-view video, decoding and re-encoding per user, is unnecessary. Instead, the acquisition stage produces two H.264 representations per view: a view-switching stream with group-of-pictures size 2, so an I-frame is never more than one frame away, and a view-constant stream with group-of-pictures size 25 for efficient steady viewing. The edge server demultiplexes these streams, synchronizes frames by presentation timestamp, and, when a user switches from view i to view m, outputs frames from the view-switching streams of the intermediate views and then hands back to the view-constant stream at the next synchronized I-frame. Because this is demultiplex-and-stitch rather than transcode, the server's added computation per user is near zero, which is the basis for the claim of 500 users on one CPU. A popularity-adaptive bit allocator, driven by a spatial-temporal graph neural network that treats views as graph nodes, redistributes bits toward predicted popular views under a bandwidth cap; the paper reports that this raises QoE relative to equal allocation and LSTM-based prediction, achieves higher PSNR than transcode-based EdgeEncodingFVV in the low-interactivity scenario, and remains comparable in subjective quality during rapid switching while needing no GPUs.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme rests on the assumption that a stitched sequence of compressed I- and P-frames from different cameras, at whatever moment the user switches, remains a stream that a standard client decoder will accept and display without artifacts; the paper does not verify decoder compliance of the reassembled stream.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single edge server without GPUs can serve a full 1080p free-view session to 500 concurrent users, cutting edge cost compared with transcode-based systems that need roughly 25 RTX4000 GPUs for the same load.
  • View switching completes in about 71.5 ms, below the threshold a viewer can consciously notice, and total event-to-eye delay is about 0.51 s.
  • Sending one stitched stream per user rather than all views reduces both transmission bitrate and client decoding load, with client CPU use dropping from hundreds of percent for multi-stream receivers to about 14-16% at 1080p.
  • At 4K, edge CPU use is 232% on one machine with no GPU, versus 52,560% and 100 GPUs for a transcoding baseline, making UHD free-view video plausible on mobile networks.
  • Bit allocation based on predicted view popularity improves QoE at both high and low bit budgets and guarantees a higher minimum QoE than equal allocation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to apply the same dual-GoP reassembly to HEVC/AV1 or to omnidirectional tile streams; the savings would likely grow with the number of views, since per-user cost stays near zero while transcode cost scales linearly with users.
  • The 500-user figure is a CPU-headroom claim, not a network claim: it assumes the edge's uplink bandwidth and WebRTC signaling can carry 500 simultaneous single-stream sessions, which the paper does not model.
  • Because the paper does not supply a decoder-compliance check, a robustness extension would be to add stream-copy hinting or switch-point constraints that keep SPS/PPS and reference frames aligned, trading a few milliseconds of the 71.5 ms for guaranteed decodability.
  • The GNN popularity predictor is trained online on ten seconds of viewing history; a controlled deployment could test whether prediction accuracy and QoE gains persist under cold-start and sudden-mass-viewer events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents VARFVV, an edge-assisted free-view video (FVV) streaming system that avoids transcoding by reassembling pre-encoded H.264 frames from dual per-view representations: a view-switching representation (S_i, GoP size 2) and a view-constant representation (C_i, GoP size 25). A GNN-based popularity predictor drives a bit-allocation scheme intended to maximize a QoE metric under bandwidth constraints. The system is implemented and evaluated on a newly collected dataset of 330 videos from 10 scenes with 82 participant view traces. The authors report that a single CPU-only edge server can serve 500 users at 1080p@25FPS with a 71.5 ms view-switching delay, and that VARFVV achieves lower edge-server and client resource usage than transcoding-based baselines while maintaining comparable or better PSNR in low-interactivity scenarios.

