Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

SafeSABR reduces severe Starlink streaming stalls from 22.8% to 7.2% of sessions at 1.8% QoE cost.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 15:16 UTC pith:LIHS277Q

load-bearing objection SafeSABR combines behavior cloning, risk-calibrated RL, and a capacity auditor to cut severe stalls on Starlink traces, but the auditor bounds are the unproven link. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.23560 v2 pith:LIHS277Q submitted 2026-05-22 eess.SY cs.NIcs.SY

SafeSABR: Risk-Calibrated Adaptive Bitrate Streaming over Starlink Networks

Hongjun Xie , Jiahang Zhu , Zhiming Shao , Chao Fan , Zenghui Zhang , Genke Yang , Pengcheng Luo This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.NIcs.SY
keywords adaptive bitrate streamingStarlinkrisk calibrationreinforcement learningvideo streamingrebufferingQoELEO satellite
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper presents SafeSABR as a learned adaptive bitrate system for Starlink satellite links that experience fast throughput swings from satellite movement and handovers. It trains first by copying high-performing behaviors, then applies reinforcement learning tuned to shrink the worst outcomes, and finally adds a runtime check that rejects bitrates likely to cause stalls based on safe capacity estimates. The result targets the sessions that suffer long rebuffering, which average QoE scores overlook. A reader would care because these tail failures are the ones that make streaming unusable on volatile links even when average quality looks good.

Core claim

SafeSABR formulates Starlink ABR as a QoE-severe-risk tradeoff and follows a three-stage design: behavior-cloning pretraining learns a high-QoE ABR prior, risk-calibrated reinforcement learning fine-tuning reduces severe-tail action tendencies, and a runtime safety auditor uses safe-capacity lower bounds to check policy-requested bitrates before execution. On real Starlink traces this cuts severe-stall sessions from 22.8% to 7.2% and worst-5% session rebuffering from 54.30 s to 22.68 s, with a 1.8% QoE cost versus advanced baselines. Component tests show the risk-calibrated stage and the auditor each reduce unsafe bitrate choices and the resulting severe rebuffering.

What carries the argument

Three-stage pipeline of behavior-cloning pretraining, risk-calibrated RL fine-tuning, and runtime safety auditor that enforces safe-capacity lower bounds before bitrate execution.

Load-bearing premise

The runtime safety auditor's safe-capacity lower bounds are accurate enough to block bitrate requests that would cause rebuffering under real Starlink throughput fluctuations.

What would settle it

A deployment trace in which the auditor approves a bitrate that later produces rebuffering would show the lower-bound check does not reliably prevent stalls.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Risk-calibrated fine-tuning lowers the rate of unsafe bitrate decisions.
  • Safe-capacity auditing prevents many downstream severe-session rebuffering events.
  • The full pipeline achieves lower severe-tail rebuffering than prior online, prediction, and learned ABR methods.
  • The QoE-severe-risk operating point improves without large average-quality loss on volatile satellite traces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Session-level tail metrics may need to replace average QoE as the main evaluation target for ABR on highly variable links.
  • The same pretrain-then-risk-calibrate structure could be tested on other high-variance networks such as mobile or mmWave 5G.
  • Runtime lower-bound auditors might extend to other real-time control tasks where average performance and safety must both be protected.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SafeSABR, a three-stage learned ABR framework for Starlink networks that formulates the problem as a QoE--severe-risk tradeoff. It consists of behavior-cloning pretraining to obtain a high-QoE prior, risk-calibrated RL fine-tuning to reduce tail-risk actions, and a runtime safety auditor that enforces safe-capacity lower bounds on policy-requested bitrates. On real Starlink traces, SafeSABR is reported to reduce severe-stall sessions from 22.8% to 7.2% and worst-5% session rebuffering from 54.30 s to 22.68 s at a 1.8% QoE cost relative to online, prediction-assisted, and learned baselines; component analyses attribute gains to the risk-calibration and auditing stages.

