Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Video Quality Monitoring for Remote Autonomous Vehicle Control

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single-layer GRU with 32 hidden units predicts remote-driving video quality two seconds ahead with a mean error under 1.7 VMAF units, at 66 ms inference latency.

desk verdict A useful teleoperation QoE blueprint and 20-variant benchmark, but the 'Basic GRU wins' claim needs error bars and a persistence baseline before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03166 v1 pith:RC6AFG7O submitted 2025-05-27 cs.NI cs.SYeess.SY

Dimitrios Kafetzis , Nikos Fotiou , Savvas Argyropoulos , Jad Nasreddine , Iordanis Koutsopoulos This is my paper
classification cs.NIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords autonomousvehiclesteleoperationQualityofExperienceVMAF5GmobilenetworksedgecomputingvideopredictionGatedRecurrentUnits
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 argues that a small recurrent network, not a large transformer or deep LSTM, is the right engine for keeping remote teleoperated vehicles video-quality-aware. The authors build an end-to-end monitoring blueprint—onboard capture, compression, edge transmission, real-time data management, AI inference, and proactive adaptation—and benchmark 20 model variants against a hybrid dataset of real urban driving measurements and synthetic stress traces. Their central result is that a single-layer Gated Recurrent Unit with 32 hidden units forecasts VMAF two seconds ahead with RMSE 1.62 and MAE 1.41, and runs in 66 ms, leaving about 1.9 seconds of reaction time within a sub-150 ms teleoperation budget. If true, proactive QoE adaptation for remote driving needs only a lightweight model, not heavy deep-learning infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Basic GRU: a Gated Recurrent Unit, a recurrent cell with two gates that decides how much of its internal state to keep or discard over time. One layer of 32 such units receives five 10-second windows of telemetry—packet loss, jitter, throughput, and GPS speed—each window with a six-dimensional feature vector, and its hidden states are reweighted by a 128-unit self-attention block before a final output layer predicts VMAF two seconds ahead. This stack carries the argument because it is where the accuracy-latency result lives: the GRU's gating keeps only recent context needed for a ten-second forecast, which the paper says explains why it outperforms LSTM and Transformer variants under the same data and hardware. The hybrid dataset—real field-trial traces plus synthetic stress segments covering packet loss 0–5%, jitter 10–100 ms, and throughput 5–50 Mbps—is the supporting machinery that defines the conditions under which the claim holds.