Significance. If the core claims hold, VARFVV's frame-reassembly approach is a useful contribution to interactive multiview streaming: it replaces per-user transcoding with lightweight demultiplexing and concatenation, which could dramatically improve edge-server scalability. The paper also contributes a new FVV dataset and promises code release, both of which are valuable to the community. The GNN-based popularity prediction and the QoE-aware bit-allocation formulation are reasonable extensions of prior 360-degree tile-based work to multiview camera arrays. However, the central reassembly mechanism is not verified for decoder compliance, and the popularity/QoE evaluation has train-test leakage issues. These gaps are load-bearing because they directly affect the validity of the scalability, delay, and quality claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section VI-B, Delay and scalability] The delay and 500-user scalability measurements are under-specified. The text states 'we simulate 500 users' but does not describe how the simulation was performed, how many runs were averaged, what the variance was, or how the view-switching delay of 71.5 ms was measured (e.g., from signal to screen vs. frame availability at the server). No error bars or confidence intervals are provided. This makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the headline numbers. The authors should describe the measurement setup, the load-generation method, and report means with standard errors or ranges.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 1] There is a typo in the loop condition: 'while Ture' should be 'while True.'
  2. [Section VI-B, Eq. (22)] The definition of 'precision' is unusual: it is a normalized RMSE-like measure rather than a precision in the classification sense. The authors should either rename it (e.g., 'prediction accuracy') or justify the term.
  3. [Table II and Eq. (3)] The notation for actual popularity (x_i,j, \hat{x}_i,j) and predicted popularity (p_i,j, \hat{p}_i,j) is introduced in Table II, but Eq. (3) uses x_i,j and \hat{x}_i,j while Eq. (4) replaces them with p_i,j and \hat{p}_i,j. It should be made explicit in the text that Eq. (3) is the oracle form and Eq. (4) the practical form.
  4. [Section IV-B, Eqs. (18)-(21)] The KKT derivation drops the inequality constraints R_min \le R_i,j \le R_max and the corresponding bounds for \hat{R}_i,j. The authors should state whether the resulting solution is projected onto the feasible interval or whether the solution always lies within the bounds in practice.
  5. [Section VI-C] The phrase 'our approach guarantees a higher minimum QoE than the other schemes' is not supported by statistical tests. With many users simulated, the authors should report the distribution rather than point values.
  6. [Section VI-B] The text says 'PCC is effective for view-constant scenarios' but the earlier abbreviation is PPC (previous popularity carryover). Please correct the inconsistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

QoE comparison is the optimization objective by construction; reassembly and scalability claims are independent.

  1. self definitional [Section III-C Eqs. (1)-(7), Section IV-B Algorithm 1, Section VI-B "User QoE" / Fig. 11]
    "We can now formulate a QoE-aware optimization problem for FVV adaptive bit allocation. ... The objective of our adaption logic is to optimize the bit allocation Ri,j and ˆRi,j ... for a video chunk j, so that the total QoE measured on the j-th video chunk is maximized. ... Fig. 11 presents the measured user QoE for each scheme."

    Eq. (1) defines the QoE metric QoEj, and Eq. (7) maximizes exactly that metric. Algorithm 1 solves Eq. (7) via KKT conditions, so it returns the optimum of QoEj for the predicted popularities pi,j and ˆpi,j that are inserted into the objective (Eq. (4)). If the "measured user QoE" in Fig. 11 is computed with the same formula and the same predicted popularity values, then every alternative allocation is, by construction, no better than the proposed allocation under that objective. The reported QoE advantage over original-allocation, PPC-allocation, etc. is then a mathematical consequence of solving the optimization problem rather than an independent empirical validation of the popularity predictor or the QoE model. The paper does not state that Fig.

full rationale

The paper's main engineering contributions, frame reassembly at the edge and the resulting scalability/latency numbers, are not circular. They are implementation measurements (demultiplexing and reassembling pre-encoded H.264 access units, measuring CPU usage and switching delay), and the absence of decoder-compliance validation is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The popularity prediction module is also not circular by itself: GNN and PPC are evaluated against ground-truth popularity via Eq. (22), and online updating is a plausible protocol, although the same-dataset evaluation is a methodology risk. The one genuinely construction-forced element is the QoE comparison: the evaluation metric appears to be the same objective function that Algorithm 1 optimizes, with the same predicted popularity entering the objective. Under that reading, the bit-allocation results in Fig. 11 are partly a renaming of the optimizer's guarantee, which justifies a moderate circularity score. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; the cited previous works on attention-based GNNs and logarithmic QoE models are external and not used to forbid alternatives. Overall, the central reassembly and system claims remain independent, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The system relies on a small number of tuned parameters and domain assumptions. The free parameters are the QoE model weights and GNN hyperparameters. The key assumption is that frame reassembly produces valid streams. The dataset is a new entity but serves as a benchmark, not a physical invention.

