Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Reducing Traffic Wastage in Video Streaming via Bandwidth-Efficient Bitrate Adaptation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 a bandwidth-efficient bitrate adaptation algorithm, BE-ABR, reduces video traffic wastage by 60.87% while preserving viewer QoE.

desk verdict A genuinely new ABR control idea with a solid system, but the headline wastage number rests on synthetic departure models and should be treated as an upper bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07270 v1 pith:UXLJLCTF submitted 2024-12-10 cs.NI cs.MM

Hairong Su , Shibo Wang , Shusen Yang , Tianchi Huang , Xuebin Ren This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIcs.MM
keywords adaptivebitratestreamingtrafficwastagebuffereddatavolumetransmissiontimepredictionTransformerbuffercontrolqualityofexperiencevideo
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 tries to establish that the large share of downloaded video data users never watch—measured at 25.2% to 51.7% in earlier work—can be cut by roughly 60% without sacrificing viewing quality. The route is to keep the buffered data volume small, not merely the buffered video time, and to make that safe by predicting per-chunk transmission delays accurately. The authors formalize how buffered data volume evolves under a download plan, then build a controller that jointly picks bitrate and the pause between downloads, supported by a Transformer-based transmission-time predictor and a configurable QoE-loss constraint. If the experimental claims hold, streaming providers could lower bandwidth costs and users would waste less mobile data, while QoE stays at the level of the best existing schemes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the buffered data volume trajectory $S(t)$, which directly equals the bytes that would be wasted if the viewer left at time $t$. Around that trajectory the paper builds three components: (1) T3P, a time-aware Transformer encoder augmented with a key-query attention module that weights historical bandwidth samples by their irregular sampling intervals, outputting a transmission-time prediction per chunk and bitrate; (2) a fine-grained buffer controller that co-optimizes bitrate $R_k$ and inter-chunk waiting time $\Delta t_k$ to drive $S(t)$ to a low level instead of downloading until the buffer cap; and (3) an adaptive weighting $\gamma_k$ derived from the coefficient of variation of recent throughput, plus a QoE-constrained search that refuses plans whose expected QoE falls below a set fraction of the wastage-unconstrained optimum. The dynamics equations (Eqs. 11 and 12) connect the download plan to the wastage metric, making the optimization possible.

What would settle it

Collect real departure times and skip events from a deployed streaming service over thousands of sessions, replay those sessions against BE-ABR and RobustMPC under identical network traces, and compare wasted bytes and QoE; the central claim fails if the wastage reduction drops well below 60.87% or if the QoE loss exceeds the paper's reported bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that traffic wastage can be treated as a controllable quantity in adaptive bitrate streaming, because wastage at any departure moment equals the buffered data volume $S(t)$ at that moment, and $S(t)$ obeys explicit dynamics governed by chunk sizes, download times, waiting times, and playback consumption (Eqs. 11–12). Based on this model, BE-ABR solves a series of local optimization problems that maximize expected QoE minus a weighted wastage term, using a Transformer-based time-aware predictor (T3P) to forecast the download time of upcoming chunks at every bitrate level. To keep the buffer low without risking rebuffering, the controller treats both bitrate and inter-chunk waiting time as decision variables, adapts the QoE–wastage weight to bandwidth volatility, and imposes a configurable cap on QoE loss. In experiments on real WiFi and 4G networks and on 4G/5G traces, the paper reports a 60.87% average wastage reduction and QoE comparable or superior to MPC, RobustMPC, BBA, BOLA, Fugu, Pensieve, and PSWA.