Significance. If the empirical results and safety guarantees hold under realistic conditions, the work is significant because it moves learned ABR beyond average-QoE optimization to explicitly control severe tail risk in highly volatile LEO links. The combination of imitation learning, risk-sensitive RL, and a runtime auditor with throughput lower bounds offers a concrete, deployable pipeline that could generalize to other high-variance wireless settings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Runtime safety auditor] Runtime safety auditor section: the safe-capacity lower bounds are presented as the final enforcement layer that blocks unsafe bitrates, yet the manuscript provides no derivation or sensitivity analysis showing that these bounds remain valid when actual throughput deviates from the modeled distribution due to unmodeled satellite handovers; without such analysis the claimed stall reductions cannot be guaranteed to generalize beyond the evaluation traces.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported improvements (severe-stall sessions 22.8%→7.2%, worst-5% rebuffering 54.30 s→22.68 s) are given without an explicit experimental protocol, including trace count, train/test split methodology, number of random seeds, error bars, or statistical significance tests; this absence makes it impossible to judge whether the gains are robust or could be artifacts of particular trace selection.
  3. [Component analyses] Component analyses: while the paper states that risk-calibrated fine-tuning and safe-capacity auditing reduce unsafe decisions, the quantitative contribution of each stage to the final metrics is not isolated with ablations that disable the auditor while keeping the RL policy fixed; this leaves open whether the safety auditor is load-bearing or merely additive.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the safe-capacity lower bound is introduced without a clear equation reference or proof sketch of its tightness under the assumed throughput model.
  2. The abstract and introduction use the term 'severe-stall sessions' without an explicit definition (e.g., threshold on rebuffering time or stall count) until later sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the safety auditor, evaluation protocol, and component analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Runtime safety auditor] Runtime safety auditor section: the safe-capacity lower bounds are presented as the final enforcement layer that blocks unsafe bitrates, yet the manuscript provides no derivation or sensitivity analysis showing that these bounds remain valid when actual throughput deviates from the modeled distribution due to unmodeled satellite handovers; without such analysis the claimed stall reductions cannot be guaranteed to generalize beyond the evaluation traces.

    Authors: We agree the manuscript lacks an explicit derivation and sensitivity analysis for the safe-capacity bounds under unmodeled handover deviations. In revision we will add a derivation of the lower bounds from the throughput distribution and a sensitivity study that injects additional handover perturbations into the traces to assess robustness of the stall reductions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported improvements (severe-stall sessions 22.8%→7.2%, worst-5% rebuffering 54.30 s→22.68 s) are given without an explicit experimental protocol, including trace count, train/test split methodology, number of random seeds, error bars, or statistical significance tests; this absence makes it impossible to judge whether the gains are robust or could be artifacts of particular trace selection.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of protocol details. The revision will specify the trace count, time-based train/test split to prevent leakage, number of random seeds, error bars as standard deviation, and paired statistical significance tests. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Component analyses] Component analyses: while the paper states that risk-calibrated fine-tuning and safe-capacity auditing reduce unsafe decisions, the quantitative contribution of each stage to the final metrics is not isolated with ablations that disable the auditor while keeping the RL policy fixed; this leaves open whether the safety auditor is load-bearing or merely additive.

    Authors: The manuscript reports component analyses but does not isolate the auditor via an ablation that disables only the auditor with the RL policy held fixed. We will add this targeted ablation in the revision to quantify the auditor's contribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical results only