free parameters (2)
  • QoE weights: eta, eta_hat, mu1, mu2, mu3, epsilon, lambda bounds = eta=1, eta_hat=4, mu1=1, mu2=1/16, mu3=1, epsilon=0.005, lambda in [0,100]
    These weights define the QoE model that is optimized and evaluated. They are chosen by the authors and not justified by user studies.
  • GNN hyperparameters: M=2, learning rate=0.005, batch size=32, 50 epochs, online update = M=2, lr=0.005, batch=32, 50 epochs
    These are standard hyperparameters but they affect the popularity prediction results and are not justified by ablation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Reassembled compressed frames from different camera streams form a decodable and playable stream.
    The entire system depends on frame-level concatenation of H.264 streams working without re-encoding. This is assumed in Section V-B and never verified with a decoder test.
  • domain assumption The logarithmic QoE model accurately reflects user-perceived quality in FVV.
    Eq. 2 assumes log(1 + bitrate/eta) maps to QoE. This comes from prior work and is not validated for FVV switching scenarios.
  • domain assumption View popularity is predictable from the previous 10 seconds of traces with the GNN and PPC combination.
    The prediction module in Section IV-A assumes historical popularity over a short window is sufficient to predict future popularity, which may fail for rapid or unprecedented behavior changes.
invented entities (1)
  • FVV dataset of 330 videos from 10 scenes with 82 participant traces
    purpose: Benchmark for evaluating popularity prediction and QoE
    The dataset is introduced in this paper and is not an established benchmark. It is used for both training and evaluation, so it does not provide external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VARFVV: View-Adaptive Real-Time Interactive Free-View Video Streaming with Edge Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXRQMA3I

@misc{pith2026250113630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VARFVV: View-Adaptive Real-Time Interactive Free-View Video Streaming with Edge Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXRQMA3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13630}
}
read the original abstract

Free-view video (FVV) allows users to explore immersive video content from multiple views. However, delivering FVV poses significant challenges due to the uncertainty in view switching, combined with the substantial bandwidth and computational resources required to transmit and decode multiple video streams, which may result in frequent playback interruptions. Existing approaches, either client-based or cloud-based, struggle to meet high Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements under limited bandwidth and computational resources. To address these issues, we propose VARFVV, a bandwidth- and computationally-efficient system that enables real-time interactive FVV streaming with high QoE and low switching delay. Specifically, VARFVV introduces a low-complexity FVV generation scheme that reassembles multiview video frames at the edge server based on user-selected view tracks, eliminating the need for transcoding and significantly reducing computational overhead. This design makes it well-suited for large-scale, mobile-based UHD FVV experiences. Furthermore, we present a popularity-adaptive bit allocation method, leveraging a graph neural network, that predicts view popularity and dynamically adjusts bit allocation to maximize QoE within bandwidth constraints. We also construct an FVV dataset comprising 330 videos from 10 scenes, including basketball, opera, etc. Extensive experiments show that VARFVV surpasses existing methods in video quality, switching latency, computational efficiency, and bandwidth usage, supporting over 500 users on a single edge server with a switching delay of 71.5ms. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/qianghu-huber/VARFVV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of our VARFVV. VARFVV is a bandwidth-efficient and low-complexity interactive FVV streaming system and employs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the VARFVV System Architecture. Our VARFVV integrates multiview encoding, popularity-adaptive bit allocation, edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GoP structure design for each stream and view switching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of prediction accuracy between LSTM and GNN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Popularity prediction network structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A set of multiview capturing system. We use the dichotomy methodology to obtain the ac￾curate value of λ, Ri,j and Rˆ i,j , as shown in Algorithm 1. Our bit allocation strategy dynamically allocates bits to each video chunk based on its popularity. The perceptually les…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Loss curve for training process. a user switches views, the edge selects frames from the view-switching representation corresponding to the user’s viewing track and reassembles them into the live stream. As we only demultiplex and reassemble video streams instead of tr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The CDF of popularity prediction precision on the dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: However, GNN lacks explicit optimization for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Event-to-eye delay visualization in VARFVV. This figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The CDF of user QoE on the dataset where the length of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of our VARFVV with ConventionalFVV [1], [2], HASFVV [4], and EdgeEncodingFVV [7] in the “Low-interactivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of our VARFVV with ConventionalFVV [1], [2], HASFVV [4], and EdgeEncodingFVV [7] in the “High-interactivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Semantics versus Identity: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach towards Adjustable Medical Image De-Identification