What would settle it

Run the trained Basic GRU on a teleoperation test drive through a route with handover-induced packet loss above 5% or throughput below 5 Mbps, with ground-truth VMAF recorded on the same timeline; if the two-second-ahead prediction error rises well above the reported 1.62 RMSE (for example, beyond 3 VMAF units), the claim that this lightweight model generalizes to real remote driving fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the regime of short-horizon quality forecasting for remote vehicle control, a Basic GRU—one recurrent layer of 32 hidden units plus a 128-unit self-attention reweighting of the five hidden states—delivers the best accuracy-latency trade-off among LSTM, GRU, Transformer, DNN, and linear baselines. On a chronologically held-out test set, it achieves RMSE 1.62 and MAE 1.41 VMAF units, roughly 1.6% of the 0–100 VMAF scale, with 66 ms inference latency per sample batch, and every GRU variant beats its equal-width or equal-depth LSTM counterpart. The paper also states that the full control loop, including feature extraction, two 5G hops, and UI rendering, comes to about 131 ms, so a two-second-ahead forecast still leaves the operator about 1.9 s to react. This is presented as evidence that gated recurrence is sufficient for proactive QoE control in teleoperated driving.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the four telemetry signals—packet loss, jitter, throughput, and GPS speed—recorded in 10-second windows are enough to predict VMAF two seconds ahead in real teleoperation, and that conditions outside the synthetic ranges (loss beyond 5%, jitter above 100 ms, throughput below 5 Mbps) will not break that mapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A remote-driving QoE monitoring system can be built around a single lightweight recurrent model rather than a large attention-based network, lowering the compute and energy budget for on-vehicle inference.
  • Because the forecast looks two seconds ahead while the full feedback loop takes about 131 ms, operators retain nearly 1.9 s to act on an imminent quality drop, which is inside the sub-150 ms budget cited for safe teleoperation.
  • Every GRU variant in the benchmark beats its LSTM counterpart of equal width or depth, suggesting that GRU-style gating is better matched to medium-range quality forecasting in dynamic mobile networks.
  • Transformers approach GRU accuracy only after widening their feed-forward layers, which raises latency beyond 60 ms and makes them less suitable for the constrained in-vehicle or edge deployment scenarios considered.
  • The open-sourced implementations allow the benchmark to be reproduced and extended to new telemetry features or network conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The input feature set contains no encoder bitrate, resolution, or video-content descriptors; adding those could either improve the 1.62 RMSE further or reveal that the current mapping misses quality changes driven by the encoder rather than the network.
  • The synthetic stress segments cover only packet loss up to 5%, jitter up to 100 ms, and throughput down to 5 Mbps; real teleoperation through tunnels, handover-heavy corridors, or congested backhaul may fall outside this range, so the claimed error is most safely read as a bound for conditions inside that envelope.
  • The 66 ms latency is measured on a desktop GPU with a batch of 16; on embedded automotive hardware the number would likely rise, so the 1.9 s reaction-time margin is a best-case estimate for the hardware benchmarked.
  • Implicit in the argument is that a two-second-ahead VMAF forecast is frequent and accurate enough for proactive adaptation, which suggests a natural next test: close the loop with an actual adaptive bitrate controller and measure end-to-end QoE improvement rather than forecast error alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an end-to-end architecture for video quality monitoring in remote autonomous vehicle control, combining onboard/edge data collection, network and application metrics, and AI-based short-term QoE forecasting. The authors construct a hybrid dataset from real urban driving traces (referenced to [10]) and synthetic network-emulated stress segments, and benchmark variants of LSTM, GRU, Transformer, DNN, and linear regressors for predicting VMAF two seconds ahead. They report that a single-layer 32-unit Basic GRU achieves the best accuracy-latency trade-off (RMSE 1.62, MAE 1.41, 66 ms inference on RTX 2060 SUPER), and use this to argue that a roughly 131 ms end-to-end loop leaves about 1.9 s of reaction margin within a sub-150 ms teleoperation budget. The paper also discusses onboard vs edge inference and explainability techniques.