full rationale

The provided manuscript text contains no equations, derivations, or load-bearing mathematical steps. All central claims (severe-stall reduction from 22.8% to 7.2%, worst-5% rebuffering from 54.30 s to 22.68 s) are presented as measured outcomes of experiments on real Starlink traces using a three-stage pipeline. The runtime safety auditor and its safe-capacity lower bounds are described as an implemented component whose effect is validated by component analyses, not derived by construction from the policy or data. No self-citation chains, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an engineering pipeline whose validity is external to any internal reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework is described only at the level of high-level stages and empirical outcomes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5860 in / 1261 out tokens · 36859 ms · 2026-06-30T15:16:59.037409+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Starlink, as a representative low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband system, makes high-bitrate video streaming possible in regions where terrestrial broadband is unavailable. However, its access links exhibit rapid throughput fluctuations caused by satellite mobility and handovers. Existing learned adaptive bitrate (ABR) algorithms can achieve high average quality of experience (QoE), yet high-bitrate Starlink streaming exposes severe session-level rebuffering that is not captured by average QoE alone. To address it, this paper proposes SafeSABR, a risk-calibrated learned ABR framework for Starlink networks. SafeSABR formulates Starlink ABR as a QoE--severe-risk tradeoff and follows a three-stage design: behavior-cloning pretraining learns a high-QoE ABR prior, risk-calibrated reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning reduces severe-tail action tendencies, and a runtime safety auditor uses safe-capacity lower bounds to check policy-requested bitrates before execution. Experiments on real Starlink traces compare SafeSABR with online, prediction-assisted, and learned ABR baselines. Compared with advanced methods, SafeSABR reduces severe-stall sessions from 22.8% to 7.2% and worst-5% session rebuffering from 54.30 s to 22.68 s, with a 1.8% QoE cost. Component analyses further show that risk-calibrated fine-tuning and safe-capacity auditing reduce unsafe bitrate decisions and downstream severe-session rebuffering. These results show that combining risk-calibrated policy learning with decision-aware safe throughput forecasting can move learned ABR toward a safer QoE--severe-risk operating point under volatile Starlink networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23560 by Chao Fan, Genke Yang, Hongjun Xie, Jiahang Zhu, Pengcheng Luo, Zenghui Zhang, Zhiming Shao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative ABR-over-Starlink video delivery scenario. The video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Challenge of ABR streaming over volatile Starlink access links. Handover-induced throughput drops and history-average lag can make an ABR client [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of SafeSABR. SafeSABR addresses the high-bitrate Starlink ABR problem by learning a high-QoE prior through behavior-cloning pretraining, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Framework of SafeSABR. The offline part constructs a high-QoE prior through behavior-cloning pretraining, applies risk-calibrated RL fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Decision-aware safe-capacity prediction and runtime safety auditing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: QoE–severe-risk operating points on Starlink traces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robustness across Starlink regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Robustness across Starlink regions. Darker cells indicate larger severe-session risk, so a robust method should remain lighter across regions rather than only performing well on the aggregate test set. The US trace group is the hardest case for all high-QoE methods, but SafeSABR still keeps the worst-5% session rebuffering at 29.5 s, compared with 48.1 s for StarNet-MPC, 43.5 s for Comyco, and 64.7 s for S… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stress test on handover-heavy Starlink traces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mechanism case study on a representative hard Starlink trace. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mechanism case study on a representative hard Starlink trace. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. StarCodex: Dynamic Coding Harness for Starlink Measurement Analysis and Experiment Automation

    eess.SY 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    StarCodex uses Codex with multi-layer validation to convert evolving Starlink measurements into reusable analysis artifacts, matching supervised baselines while automating the workflow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A first look at starlink performance,

    F. Michel, M. Trevisan, D. Giordano, and O. Bonaventure, “A first look at starlink performance,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, pp. 130–136

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    A browser-side view of starlink connectivity,

    M. M. Kassem, A. Raman, D. Perino, and N. Sastry, “A browser-side view of starlink connectivity,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, pp. 151–158

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Beam training and tracking for extremely large-scale MIMO communications,

    K. Chen, C. Qi, C.-X. Wang, and G. Y . Li, “Beam training and tracking for extremely large-scale MIMO communications,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 5048–5062, May 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Multi-timescale evaluation of starlink throughput,

    J. Garcia, S. Sundberg, G. Caso, and A. Brunstrom, “Multi-timescale evaluation of starlink throughput,” inProceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on LEO Networking and Communication, 2023, pp. 31–36

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    DBRAA: Sub-6 GHz and millimeter wave dual-band reconfigurable antenna array for ISAC,