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A de-identification framework that blocks identity-related image regions and replaces them with identity-free medical semantic features, enabling adjustable privacy while preserving diagnostic utility.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ftv (free-viewpoint tv),

    M. Tanimoto, “Ftv (free-viewpoint tv),” in 2010 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Image Processing , 2010, pp. 2393–2396

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Free- viewpoint tv,

    M. Tanimoto, M. P. Tehrani, T. Fujii, and T. Yendo, “Free- viewpoint tv,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 67–76, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Adaptive multiview video delivery using hybrid networking,

    E. Ekmekcioglu, C. G. Gurler, A. Kondoz, and A. M. Tekalp, “Adaptive multiview video delivery using hybrid networking,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technol- ogy, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1313–1325, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Adaptive streaming in interactive multiview video systems,

    X. Zhang, L. Toni, P. Frossard, Y . Zhao, and C. Lin, “Adaptive streaming in interactive multiview video systems,” IEEE Trans- actions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1130–1144, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Video streaming adaptation strategy for multiview navigation over dash,

    C. Yao, J. Xiao, Y . Zhao, and A. Ming, “Video streaming adaptation strategy for multiview navigation over dash,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 521–533, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Optimal multi-view video trans- mission in multiuser wireless networks by exploiting natural and view synthesis-enabled multicast opportunities,

    W. Xu, Y . Cui, and Z. Liu, “Optimal multi-view video trans- mission in multiuser wireless networks by exploiting natural and view synthesis-enabled multicast opportunities,” IEEE Transac- tions on Communications , vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1494–1507, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    An elastic system architecture for edge based low latency interactive video appli- cations,

    Y . Dong, L. Song, R. Xie, and W. Zhang, “An elastic system architecture for edge based low latency interactive video appli- cations,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 824–836, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ultra-low latency, stable, and scalable video transmission for free-viewpoint video services,

    Y . Dong, L. Song, and R. Xie, “Ultra-low latency, stable, and scalable video transmission for free-viewpoint video services,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 636–650, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    “Webrtc,” 2022, https://webrtc.org/

    2022

  2. [10]

    Efficient prediction structures for multiview video coding,

    P. Merkle, A. Smolic, K. Muller, and T. Wiegand, “Efficient prediction structures for multiview video coding,” IEEE Trans- actions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1461–1473, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    View scalable multiview video coding using 3- d warping with depth map,

    S. Shimizu, M. Kitahara, H. Kimata, K. Kamikura, and Y . Yashima, “View scalable multiview video coding using 3- d warping with depth map,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1485–1495, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Interactive stream- ing of stored multiview video using redundant frame structures,

    G. Cheung, A. Ortega, and N.-M. Cheung, “Interactive stream- ing of stored multiview video using redundant frame structures,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 744– 761, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Coding structure optimization for interactive multiview streaming in virtual world observation,

    G. Cheung, A. Ortega, and T. Sakamoto, “Coding structure optimization for interactive multiview streaming in virtual world observation,” in 2008 IEEE 10th Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, 2008, pp. 450–455

    2008

  6. [14]

    Optimal representations for adaptive streaming in interactive multiview video systems,

    L. Toni and P. Frossard, “Optimal representations for adaptive streaming in interactive multiview video systems,” IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia , vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 2775–2787, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Delay-power- rate-distortion optimization of video representations for dynamic adaptive streaming,

    C. Li, L. Toni, J. Zou, H. Xiong, and P. Frossard, “Delay-power- rate-distortion optimization of video representations for dynamic adaptive streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1648–1664, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    A priority- based adaptive scheme for multi-view live streaming over http,