Load-bearing premise

The measured 60.87% reduction assumes users leave according to two synthetic departure distributions (one linear, one logarithmic) with a p=0.2 probability of watching to the end; if real viewer departure patterns differ, the savings or the QoE preservation could change materially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Streaming providers adopting BE-ABR would download 35.7–67.2% fewer wasted bytes on WiFi and 4G networks, and up to 71.43% less in 4G/5G trace tests, with QoE essentially unchanged.
  • In high-bandwidth periods, where conventional algorithms fill the buffer to its cap, BE-ABR's waiting-time control holds buffered volume low—average buffered volume is 27.15–59.67% of other algorithms—so a mid-session departure discards far less data.
  • Accurate transmission-time prediction is the enabler: T3P's mean absolute percentage error of 16.6% (versus 26.1% for the best prior predictor tested) reduces rebuffering, and the controller still keeps most of its QoE even when prediction error exceeds 20%.
  • The QoE loss ratio $l$ gives operators a direct knob: set it to zero to forbid any QoE loss, or raise it to squeeze more bandwidth savings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the BDV model treats a large skip as equivalent to early departure, so the same controller could plausibly be adapted to short-video streaming, where swipe-away behavior dominates waste; the key test is whether the waiting-time knob remains effective at much shorter chunk durations.
  • If the paper's premise holds, the QoE–wastage tradeoff becomes a tunable policy variable rather than a fixed property of an ABR algorithm, allowing content providers to set different loss ratios for different content categories.
  • A natural next experiment is to replace the synthetic departure distributions with real viewing-behavior data; if real departures are concentrated very early or are strongly correlated with rebuffering events, the optimal buffer level may differ from the one BE-ABR targets.
  • The predictor's success suggests that including requested chunk size as an input exposes TCP slow-start and scheduling effects; adding explicit transport-layer state, such as congestion window, could further reduce prediction error.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BE-ABR, a bitrate adaptation algorithm for DASH streaming that aims to reduce "traffic wastage" (downloaded but unviewed data) while preserving QoE. It models buffered data volume (BDV) dynamics, formulates a wastage-aware stochastic optimization, and solves a receding-horizon version using T3P (a Transformer-based transmission-delay predictor) and a fine-grained buffer controller that jointly chooses bitrate and inter-chunk waiting time. Experiments include real WiFi/4G testbed comparisons against MPC, RobustMPC, BBA, BOLA, Fugu, Pensieve, and PSWA under two synthetic departure distributions, a user study, trace-driven UHD tests, and a separate T3P prediction evaluation on Puffer data. The paper claims a 60.87% wastage reduction with comparable or better QoE.