    K. Chen, C. Qi, and O. A. Dobre, “DBRAA: Sub-6 GHz and millimeter wave dual-band reconfigurable antenna array for ISAC,”IEEE Transac- tions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 9830–9845, Oct. 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Vivisecting starlink throughput: Measurement and prediction,

    Z. Liu, F.-X. G. Reidys, S. Tanveer, and D. Vasisht, “Vivisecting starlink throughput: Measurement and prediction,”Proceedings of the ACM on Networking, vol. 3, no. CoNEXT4, pp. 1–23, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    T3P: Demystifying low-earth orbit satellite broadband,

    S. Tiwari, S. Bhushan, A. Taneja, M. M. Kassem, C. Luo, C. Zhou, Z. He, A. Raman, N. Sastry, L. Qiu, and D. Bhattacherjee, “T3P: Demystifying low-earth orbit satellite broadband,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11835, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Near-field commu- nications for extremely large-scale MIMO: A beamspace perspective,

    K. Chen, C. Qi, J. Huang, O. A. Dobre, and G. Y . Li, “Near-field commu- nications for extremely large-scale MIMO: A beamspace perspective,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 166–172, May 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Genet: Automatic curriculum generation for learning adaptation in networking,

    Z. Xia, Y . Zhou, F. Y . Yan, and J. Jiang, “Genet: Automatic curriculum generation for learning adaptation in networking,” inProceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2022 Conference, 2022, pp. 397–413

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Optimizing adaptive video streaming: Offline reinforcement learning and meta-learning in diverse networks,

    L. Yi, Y . Qin, and R. Huang, “Optimizing adaptive video streaming: Offline reinforcement learning and meta-learning in diverse networks,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Meta reinforcement learning for rate adaptation,

    A. Bentaleb, M. Lim, M. N. Akcay, A. C. Begen, and R. Zimmermann, “Meta reinforcement learning for rate adaptation,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Bitrate adaptation and guidance with meta reinforcement learn- ing,

    ——, “Bitrate adaptation and guidance with meta reinforcement learn- ing,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 10 378–10 392, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Metaabr: A meta-learning approach on adaptative bitrate selection for video streaming,

    W. Li, X. Li, Y . Xu, Y . Yang, and S. Lu, “Metaabr: A meta-learning approach on adaptative bitrate selection for video streaming,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 2422–2437, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Merina+: Improving generalization for neural video adaptation via information- theoretic meta-reinforcement learning,

    N. Kan, C. Li, Y . Jiang, W. Dai, J. Zou, H. Xiong, and L. Toni, “Merina+: Improving generalization for neural video adaptation via information- theoretic meta-reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Netllm: Adapting large language models for networking,

    D. Wu, X. Wang, Y . Qiao, Z. Wang, J. Jiang, S. Cui, and F. Wang, “Netllm: Adapting large language models for networking,” inProceed- ings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2024 Conference, 2024, pp. 661–678

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Risk-aware safe throughput forecasting for starlink networks,

    H. Xie, C. Zhang, P. Luo, Z. Zhang, G. Yang, X. Zhang, and B.-H. Soong, “Risk-aware safe throughput forecasting for starlink networks,”

    work page

  17. [17]

    Risk-Aware Safe Throughput Forecasting for Starlink Networks

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09508

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    SABR: A stable adaptive bitrate framework using behavior cloning pretraining and reinforcement learning fine-tuning,

    P. Luo, Y . Zhao, B. Zhang, G. Yang, B.-H. Soong, and C. Yuen, “SABR: A stable adaptive bitrate framework using behavior cloning pretraining and reinforcement learning fine-tuning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10486, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Network characteristics of LEO satellite constellations: A starlink-based measure- ment from end users,

    S. Ma, Y . C. Chou, H. Zhao, L. Chen, X. Ma, and J. Liu, “Network characteristics of LEO satellite constellations: A starlink-based measure- ment from end users,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2023 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, 2023, pp. 1–10

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    A multifaceted look at starlink performance,

    N. Mohan, A. E. Ferguson, H. Cech, R. Bose, P. R. Renatin, M. K. Marina, and J. Ott, “A multifaceted look at starlink performance,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, 2024, pp. 2723–2734