Significance. If the empirical ranking is robust, the result is practically significant: it suggests that a lightweight recurrent model can provide accurate two-second-ahead VMAF forecasts at low inference cost, which would justify proactive QoE adaptation in teleoperation. The paper's system blueprint and the comparison across model classes are useful contributions, and the claimed open-sourcing of code supports reproducibility. However, the central comparative claim is currently supported only by single-run evaluations with no variance estimates, no trivial baseline, and an incompletely described real-world dataset, so the significance cannot yet be assessed at the level required for a journal publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-D, Table I] The central ranking of Basic GRU over Wide GRU (RMSE 1.62 vs 2.85, MAE 1.41 vs 2.40) is reported from a single training run per variant, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of seeds. Because the paper's headline conclusion is a comparative accuracy-latency claim, the absence of any variance estimate makes it impossible for the reader to determine whether the ranking is a true architectural effect or an artifact of initialization and hyperparameter tuning. Please report mean and variance over at least 5-10 random seeds for all variants, and ideally a paired significance test.
  2. [Section IV-A] The real-world component of the hybrid dataset is described only as 'similar to the procedure in [10]', with no dataset size, recording duration, route characteristics, speed distribution, encoder settings, or details of how the 'VMAF-like perceptual score' was computed and labeled. Without these details, the reported RMSE/MAE values cannot be reproduced or compared meaningfully, and the external validity of the field-trial component is unverifiable. Please provide the dataset characteristics, a precise definition of the perceptual score, and ideally release the anonymized traces.
  3. [Section IV-A, Section IV-B] The input features are limited to packet loss, jitter, throughput, and GPS speed, and the synthetic stress segments cover only packet loss 0-5%, jitter 10-100 ms, and throughput 5-50 Mbps. The paper provides no evidence that these features and ranges are sufficient to predict VMAF two seconds ahead in real teleoperation, where encoder bitrate, resolution switching, video content, and radio handovers also affect perceived quality. Please add feature-ablation experiments and validation on a held-out real trace that includes conditions outside the synthetic ranges, or explicitly scope the claim to the tested operating envelope.
  4. [Section IV-D, Table I] No trivial baseline (e.g., persistence of the last observed VMAF or a moving-average forecast) is included in the comparison. Since VMAF is highly autocorrelated over short horizons, an RMSE of 1.62 VMAF units is only meaningful if it beats a no-change forecast; otherwise the reported accuracy may not reflect predictive skill from the telemetry features. Please add a persistence or last-value baseline to Table I.
  5. [Section IV-D] The end-to-end latency budget of about 131 ms is assembled from asserted values: 18 ms for on-vehicle feature extraction, two 20 ms 5G hops, and 7 ms for UI rendering, with no measurements or citations for these components. Because the 'sub-150 ms budget' and the residual 'about 1.9 s' reaction margin are direct consequences of this arithmetic, the claim is load-bearing; please justify each component with a measurement or a clearly labeled worst-case assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section I, Section IV-C] The paper states '20 model variants' and '20 variants', but the enumerated variants sum to 18 (3 LSTM, 3 GRU, 4 Transformer, 4 DNN, 4 linear). Please reconcile the count.
  2. [Section III-A] The phrase 'a camera that capture' should be 'a camera that captures'.
  3. [Section IV-B] The sequence length is described as '5 steps of 2 s each' and also as 'five consecutive windows (50 sec of history)' and later '50 sec of telemetry'; these descriptions are inconsistent (10 s vs 50 s) and should be clarified.
  4. [Section IV-B] The statement that the chronological split guarantees 'zero information leakage' should be explained: since samples are created with sliding windows, a single global split at 80% of the timeline can still place temporally adjacent windows on both sides of the split; clarify whether a gap is introduced between training and test.
  5. [Section IV-A, Section IV-D] The ground-truth label is called 'a VMAF-like perceptual score' in Section IV-A but simply 'VMAF score' elsewhere; please state whether the label is true VMAF or a proxy, and if a proxy, how it was computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GRU-best result is an empirical finding from a chronological hold-out test, and the only self-reference is a non-load-bearing pointer to the authors' code repo.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and empirically grounded. QoE labels are measured VMAF values (Section IV-A), models are trained with standard supervised objectives (MSE for linear regressors, Log-Cosh for neural networks), hyperparameters are tuned on the validation split via Keras Hyperband, and final accuracy and latency are measured on a chronologically held-out 20 percent test split, which the paper states ensures zero information leakage (Section IV-B). The central claim that a 32-unit Basic GRU offers the best accuracy-latency balance is an empirical ranking read directly from Table I (RMSE 1.62, MAE 1.41, 66 ms), not a quantity derived from its own inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the two-second-ahead QoE forecast is an out-of-sample regression on the held-out segment, and the latency-budget arithmetic (66 ms inference plus fixed component latencies) is a sum of reported measurements and stated assumptions, not a self-referential definition. The only author-overlap reference is [23], the first author's GitHub repository, cited solely to point at open-sourced code, and it is not load-bearing for any result; neither a uniqueness theorem nor an ansatz is imported from prior author work. The GRU-versus-LSTM comparison is presented as a benchmark outcome rather than as a derivation, so there is no renaming of a known result. Concerns such as single-run comparisons without error bars, narrow synthetic coverage (0-5 percent loss, 10-100 ms jitter, 5-50 Mbps throughput), the latency inversion between Basic and Wide GRU in Table I, and the paper's own label of 'preliminary results from synthetic datasets' (Section VII) are reproducibility, statistical, or generalization risks; they are explicitly outside the scope of a circularity verdict. No step in the claimed chain reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central benchmark rests on the choice of input features, synthetic data ranges, hyperparameters tuned per model, and the assumed latency budget. No new physical entities are postulated. The largest unresolved burden is that the features are assumed to determine VMAF and that the synthetic segments represent real stress conditions, without released data to check either.