Significance. The problem is timely and well-motivated, and the system has several strengths: the BDV dynamics formulation is a useful lens; T3P adds a time-aware Transformer to transmission-time prediction; the buffer-control scheme using waiting time as a control variable is sensible; and the evaluation spans real networks, a user study, and trace-driven scenarios. The paper also reports component-wise ablations and system overhead. If the headline result holds, BE-ABR would be a practically meaningful advance. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported mainly by synthetic departure models with unvalidated parameters, and the user study gives a smaller reduction; this limits confidence until the evaluation is strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI-A (Eqs. 35-36), Fig. 6, Abstract] The headline 60.87% wastage reduction is computed from two synthetic departure CDFs f1 and f2 with hand-set parameters p=0.2 and a=10, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. Because BE-ABR deliberately keeps buffered data volume low, any policy that reduces buffer occupancy will automatically look good under these distributions, regardless of whether that behavior is sustainable for real users. The paper's own user study (Section VI-D, Fig. 10) reports only 32.84%-55.10% wastage reduction under actual viewer exit behavior. Please make the user-study result the primary evidence, report confidence intervals for the synthetic experiments, and add a sensitivity analysis over p and a; the abstract's "60.87%" should be qualified or removed.
  2. [Section VI-B, Fig. 6] The main results are reported as single normalized points with no confidence intervals or significance tests (20 runs per algorithm per condition). The text repeatedly asserts "outperforms", "closely matches", and "reduced by X%-Y%"; these claims require at least error bars or a statistical comparison, especially for the 4G QoE comparison between BE-ABR and RobustMPC, where the advantage is not obvious from the figure.
  3. [Sections V-C and VI-F] T3P's predictive superiority is established on a random 8:1:1 split of 10 million Puffer samples taken over 20 days. For time-series data a random split can leak future observations into training and inflate accuracy; the day-by-day MAE in Fig. 13 does not rule this out because train/test may overlap. Please re-run with a chronological split (e.g., train on early days, test on later days) and report whether the MAE/MAPE advantage persists.
  4. [Section V-A, Eq. (19)] The optimization objective replaces expected wastage at an unknown departure time with average buffered data volume over the next N chunks. This is a heuristic substitution that is not equivalent to minimizing E[S(t0)] under the assumed departure distributions f1/f2 unless the departure hazard is constant over the horizon. The paper should justify this surrogate analytically or empirically, for example by comparing policies optimized under Eq. (19) with policies optimized under the true expected wastage for the f1/f2 models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI-A] The text says "We do contrast experiments with the following 5 baselines," but the list contains seven algorithms (MPC, RobustMPC, BBA, BOLA, Fugu, Pensieve, PSWA); please correct the count.
  2. [Figs. 12 and 13 captions] The captions contain corrupted text (e.g., "/uni00000014/..."), which must be repaired before publication.
  3. [Section V-D, Algorithm 2] The definition of the QoE loss ratio l is ambiguous: Algorithm 2 sets bound = l × maxQoE, so as written l acts as a retention ratio, not a loss ratio; please rename the parameter or re-derive the bound to match the prose.
  4. [Table IV] The table header is unclear ("MAPE Ratio QoElog Ratio QoElog"); please specify that the entries under "Ratio" are normalized QoElog values and how the MAPE bins were computed.
  5. [Section VII] The statement that BE-ABR "requires an average of 86 ms for a single inference" conflates the 8.8 ms T3P inference latency with the 76 ms GA search time; please distinguish the two components explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported wastage reduction is the algorithm's stated optimization objective and is validated by independent measurements, not by a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Sections III-IV define the buffered data volume dynamics (Eqs. 5-12), define traffic wastage as the buffered data volume at departure, W_AS(t0)=S(t0) (Eq. 15), and formulate the optimization as maximizing QoE minus a wastage penalty (Eqs. 16-17), which is then decomposed into a local objective using the time-average buffered data volume (Eqs. 19-20). The empirical claim that BE-ABR reduces wastage is therefore a measurement of the quantity the algorithm was designed to minimize; this is standard validation of an optimization objective, not a hidden circular step, because the paper does not fit any parameter to the wastage metric and the QoE-preservation and network-prediction results are independent evidence. T3P is trained on Puffer data with an 8:1:1 split and separately evaluated against HM, SVM, LSTM, and MLP on real-world network data (Section VI-F), and the end-to-end system is tested against external baselines on commodity WiFi and 4G/LTE links, so the central claims do not reduce to the paper's own definitions. The synthetic departure models f1(r) and f2(r) (Eqs. 35-36) are assumptions with hand-set parameters and, as the paper itself acknowledges in Section IV, rebuffering and poor QoE can influence user departure; this is an external-validity limitation of the evaluation, not circular reasoning. The only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing: reference [16] (co-authored by T. Huang) supports the opening observation that large buffers combined with erratic viewing cause wastage, which the paper independently formalizes through Eq. 15, and reference [39] is a general citation for cross-layer network factors. No uniqueness theorem, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core algorithm is an engineering system; its wastage claim relies most heavily on the synthetic departure model and the average-BDV proxy, rather than on new physical entities.

free parameters (6)
  • p (completion probability) = 0.2
    Controls the synthetic departure CDFs in Eqs. (35) and (36); wastage statistics depend strongly on it and it is chosen by hand, not estimated from viewer data.
  • a (departure concentration) = 10
    Shapes the early-departure bias in f2 (Eq. 36); no supporting data is provided.
  • beta (wastage weight) = not specified
    Balances QoE and wastage in the reward (Eqs. 16 and 34); no value or tuning procedure is reported.
  • QoE loss ratio l = not specified
    Threshold for acceptable QoE loss in Algorithm 2; the experiments do not state the chosen value.
  • M (volatility window) = 5
    Window for coefficient of variation in Eq. (32); chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • GA hyperparameters = size_pop=50, max_iter=200, prob_mut=0.001, precision=0.1, early_stop=5
    Genetic algorithm settings in Section V-D; set empirically and affect the claimed 96.3 percent search efficiency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bandwidth is approximately constant within a chunk download (Eq. 11).
    The S(t) trajectory during the download interval is modeled by linear replenishment dk(Rk) * (t - tk) / Dk; this ignores within-chunk bandwidth variation, although Dk itself depends on the actual bandwidth trajectory.
  • ad hoc to paper Wastage over the next N chunks is adequately represented by average buffered data volume (Eq. 19).
    Problem 1 needs the unknown departure time t0; the paper substitutes average BDV over the planning horizon, a tractable proxy with no equivalence guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic departure distributions f1 and f2 represent real user leaving behavior (Eqs. 35 and 36).
    No real departure dataset is available; the headline wastage numbers are computed under these hand-set distributions.
  • domain assumption Puffer traces are representative for training and testing the transmission time predictor.
    T3P is trained on 10 million Puffer samples; transfer to the testbed WiFi/4G and to the 4G/5G trace environments is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reducing Traffic Wastage in Video Streaming via Bandwidth-Efficient Bitrate Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXLJLCTF

@misc{pith2026241207270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reducing Traffic Wastage in Video Streaming via Bandwidth-Efficient Bitrate Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXLJLCTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07270}
}
read the original abstract

Bitrate adaptation (also known as ABR) is a crucial technique to improve the quality of experience (QoE) for video streaming applications. However, existing ABR algorithms suffer from severe traffic wastage, which refers to the traffic cost of downloading the video segments that users do not finally consume, for example, due to early departure or video skipping. In this paper, we carefully formulate the dynamics of buffered data volume (BDV), a strongly correlated indicator of traffic wastage, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first time to rigorously clarify the effect of downloading plans on potential wastage. To reduce wastage while keeping a high QoE, we present a bandwidth-efficient bitrate adaptation algorithm (named BE-ABR), achieving consistently low BDV without distinct QoE losses. Specifically, we design a precise, time-aware transmission delay prediction model over the Transformer architecture, and develop a fine-grained buffer control scheme. Through extensive experiments conducted on emulated and real network environments including WiFi, 4G, and 5G, we demonstrate that BE-ABR performs well in both QoE and bandwidth savings, enabling a 60.87\% wastage reduction and a comparable, or even better, QoE, compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of DASH-based video streaming system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Process of video chunk downloading with key time points highlighted. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The structure of Transformer-based, time-aware transmission delay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The unfolding structure of the Encoder-only Transformer employed in T3P. And the bandwidth sampling interval τi , which refers to the time difference between consecutive observations of band￾width, is calculated as: τi = t b i+1 − t b i = ti+1 + 1 2 × Di+1(Ri+1) − ti −…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CDF of viewing ratio under two assumed user departure behavior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of traffic wastage and QoE performance under two user behavior modes over commodity WiFi and 4G/LTE networks in the wild. Metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of QoE-related assessment indexes under two user behavior modes over commodity WiFi and 4G/LTE networks in the wild. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A case study showcasing bitrate selections and buffer dynamics of BE-ABR. Both cases were extracted from WiFi environment test results. performs compared to RobustMPC. Predicting bandwidth for wireless networks is much harder than for WiFi networks, since the wireless …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results from the component-wise study analysis. Panels (a) and (b) showcase component-wise contributions on QoE performance and traffic wastage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results from the user study analysis. Metrics are normalized against the maximum values. The QoE performance is evaluated using two metrics: QoElin and QoElog. 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Norm. data wastage 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Norm. QoE Offline RobustMPC FUGU Pens…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of traffic wastage and QoE performance on Belgium 4G and Lumos 5G datasets. Metrics are normalized against the performance of BE-ABR. QoE metrics are computed as QoElog. learning-based methods, BE-ABR improves QoE by 11.11%- 19.05%. Against the wastage-awar…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Variation in the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of different transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A case study showcasing prediction results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    How 5g could evolve mobile streaming and video delivery,

    T. Fautier, “How 5g could evolve mobile streaming and video delivery,” https://www.harmonicinc.com/insights/blog/mobile-streaming/, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Leveraging 5g to unleash the true power of video streaming,