    W. Zhang, S. Ye, B. Li, H. Zhao, and Q. Zheng, “A priority- based adaptive scheme for multi-view live streaming over http,” Comput. Commun., vol. 85, no. C, p. 89–97, jul 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Optimized adaptive streaming of multi-video stream bundles,

    N. Carlsson, D. Eager, V . Krishnamoorthi, and T. Polishchuk, “Optimized adaptive streaming of multi-video stream bundles,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1637– 1653, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Omniviewer: Enabling multi-modal 3d dash,

    Z. Gao, S. Chen, and K. Nahrstedt, “Omniviewer: Enabling multi-modal 3d dash,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, ser. MM ’15. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2015, p. 801–802

    2015

  11. [19]

    Adaptive streaming of interactive free viewpoint videos to heterogeneous clients,

    A. Hamza and M. Hefeeda, “Adaptive streaming of interactive free viewpoint videos to heterogeneous clients,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Multimedia Systems , ser. MMSys ’16. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    A priority-aware dash-based multi-view video streaming scheme over multiple channels,

    A. Yaqoob, T. Bi, and G.-M. Muntean, “A priority-aware dash-based multi-view video streaming scheme over multiple channels,” in 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC) , 2020, pp. 297–303

    2020

  13. [21]

    Dy- namic adaptive streaming for multi-viewpoint omnidirectional videos,

    X. Corbillon, F. De Simone, G. Simon, and P. Frossard, “Dy- namic adaptive streaming for multi-viewpoint omnidirectional videos,” in Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, ser. MMSys ’18. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, p. 237–249

    2018

  14. [22]

    A dash-based hevc multi-view video streaming system,

    T. Su, A. Sobhani, A. Yassine, S. Shirmohammadi, and A. Javad- talab, “A dash-based hevc multi-view video streaming system,” J. Real-Time Image Process. , vol. 12, no. 2, p. 329–342, aug 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Dash-based streaming client for view switching in free-viewpoint video systems,

    S. Song, Y .-S. Park, and J. Wee, “Dash-based streaming client for view switching in free-viewpoint video systems,” in 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN), 2019, pp. 312–314

    2019

  16. [24]

    Deep reinforcement learn- ing with communication transformer for adaptive live streaming in wireless edge networks,

    S. Wang, S. Bi, and Y .-J. A. Zhang, “Deep reinforcement learn- ing with communication transformer for adaptive live streaming in wireless edge networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 308–322, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Sdsr: Optimizing metaverse video streaming via saliency- driven dynamic super-resolution,

    B. Chai, J. Chen, Z. Luo, Z. Wang, M. Hu, Y . Zhou, and D. Wu, “Sdsr: Optimizing metaverse video streaming via saliency- driven dynamic super-resolution,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 978–989, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Risk-aware contextual learning for edge-assisted crowdsourced live streaming,

    X. Liu, M. Derakhshani, L. Mihaylova, and S. Lambotharan, “Risk-aware contextual learning for edge-assisted crowdsourced live streaming,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 740–754, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Toward adaptive semantic communications: Efficient data transmission via online learned nonlinear transform source- channel coding,

    J. Dai, S. Wang, K. Yang, K. Tan, X. Qin, Z. Si, K. Niu, and P. Zhang, “Toward adaptive semantic communications: Efficient data transmission via online learned nonlinear transform source- channel coding,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. ...

    2023

  20. [28]

    When virtual reality meets rate splitting multiple access: A joint communication and computation approach,

    N. Q. Hieu, D. N. Nguyen, D. T. Hoang, and E. Dutkiewicz, “When virtual reality meets rate splitting multiple access: A joint communication and computation approach,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1536– 1548, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A transcoding-enabled 360° vr video caching and delivery framework for edge-enhanced next- generation wireless networks,

    H. Xiao, C. Xu, Z. Feng, R. Ding, S. Yang, L. Zhong, J. Liang, and G.-M. Muntean, “A transcoding-enabled 360° vr video caching and delivery framework for edge-enhanced next- generation wireless networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 16...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Wireless deep video semantic transmission,

    S. Wang, J. Dai, Z. Liang, K. Niu, Z. Si, C. Dong, X. Qin, and P. Zhang, “Wireless deep video semantic transmission,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 214–229, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    A multi- user oriented live free-viewpoint video streaming system based on view interpolation,