free parameters (4)
  • Model weights and hyperparameters of 20 variants = Not disclosed per variant
    All accuracy claims depend on weights learned from the hybrid dataset and hyperparameters set by Keras Hyperband; no seed variance or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Synthetic data ranges = Packet loss 0-5%, jitter 10-100 ms, throughput 5-50 Mbps
    Chosen by hand in Section IV-A(b) to represent stress conditions; no justification that these match real teleoperation extremes.
  • Sequence window and forecast horizon = L=5 steps of 2 s, forecast t+2 s
    Design choices in Section IV-B; performance of the GRU may depend on them but no ablation is reported.
  • Latency budget components = 18 ms feature extraction, 20 ms per 5G hop, 7 ms UI rendering
    Estimates used in Section IV-D to derive the 131 ms end-to-end latency; they are not measured on the described stack.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption VMAF is a valid ground truth for operator-perceived QoE
    Section III.C uses VMAF as the training label and as an indicator of perceived quality, following [5]; a perceptual claim is imported from prior work.
  • domain assumption Network and speed telemetry suffice to predict future VMAF
    Section IV-A and IV-B include only loss, jitter, throughput, and speed as model inputs; the paper assumes these determine the short-term VMAF score.
  • domain assumption tc-netem synthetic perturbations emulate real radio impairments
    Section IV-A(b) treats controlled packet loss, jitter, and throughput drops as representative of underrepresented real conditions, with no validation against real traces.
  • domain assumption The sub-150 ms reaction budget and 20 ms 5G hop latencies are operationally correct
    Section IV-D and Section V rely on latency figures from [3]; these are external assumptions, not measured here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Video Quality Monitoring for Remote Autonomous Vehicle Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RC6AFG7O

@misc{pith2026250603166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Video Quality Monitoring for Remote Autonomous Vehicle Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RC6AFG7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03166}
}
read the original abstract

The delivery of high-quality, low-latency video streams is critical for remote autonomous vehicle control, where operators must intervene in real time. However, reliable video delivery over Fourth/Fifth-Generation (4G/5G) mobile networks is challenging due to signal variability, mobility-induced handovers, and transient congestion. In this paper, we present a comprehensive blueprint for an integrated video quality monitoring system, tailored to remote autonomous vehicle operation. Our proposed system includes subsystems for data collection onboard the vehicle, video capture and compression, data transmission to edge servers, real-time streaming data management, Artificial Intelligence (AI) model deployment and inference execution, and proactive decision-making based on predicted video quality. The AI models are trained on a hybrid dataset that combines field-trial measurements with synthetic stress segments and covers Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and encoder-only Transformer architectures. As a proof of concept, we benchmark 20 variants from these model classes together with feed-forward Deep Neural Network (DNN) and linear-regression baselines, reporting accuracy and inference latency. Finally, we study the trade-offs between onboard and edge-based inference. We further discuss the use of explainable AI techniques to enhance transparency and accountability during critical remote-control interventions. Our proactive approach to network adaptation and Quality of Experience (QoE) monitoring aims to enhance remote vehicle operation over next-generation wireless networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level architecture of the proposed remote driving system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute-error density per model class. GRU (green) peaks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Measur- ing the feasibility of teleoperated driving in mobile networks,

    S. Neumeier, E. A. Walelgne, V . Bajpai, J. Ott, and C. Facchi, “Measur- ing the feasibility of teleoperated driving in mobile networks,” inProc. of the 3rd Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conf. (TMA) , IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (j3016),

    SAE International, “Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (j3016),” tech. rep., SAE International, April 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Nissan tests driverless cars with remote human opera- tors

    Y . Kageyama, “Nissan tests driverless cars with remote human opera- tors.” AP News article, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    A survey on remote operation of road vehicles,

    O. Amador Molina, M. Aramrattana, and A. Vinel, “A survey on remote operation of road vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 130135–130154, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    QoE-driven dissemination of real-time videos over vehicular networks,

    C. W. Quadros, A. L. Santos, M. Gerla, and E. Cerqueira, “QoE-driven dissemination of real-time videos over vehicular networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 91-92, pp. 133–147, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    VMAF reproducibility: Validating a perceptual practical video quality metric,

    R. Rassool, “VMAF reproducibility: Validating a perceptual practical video quality metric,” in 2017 IEEE Int. Symp. on Broadband Multime- dia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB) , pp. 1–2, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  8. [7]

    Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder–decoder for statistical ma- chine translation,