    W. Tovar, “Leveraging 5g to unleash the true power of video streaming,” https://mobile-magazine.com/articles/leveraging-5g-to-unleash-the-tru e-power-of-video-streaming, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Netflix,

    Netflix, “Netflix,” https://www.netflix.com/, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Youtube,

    YouTube, “Youtube,” https://www.youtube.com/, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Tiktok, “Tiktok,” https://https://www.tiktok.com/, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Zoom, “Zoom,” https://zoom.us/, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Video streaming market - global industry assesssment and forecast,

    V ANTAGE, “Video streaming market - global industry assesssment and forecast,” https://www.vantagemarketresearch.com/industry-report/vide o-streaming-market-1816, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    In 2022, 65% of all internet traffic came from video sites,

    S. Gutelle, “In 2022, 65% of all internet traffic came from video sites,” https://www.tubefilter.com/2023/01/20/sandvine-video-data-bandwidth -internet-traffic-report-streaming-video-youtube-netflix/, 2023

    work page 2022

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Youtube everywhere: Impact of device and infrastructure synergies on user experience,

    A. Finamore, M. Mellia, M. M. Munafo, R. Torres, and S. G. Rao, “Youtube everywhere: Impact of device and infrastructure synergies on user experience,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Internet Meas. Conf. , 2011, pp. 345–360

    2011

  2. [10]

    Dashlet: Taming swipe uncertainty for robust short video streaming,

    Z. Li, Y . Xie, R. Netravali, and K. Jamieson, “Dashlet: Taming swipe uncertainty for robust short video streaming,” in 20th USENIX Sym- posium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 23) , 2023, pp. 1583–1599

    2023

  3. [11]

    Kuaishou. 2021. annual and interim reports,

    Kuaishou, “Kuaishou. 2021. annual and interim reports,” https://ir.kua ishou.com/corporate-filings/financial-information

    2021

  4. [12]

    Post-streaming wastage analysis–a data wastage aware framework in mobile video streaming,

    G. Zhang, K. Liu, H. Hu, V . Aggarwal, and J. Y . B. Lee, “Post-streaming wastage analysis–a data wastage aware framework in mobile video streaming,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 389–401, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    China telecom,

    Wikipedia, “China telecom,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Tele com, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    How much data does streaming use in 2021? - audio and video,

    Jovan, “How much data does streaming use in 2021? - audio and video,” https://kommandotech.com/guides/how-much-data-does-streaming-use /, 2022

    2021

  7. [15]

    Cost optimization for on-demand content streaming in iov networks with two service tiers,

    X. Hong, J. Jiao, A. Peng, J. Shi, and C.-X. Wang, “Cost optimization for on-demand content streaming in iov networks with two service tiers,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 38–49, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Buffer awareness neural adaptive video streaming for avoiding extra buffer consumption,

    T. Huang, C. Zhou, R. Zhang, C. Wu, and L. Sun, “Buffer awareness neural adaptive video streaming for avoiding extra buffer consumption,” in INFOCOM, 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

  9. [17]

    A control-theoretic ap- proach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over http,

    X. Yin, A. Jindal, V . Sekar, and B. Sinopoli, “A control-theoretic ap- proach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over http,” in SIGCOMM, 2015, pp. 325–338

    2015

  10. [18]

    A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service,

    T.-Y . Huang, R. Johari, N. McKeown, M. Trunnell, and M. Watson, “A buffer-based approach to rate adaptation: Evidence from a large video streaming service,” in SIGCOMM, 2014, pp. 187–198

    2014

  11. [19]

    Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming

    F. Y . Yan, H. Ayers, C. Zhu, S. Fouladi, J. Hong, K. Zhang, P. A. Levis, and K. Winstein, “Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming.” in NSDI, vol. 20, 2020, pp. 495–511

    2020

  12. [20]

    2021 state of streaming report,

    Conviva, “2021 state of streaming report,” https://www.conviva.com/st ate-of-streaming/, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Bola: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos,

    K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman, “Bola: Near-optimal bitrate adaptation for online videos,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1698–1711, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Neural adaptive video stream- ing with pensieve,

    H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh, “Neural adaptive video stream- ing with pensieve,” in SIGCOMM, 2017, pp. 197–210