    J. Hu, S. Guo, Y . Dong, K. Zhou, J. Xu, and L. Song, “A multi- user oriented live free-viewpoint video streaming system based on view interpolation,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  24. [32]

    Saliency-aware video compres- sion,

    H. Hadizadeh and I. V . Baji ´c, “Saliency-aware video compres- sion,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 19–33, Jan. 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Semiautomatic visual-attention modeling and its application to video compression,

    Y . Gitman, M. Erofeev, D. Vatolin, B. Andrey, and F. Alexey, “Semiautomatic visual-attention modeling and its application to video compression,” in Proc. IEEE ICIP, Oct. 2014, pp. 1105– 1109

    2014

  26. [34]

    Visual sensitivity guided bit allocation for video coding,

    C.-W. Tang, C.-H. Chen, Y .-H. Yu, and C.-J. Tsai, “Visual sensitivity guided bit allocation for video coding,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 11–18, Feb. 2006

    2006

  27. [35]

    Spatiotemporal visual considerations for video coding,

    C. W. Tang, “Spatiotemporal visual considerations for video coding,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 231–238, Feb. 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Foveation scalable video coding with automatic fixation selection,

    Z. Wang, L. Lu, and A. C. Bovik, “Foveation scalable video coding with automatic fixation selection,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 243–254, Feb. 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Visual saliency based perceptual video coding in HEVC,

    H. Wei, X. Zhou, W. Zhou, C. Yan, Z. Duan, and N. Shan, “Visual saliency based perceptual video coding in HEVC,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Circuits Syst. , May. 2016, pp. 2547–2550

    2016

  30. [38]

    HEVC enhancement using content- based local QP selection,

    F. Zhang and D. R. Bull, “HEVC enhancement using content- based local QP selection,” in Proc. IEEE ICIP , Sep. 2016, pp. 4215–4219

    2016

  31. [39]

    A novel multiresolution spatiotemporal saliency detection model and its applications in image and video compression,

    C. Guo and L. Zhang, “A novel multiresolution spatiotemporal saliency detection model and its applications in image and video compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 185–198, Jan. 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    In-loop perceptual model-based rate-distortion optimization for hevc real-time encoder,

    Q. Hu, J. Zhou, X. Zhang, Z. Gao, and M.-T. Sun, “In-loop perceptual model-based rate-distortion optimization for hevc real-time encoder,” Journal of Real-Time Image Processing , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 293–311, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Delta qp allocation for mpeg immersive video,

    J.-B. Jeong, S. Lee, and E.-S. Ryu, “Delta qp allocation for mpeg immersive video,” in 2022 13th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), 2022, pp. 568–573

    2022

  34. [42]

    Viewport-adaptive navigable 360-degree video delivery,

    X. Corbillon, G. Simon, A. Devlic, and J. Chakareski, “Viewport-adaptive navigable 360-degree video delivery,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Communications , May 2017, pp. 1–7

    2017

  35. [43]

    Viewport-adaptive encoding and streaming of 360-degree video for virtual reality applications,

    K. K. Sreedhar, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gab- bouj, “Viewport-adaptive encoding and streaming of 360-degree video for virtual reality applications,” in IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM) , Dec. 2016, pp. 583–586

    2016

  36. [44]

    Hevc-compliant tile-based streaming of panoramic video for virtual reality applications,

    A. Zare, A. Aminlou, M. M. Hannuksela, and M. Gabbouj, “Hevc-compliant tile-based streaming of panoramic video for virtual reality applications,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , ser. MM ’16. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing ...

