journal article·2025-12-12Open access

Crowd-Sourced Subjective Assessment of Adaptive Bitrate Algorithms in Low-Latency MPEG-DASH Streaming

Syed Uddin, Michał Grega, Waqas ur Rahman, Mikołaj Leszczuk

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 24

Abstract

Video-centric applications have seen significant growth in recent years with HTTP Adaptive Streaming (HAS) becoming a widely adopted method for video delivery. Recently, low-latency (LL) adaptive bitrate (ABR) algorithms have recently been proposed to reduce the end-to-end delay in HTTP adaptive streaming. This study investigates whether low-latency adaptive bitrate (LL-ABR) algorithms, in their effort to reduce delay, also compromise video quality. To this end, this study presents both objective and subjective evaluation of user experience with traditional DASH and low-latency ABR algorithms. The study employs crowdsourcing to evaluate user-perceived video quality in low-latency MPEG-DASH streaming, with a particular focus on the impact of short segment durations. We also investigate the extent to which quantitative QoE (Quality of Experience) metrics correspond to the subjective evaluation results. Results show that the Dynamic algorithm outperforms the low-latency algorithms, achieving higher stability and perceptual quality. Among low-latency methods, Low-on-Latency (LOL+) demonstrates superior QoE compared to Learn2Adapt-LowLatency (L2A-LL), which tends to sacrifice visual consistency for latency gains. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating subjective evaluation into the design of ABR algorithms and highlight the need for user-centric and perceptually aware optimization strategies in low-latency streaming systems. Our results show that the subjective scores do not always align with objective performance metrics. The viewers are found to be sensitive to complex or high-motion content, where maintaining a consistent user experience becomes challenging despite favorable objective performance metrics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Image and Video Quality Assessment · Video Coding and Compression Technologies · Network Traffic and Congestion Control

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

College of Computing, Birmingham City University, Birmingham B4 7XG, UK

Funding

Technology for Secure and Reliable Delivery of Professional Audio/Video Contribution Live Transmissions with the Lowest Possible Latency