    2017

  15. [23]

    Rate adaptation for adaptive http streaming,

    C. Liu, I. Bouazizi, and M. Gabbouj, “Rate adaptation for adaptive http streaming,” in Proc. 2nd Annu. ACM Conf. Multimedia Syst. , 2011, pp. 169–174

    2011

  16. [24]

    Smart streaming for online video services,

    L. Chen, Y . Zhou, and D. M. Chiu, “Smart streaming for online video services,” IEEE Trans. Multimed , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 485–497, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    An online buffer-aware resource allocation algorithm for multiuser mobile video streaming,

    G. Huang, W. Gong, B. Zhang, C. Li, and C. Li, “An online buffer-aware resource allocation algorithm for multiuser mobile video streaming,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 3357–3369, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Alfie: Neural-reinforced adaptive prefetching for short videos,

    J. Li, H. Xu, M. Ma, H. Yan, and C. J. Xue, “Alfie: Neural-reinforced adaptive prefetching for short videos,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  19. [27]

    Dam: Deep reinforcement learning based preload algorithm with action masking for short video streaming,

    S.-Z. Qian, Y . Xie, Z. Pan, Y . Zhang, and T. Lin, “Dam: Deep reinforcement learning based preload algorithm with action masking for short video streaming,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2022, pp. 7030–7034

    2022

  20. [28]

    Pdas: Probability-driven adaptive streaming for short video,

    C. Zhou, Y . Ban, Y . Zhao, L. Guo, and B. Yu, “Pdas: Probability-driven adaptive streaming for short video,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2022, pp. 7021–7025

    2022

  21. [29]

    Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in http-based adaptive video streaming with festive,

    J. Jiang, V . Sekar, and H. Zhang, “Improving fairness, efficiency, and stability in http-based adaptive video streaming with festive,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Emerg. Netw. Exp. Technol. , 2012, pp. 97–108

    2012

  22. [30]

    Cs2p: Improving video bitrate selection and adaptation with data-driven throughput prediction,

    Y . Sun, X. Yin, J. Jiang, V . Sekar, F. Lin, N. Wang, T. Liu, and B. Sinopoli, “Cs2p: Improving video bitrate selection and adaptation with data-driven throughput prediction,” in SIGCOMM, 2016, pp. 272– 285

    2016

  23. [31]

    Throughput prediction using recurrent neural network model,

    B. Wei, M. Okano, K. Kanai, W. Kawakami, and J. Katto, “Throughput prediction using recurrent neural network model,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Glob. Conf. Consum. Electron. (GCCE) , 2018, pp. 107–108

    2018

  24. [32]

    Realtime mobile bandwidth prediction using lstm neural network,

    L. Mei, R. Hu, H. Cao, Y . Liu, Z. Han, F. Li, and J. Li, “Realtime mobile bandwidth prediction using lstm neural network,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Passive and Active Measurement (PAM) , 2019, pp. 34–47

    2019

  25. [33]

    On leveraging machine and deep learning for throughput prediction in cellular networks: Design, performance, and challenges,

    D. Raca, A. H. Zahran, C. J. Sreenan, R. K. Sinha, E. Halepovic, R. Jana, and V . Gopalakrishnan, “On leveraging machine and deep learning for throughput prediction in cellular networks: Design, performance, and challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 11–17, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Biases in data-driven networking, and what to do about them,

    M. Bartulovic, J. Jiang, S. Balakrishnan, V . Sekar, and B. Sinopoli, “Biases in data-driven networking, and what to do about them,” in Proc. 16th ACM Workshop Hot Top. Netw. , 2017, pp. 192–198

    2017

  27. [35]

    Modeling and analyzing the influence of chunk size variation on bitrate adaptation in dash,

    T. Zhang, F. Ren, W. Cheng, X. Luo, R. Shu, and X. Liu, “Modeling and analyzing the influence of chunk size variation on bitrate adaptation in dash,” in INFOCOM, 2017, pp. 1–9

    2017

  28. [36]