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Making sense of constellations: Methodologies for understanding star- link’s scheduling algorithms,

    H. B. Tanveer, M. Puchol, R. Singh, A. Bianchi, and R. Nithyanand, “Making sense of constellations: Methodologies for understanding star- link’s scheduling algorithms,” inCompanion of the 19th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies, 2023, pp. 37–43

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Realtime multimedia services over starlink: A reality check,

    H. Zhao, H. Fang, F. Wang, and J. Liu, “Realtime multimedia services over starlink: A reality check,” inProceedings of the 33rd Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video, 2023, pp. 43–49

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Low-latency live video streaming over a low-earth- orbit satellite network with DASH,

    J. Zhao and J. Pan, “Low-latency live video streaming over a low-earth- orbit satellite network with DASH,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, 2024, pp. 109–120

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    A global perspective on the past, present, and future of video streaming over starlink,

    L. Izhikevich, R. Enghardt, T.-Y . Huang, and R. Teixeira, “A global perspective on the past, present, and future of video streaming over starlink,”Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–22, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Lumos: Towards better video streaming QoE through accurate throughput prediction,

    G. Lv, Q. Wu, W. Wang, Z. Li, and G. Xie, “Lumos: Towards better video streaming QoE through accurate throughput prediction,” inIEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 2022, pp. 650–659

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Accurate throughput prediction for improving QoE in mobile adaptive streaming,

    G. Lv, Q. Wu, Q. Tan, W. Wang, Z. Li, and G. Xie, “Accurate throughput prediction for improving QoE in mobile adaptive streaming,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 5799–5817, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Modeling and predicting starlink throughput with fine-grained burst characterization,

    J. Garcia, M. Beckerle, S. Sundberg, and A. Brunstrom, “Modeling and predicting starlink throughput with fine-grained burst characterization,” Computer Communications, vol. 234, p. 108090, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP,

    X. Yin, A. Jindal, V . Sekar, and B. Sinopoli, “A control-theoretic approach for dynamic adaptive video streaming over HTTP,” inPro- ceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 2015, pp. 325–338

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    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 Transactions on Net- working, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1698–1711, 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Neural adaptive video stream- ing with pensieve,

    H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh, “Neural adaptive video stream- ing with pensieve,” inProceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, 2017, pp. 197–210. 15

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Comyco: Quality-aware adaptive video streaming via imitation learning,

    T. Huang, C. Zhou, R.-X. Zhang, C. Wu, X. Yao, and L. Sun, “Comyco: Quality-aware adaptive video streaming via imitation learning,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2019, pp. 429–437

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Optimization of conditional value- at-risk,

    R. T. Rockafellar and S. Uryasev, “Optimization of conditional value- at-risk,”Journal of Risk, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 21–41, 2000

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Risk-sensitive and robust decision-making: A CVaR optimization approach,

    Y . Chow, A. Tamar, S. Mannor, and M. Pavone, “Risk-sensitive and robust decision-making: A CVaR optimization approach,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 28, 2015

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Risk- constrained reinforcement learning with percentile risk criteria,

    Y . Chow, M. Ghavamzadeh, L. Janson, and M. Pavone, “Risk- constrained reinforcement learning with percentile risk criteria,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 18, no. 167, pp. 1–51, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Safe reinforcement learning via shielding,

    M. Alshiekh, R. Bloem, R. Ehlers, B. Könighofer, S. Niekum, and U. Topcu, “Safe reinforcement learning via shielding,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018, pp. 2669–2678

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. J. Gordon, and J. A. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011, pp. 627–635

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    Quality-aware neural adaptive video streaming with lifelong imitation learning,

    T. Huang, C. Zhou, X. Yao, R.-X. Zhang, C. Wu, B. Yu, and L. Sun, “Quality-aware neural adaptive video streaming with lifelong imitation learning,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 2324–2342, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,” inProceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 2016, pp. 785–794

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dor- mann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021

    work page 2021