    2016

  37. [45]

    Live360: Viewport-aware transmission optimization in live 360-degree video streaming,

    J. Chen, Z. Luo, Z. Wang, M. Hu, and D. Wu, “Live360: Viewport-aware transmission optimization in live 360-degree video streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting , vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 85–96, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Ts360: A two-stage deep reinforcement learning system for 360-degree video streaming,

    Y . Huo and H. Kuang, “Ts360: A two-stage deep reinforcement learning system for 360-degree video streaming,” 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) , pp. 1–6, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Macrotile: Toward qoe-aware and energy-efficient 360-degree video streaming,

    X. Chen, T. Tan, and G. Cao, “Macrotile: Toward qoe-aware and energy-efficient 360-degree video streaming,” IEEE Trans- actions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, pp. 1112–1126, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    View- popularity-driven joint source and channel coding of view and rate scalable multi-view video,

    J. Chakareski, V . Velisavljevic, and V . Stankovic, “View- popularity-driven joint source and channel coding of view and rate scalable multi-view video,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 474–486, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Making content caching policies ’smart’ using the deepcache framework,

    A. Narayanan, S. Verma, E. Ramadan, P. Babaie, and Z.-L. Zhang, “Making content caching policies ’smart’ using the deepcache framework,” SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. , vol. 48, no. 5, p. 64–69, jan 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Scalable 360° video stream delivery: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities,

    M. Zink, R. Sitaraman, and K. Nahrstedt, “Scalable 360° video stream delivery: Challenges, solutions, and opportunities,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 639–650, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Tile-based edge caching for 360° live video streaming,

    P. Maniotis and N. Thomos, “Tile-based edge caching for 360° live video streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 4938–4950, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Design and analysis of mec- and proactive caching- based 360◦ mobile vr video streaming,

    Q. Cheng, H. Shan, W. Zhuang, L. Yu, Z. Zhang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Design and analysis of mec- and proactive caching- based 360◦ mobile vr video streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 1529–1544, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Buffer-aware virtual reality video streaming with personalized and private viewport prediction,

    R. Zhang, J. Liu, F. Liu, T. Huang, Q. Tang, S. Wang, and F. R. Yu, “Buffer-aware virtual reality video streaming with personalized and private viewport prediction,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 694–709, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Tvg- streaming: Learning user behaviors for qoe-optimized 360- degree video streaming,

    M. Hu, J. Chen, D. Wu, Y . Zhou, Y . Wang, and H.-N. Dai, “Tvg- streaming: Learning user behaviors for qoe-optimized 360- degree video streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 4107–4120, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Multi-features fusion based viewport prediction with gnn for 360-degree video streaming,

    X. Xu, X. Tan, S. Wang, Z. Liu, and Q. Zheng, “Multi-features fusion based viewport prediction with gnn for 360-degree video streaming,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Meta- verse Computing, Networking and Applications (MetaCom) , 2023, pp. 57–64

    2023

  48. [56]

    Overview of the h.264/avc video coding standard,

    T. Wiegand, G. Sullivan, G. Bjontegaard, and A. Luthra, “Overview of the h.264/avc video coding standard,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 560–576, 2003

    2003

  49. [57]

    Overview of the high efficiency video coding (hevc) standard,

    G. J. Sullivan, J.-R. Ohm, W.-J. Han, and T. Wiegand, “Overview of the high efficiency video coding (hevc) standard,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technol- ogy, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1649–1668, 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    A quality-of-experience index for streaming video,

    Z. Duanmu, K. Zeng, K. Ma, A. Rehman, and Z. Wang, “A quality-of-experience index for streaming video,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 154– 166, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Attention based spatial-temporal graph convolutional networks for traffic flow forecasting,

    S. Guo, Y . Lin, N. Feng, C. Song, and H. Wan, “Attention based spatial-temporal graph convolutional networks for traffic flow forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 922–929

    2019

  52. [60]

    Drl360: 360-degree video streaming with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Zhang, P. Zhao, K. Bian, Y . Liu, L. Song, and X. Li, “Drl360: 360-degree video streaming with deep reinforcement learning,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2019, pp. 1252–1260

    2019

  53. [61]

    J. Yi, M. R. Islam, S. Aggarwal, D. Koutsonikolas, Y . C. Hu, and Z. Yan, An Analysis of Delay in Live 360° Video Streaming Systems. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, p. 982–990. Qiang Hu (Member, IEEE) received the B.S. degree in electronic engine...

    2020

  54. [2023]

    National 100 Best Ph.D. Theses of China

    He was a Postdoc Researcher at ShanghaiTech University from 2019 to 2021. His research interests focus on 2D/3D video compression, 3D reconstruction, and generative intelligence media. His works have been published in top-tier journals and conferences, such as IEEE Transaction...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.