    Apl: Adaptive preloading of short video with lyapunov optimization,

    H. Zhang, Y . Ban, X. Zhang, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, S. Meng, J. Li, and Y . Wang, “Apl: Adaptive preloading of short video with lyapunov optimization,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COMPUTING 17 in IEEE Int. Conf. Visual Commun. Image Process. (VCIP) , 2020, pp. 13–16

    2020

  29. [37]

    On the constancy of internet path properties,

    Y . Zhang and N. Duffield, “On the constancy of internet path properties,” in Proc. 1st ACM SIGCOMM Workshop Internet Meas. , 2001, pp. 197– 211

    2001

  30. [38]

    A survey of cross-layer designs in wireless networks,

    B. Fu, Y . Xiao, H. Deng, and H. Zeng, “A survey of cross-layer designs in wireless networks,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 110–126, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Robust saliency-driven quality adaptation for mobile 360-degree video streaming,

    S. Wang, S. Yang, H. Su, C. Zhao, C. Xu, F. Qian, N. Wang, and Z. Xu, “Robust saliency-driven quality adaptation for mobile 360-degree video streaming,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Hierarchical multi-scale gaussian transformer for stock movement prediction

    Q. Ding, S. Wu, H. Sun, J. Guo, and J. Guo, “Hierarchical multi-scale gaussian transformer for stock movement prediction.” in IJCAI, 2020, pp. 4640–4646

    2020

  33. [41]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in AAAI, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Arabert: Transformer-based model for arabic language understanding,

    W. Antoun, F. Baly, and H. Hajj, “Arabert: Transformer-based model for arabic language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00104 , 2020

    2003 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, pp. 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Hitanet: Hierarchical time-aware attention networks for risk prediction on electronic health records,

    J. Luo, M. Ye, C. Xiao, and F. Ma, “Hitanet: Hierarchical time-aware attention networks for risk prediction on electronic health records,” in Proc. 26th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min. , 2020, pp. 647–656

    2020

  38. [46]

    Internet research needs better models,

    S. Floyd and E. Kohler, “Internet research needs better models,” ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    Pantheon: the training ground for internet congestion- control research,

    F. Y . Yan, J. Ma, G. D. Hill, D. Raghavan, R. S. Wahby, P. Levis, and K. Winstein, “Pantheon: the training ground for internet congestion- control research,” in USENIX Annu. Tech. Conf. , 2018, pp. 731–743

    2018

  40. [48]

    Pytorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al. , “Pytorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , vol. 32, pp. 8024–8035, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Coefficient of variation,

    Wikipedia, “Coefficient of variation,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co efficient_of_variation, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    J. H. Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an intro- ductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT Press, 1992

    1992

  44. [52]

    FFmpeg, “Ffmpeg,” https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg

  45. [53]

    Gpac: open source multimedia framework,

    J. Le Feuvre, C. Concolato, and J.-C. Moissinac, “Gpac: open source multimedia framework,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Multimedia , 2007, pp. 1009–1012

    2007

  46. [54]

    Available: https://dashif.org/, 2019

    DASH, “Dash,” [Online]. Available: https://dashif.org/, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Mahimahi: Accurate record-and-replay for http

    R. Netravali, A. Sivaraman, S. Das, A. Goyal, K. Winstein, J. Mickens, and H. Balakrishnan, “Mahimahi: Accurate record-and-replay for http.” in USENIX Annu. Tech. Conf. , 2015, pp. 417–429

    2015

  48. [56]

    Http/2-based adaptive streaming of hevc video over 4g/lte networks,

    J. Van Der Hooft, S. Petrangeli, T. Wauters, R. Huysegems, P. R. Alface, T. Bostoen, and F. De Turck, “Http/2-based adaptive streaming of hevc video over 4g/lte networks,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 2177–2180, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Lumos5g: Mapping and predicting commercial mmwave 5g throughput,

    A. Narayanan, E. Ramadan, R. Mehta, X. Hu, Q. Liu, R. A. Fezeu, U. K. Dayalan, S. Verma, P. Ji, T. Li et al. , “Lumos5g: Mapping and predicting commercial mmwave 5g throughput,” in Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference , 2020, pp. 176–193. Hairong Su received ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.