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Cloud-based video streaming services: Trends, challenges, and opportunities10.1049/cit2.12299 ↗
2. Bentaleb, A., Zhan, Z., Tashtarian, F., Lim, M., Harous, S., Timmerer, C., Hellwagner, H., and Zimmermann, R. (2022, January 10–14). Low Latency Live Streaming Implementation in DASH and HLS. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’22), Lisboa, Portugal.10.1145/3503161.3548544 ↗
3. Shih, W.-C., Wang, Z.-Y., Kristiani, E., Hsieh, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-H., Li, C.-H., and Yang, C.-T. (2025). The Construction of a Stream Service Application with DeepStream and Simple Realtime Server Using Containerization for Edge Computing. Sensors, 25.10.3390/s25010259 ↗
4. Quality of Experience for Streaming Services: Measurements, Challenges and Insights10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965099 ↗
5. Improving quality of experience in adaptive low latency live streaming10.1007/s11042-023-15895-9 ↗
6. Multidimensional modelling of quality of experience for video streaming10.1016/j.chb.2021.107155 ↗
7. A Quality-of-Experience Database for Adaptive Video Streaming10.1109/TBC.2018.2822870 ↗
8. QoE Modeling for HTTP Adaptive Video Streaming—A Survey and Open Challenges10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901778 ↗
9. A comprehensive review of quality of experience for emerging video services
10. Chavez, M.A., Feanny, M., Seita, M., Thompson, B., Delk, K., Officer, S., Glasser, A., Kushalnagar, R., and Vogler, C. (2024, January 11–16). How Users Experience Closed Captions on Live Television: Quality Metrics Remain a Challenge. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24), Honolulu, HI, USA.
11. QoE optimization for HTTP adaptive streaming: Performance evaluation of MEC-assisted and client-based methods10.1016/j.jvcir.2021.103415 ↗
12. Uddin, S., Grega, M., Leszczuk, M., and Rahman, W.U. (2025). Evaluating HAS and Low-Latency Streaming Algorithms for Enhanced QoE. Electronics, 14.10.20944/preprints202504.1114.v1 ↗
13. O’Hanlon, P., and Aslam, A. (2023). Latency Target based Analysis of the DASH.js Player. arXiv.10.1145/3587819.3590971 ↗
14. A multi-path-based adaptive scheme for multi-view streaming over HTTP10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2884248 ↗
15. Duanmu, Z., Liu, W., Li, Z., Chen, D., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., and Gao, W. (2020). Assessing the Quality-of-Experience of Adaptive Bitrate Video Streaming. arXiv.
16. Liu, W., Xu, Y., Yi, S., Zhao, T., and Fang, Y. (2019, January 4–9). The Impact of Multimedia Synchronization and Buffering on Quality of Experience (QoE) in Audiovisual Transmission. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Real-Time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), Irkutsk, Russia.10.1109/RCAR47638.2019.9044110 ↗
17. Audiovisual Quality of Live Music Streaming over Mobile Networks using MPEG-DASH10.1007/s11042-020-09047-6 ↗
18. Huyen, T., Pham Ngoc, N., Hossfeld, T., Seufert, M., and Cong Thang, T. (2019). Cumulative Quality Modeling for HTTP Adaptive Streaming. arXiv.
19. Intense: In-Depth Studies on Stall Events and Quality Switches and Their Impact on the Quality of Experience in HTTP Adaptive Streaming10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107619 ↗
20. Ghadiyaram, D., Pan, J., Bovik, A.C., Moorthy, A., Panda, P., and Yang, K.-C. (2017, January 5–9). Subjective and objective quality assessment of Mobile Videos with In-Capture distortions. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1109/ICASSP.2017.7952385 ↗
21. Zabrovskiy, A., Feldmann, C., and Timmerer, C. (2018). Multi-Codec DASH Dataset. arXiv.10.1145/3204949.3208140 ↗
22. A Subjective and Objective Study of Stalling Events in Mobile Streaming Videos10.1109/TCSVT.2017.2768542 ↗
23. Rao, R.R.R., Göring, S., Robitza, W., Feiten, B., and Raake, A. (2019, January 9–11). AVT-VQDB-UHD-1: A Large Scale Video Quality Database for UHD-1. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM), San Diego, CA, USA.
24. Li, Z., Duanmu, Z., Liu, W., and Wang, Z. (2019, January 27–29). AVC, HEVC, VP9, AVS2 or AV1?—A Comparative Study of State-of-the-Art Video Encoders on 4K Videos. Proceedings of the Image Analysis and Recognition: 16th International Conference, ICIAR 2019, Waterloo, ON, Canada. Proceedings, Part I.10.1007/978-3-030-27202-9_14 ↗
25. MCL-V: A streaming video quality assessment database10.1016/j.jvcir.2015.02.012 ↗
26. Mercat, A., Viitanen, M., and Vanne, J. (2020, January 8–11). UVG dataset: 50/120fps 4K sequences for video codec analysis and development. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys ’20), Istanbul, Turkey.10.1145/3339825.3394937 ↗
27. Taraghi, B., Amirpour, H., and Timmerer, C. (2022, January 14–17). Multi-codec ultra high definition 8K MPEG-DASH dataset. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys ’22), Athlone, Ireland.10.1145/3524273.3532889 ↗
28. Quality assessment of higher resolution images and videos with remote testing10.1007/s41233-023-00055-6 ↗
29. Rao, R.R.R., Göring, S., and Raake, A. (2021, January 14–17). Towards High Resolution Video Quality Assessment in the Crowd. Proceedings of the 2021 13th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1109/QoMEX51781.2021.9465425 ↗
30. Bampis, C.G., Krasula, L., Li, Z., and Akhtar, O. (2023, January 20–22). Measuring and Predicting Perceptions of Video Quality Across Screen Sizes with Crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the 2023 15th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Ghent, Belgium.10.1109/QoMEX58391.2023.10178501 ↗
31. Montgomery, M. (2025, January 01). Xiph.org Video Test Media [Derf’s Collection]. Available online: https://media.xiph.org/video/derf/.
32. FFmpeg Developers (2024, December 20). FFmpeg—A Complete, Cross-Platform Solution to Record, Convert and Stream Audio and Video. Available online: https://ffmpeg.org.
33. Uhrina, M., Holesova, A., Bienik, J., and Sevcik, L. (2021). Impact of Scene Content on High Resolution Video Quality. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21082872 ↗
34. ITU-T (2023). Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. ITU-TRecommendation P.910, International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
35. A descriptive analysis and interpretation of data from Likert scales in educational and psychological research
36. Effective Use of Likert Scales in Visualization Evaluations: A Systematic Review10.1111/cgf.14521 ↗
37. New objective QoE models for evaluating ABR algorithms in DASH10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.011 ↗
38. TQP: An Efficient Video Quality Assessment Framework for Adaptive Bitrate Video Streaming10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3418375 ↗
39. Marx, E., Yan, F.Y., and Winstein, K. (2020). Implementing BOLA-BASIC on Puffer: Lessons for the use of SSIM in ABR logic. arXiv.
40. From Theory to Practice: Improving Bitrate Adaptation in the DASH Reference Player10.1145/3336497 ↗
41. Lim, M., Akcay, M.N., Bentaleb, A., Begen, A.C., and Zimmermann, R. (2020, January 8–11). When they go high, we go low: Low-latency live streaming in dash.js with LoL. Proceedings of the 11th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys ’20), Istanbul, Turkey.10.1145/3339825.3397043 ↗
42. Catching the Moment with LoL+ in Twitch-Like Low-Latency Live Streaming Platforms10.1109/TMM.2021.3079288 ↗
43. Prolific: Crowdsourcing Academic Online Research
44. ITU-T (2012). P.1401: Methods, Metrics and Procedures for Statistical Evaluation, Qualification and Comparison of Objective Quality Prediction Models, International Telecommunication Union.