    K. Cho, B. van Merrienboer, D. Bahdanau, and Y . Bengio, “Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder–decoder for statistical ma- chine translation,” arXiv preprint, vol. arXiv:1406.1078, 2014

    arXiv 2014

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), vol. 30, pp. 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  2. [9]

    Supervised-learning-based QoE prediction of video streaming in future networks: A tutorial with comparative study,

    A. Ahmad, A. B. Mansoor, R. Walshe, J. Qadir, and A. Hines, “Supervised-learning-based QoE prediction of video streaming in future networks: A tutorial with comparative study,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1400–1430, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Teleoperated support for remote driving over 5g mobile communications,

    G. Kakkavas, K. N. Nyarko, C. Lahoud, D. Kuehnert, P. Kueffner, M. Gabriel, S. Ehsanfar, K. Moßner, M. Diamanti, V . Karyotis, and S. Papavassiliou, “Teleoperated support for remote driving over 5g mobile communications,” in Proc. of IEEE Int. Mediterranean Conf. on Communicat...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Support of teleoperated driving with 5g networks,

    M. C. Lucas-Esta ˜n, B. Coll-Perales, M. I. Khan, S. S. Avedisov, O. Al- tintas, J. Gozalvez, and M. Sepulcre, “Support of teleoperated driving with 5g networks,” in Proc. of the IEEE 98th Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC-Fall), pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    QoCoVi: QoE- and cost-aware adaptive video streaming for the internet of vehicles,

    A. Erfanian, F. Tashtarian, C. Timmerer, and H. Hellwagner, “QoCoVi: QoE- and cost-aware adaptive video streaming for the internet of vehicles,” Computer Communications, vol. 190, pp. 1–9, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Video streaming in vehicular ad hoc networks: Applications, challenges and techniques,

    N. Zribi, B. Alaya, and T. Moulahi, “Video streaming in vehicular ad hoc networks: Applications, challenges and techniques,” in Proc. of the 15th Int. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conf. (IWCMC) , pp. 1221–1226, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Streaming video qoe modeling and prediction: A long short-term memory approach,

    N. Eswara, S. Ashique, P. Mittal, Y . Chakalabbi, V . Perra, S. Choudhury, and S. S. Channappayya, “Streaming video qoe modeling and prediction: A long short-term memory approach,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 4726–4740, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    No-reference video quality assessment using transformers and attention recurrent networks,

    K. Kossi, S. Coulombe, and C. Desrosiers, “No-reference video quality assessment using transformers and attention recurrent networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 140671–140684, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Rectified linear units improve restricted boltz- mann machines,

    V . Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted boltz- mann machines,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pp. 807–814, Omnipress, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs),

    D. Clevert, T. Unterthiner, and S. Hochreiter, “Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs),” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Workshop Track, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,

    R. Tibshirani, “Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso,” Jour- nal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 267–288, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems,

    A. E. Hoerl and R. W. Kennard, “Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems,” Technometrics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55–67, 1970

    1970

  14. [22]

    Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net,

    H. Zou and T. Hastie, “Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 301–320, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Time-series forecasting neural-network models for video qoe prediction

    D. Kafetzis, “Time-series forecasting neural-network models for video qoe prediction.” GitHub repository, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Another look at measures of forecast accuracy,

    R. J. Hyndman and A. B. Koehler, “Another look at measures of forecast accuracy,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 679– 688, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Keras, 2024

    Keras Team, Keras API Documentation . Keras, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    QoE-Aware Video Streaming Scheme Utilizing GRU-based Bandwidth Prediction and Adaptive Bitrate Selection for Heterogeneous Mobile Networks,

    H. T. Vu, V .-S. Pham, T. H. T. Nguyen, and H.-C. Le, “QoE-Aware Video Streaming Scheme Utilizing GRU-based Bandwidth Prediction and Adaptive Bitrate Selection for Heterogeneous Mobile Networks,” in Proc. of the IEEE 9th Int. Conf. on Communications and Electronics (ICCE), pp....

    2022

  19. [27]

    Fore- casting video QoE with deep learning from multivariate time-series,

    H. E. Dinaki, S. Shirmohammadi, E. Janulewicz, and D. C ˆot´e, “Fore- casting video QoE with deep learning from multivariate time-series,” IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing , vol. 2, pp. 512–523, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.