skip to main content
10.1145/3098822.3098843acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Client-side video players employ adaptive bitrate (ABR) algorithms to optimize user quality of experience (QoE). Despite the abundance of recently proposed schemes, state-of-the-art ABR algorithms suffer from a key limitation: they use fixed control rules based on simplified or inaccurate models of the deployment environment. As a result, existing schemes inevitably fail to achieve optimal performance across a broad set of network conditions and QoE objectives.

We propose Pensieve, a system that generates ABR algorithms using reinforcement learning (RL). Pensieve trains a neural network model that selects bitrates for future video chunks based on observations collected by client video players. Pensieve does not rely on pre-programmed models or assumptions about the environment. Instead, it learns to make ABR decisions solely through observations of the resulting performance of past decisions. As a result, Pensieve automatically learns ABR algorithms that adapt to a wide range of environments and QoE metrics. We compare Pensieve to state-of-the-art ABR algorithms using trace-driven and real world experiments spanning a wide variety of network conditions, QoE metrics, and video properties. In all considered scenarios, Pensieve outperforms the best state-of-the-art scheme, with improvements in average QoE of 12%--25%. Pensieve also generalizes well, outperforming existing schemes even on networks for which it was not explicitly trained.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

neuraladaptivevideostreamingwithpensieve.webm

webm

88.4 MB

References

  1. M. Abadi et al. 2016. TensorFlow: A System for Large-scale Machine Learning. In OSDI. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Akamai. 2016. dash.js. https://github.com/Dash-Industry-Forum/dash.js/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Akhshabi, A. C. Begen, and C. Dovrolis. 2011. An Experimental Evaluation of Rate-adaptation Algorithms in Adaptive Streaming over HTTP. In MMSys. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Allman, V. Paxson, and E. Blanton. 2009. TCP congestion control. RFC 5681.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. M. Bishop. 2006. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. Chiariotti et al. 2016. Online learning adaptation strategy for DASH clients. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Multimedia Systems. ACM, 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cisco. 2016. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2015--2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Claeys et al. 2013. Design of a Q-learning-based client quality selection algorithm for HTTP adaptive video streaming. In Adaptive and Learning Agents Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Claeys et al. 2014. Design and optimisation of a (FA) Q-learning-based HTTP adaptive streaming client. Connection Science (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Communications Commission. 2016. Raw Data - Measuring Broadband America. (2016). https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/raw-data-measuring-broadband-america-2016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. DASH Industry Form. 2016. Reference Client 2.4.0. http://mediapm.edgesuite.net/dash/public/nightly/samples/dash-if-reference-player/index.html. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. F. Dobrian et al. 2011. Understanding the Impact of Video Quality on User Engagement. In SIGCOMM. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Fairhurst et al. 2015. Updating TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic. RFC 7661 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks.. In Aistats, Vol. 9. 249--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. T. Hagan, H. B. Demuth, M. H. Beale, and O. De Jesús. 1996. Neural network design. PWS publishing company Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Han, H. Mao, and W. J. Dally. 2015. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural network with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. CoRR, abs/1510.00149 2 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Handley, J. Padhye, and S. Floyd. 2000. TCP Congestion Window Validation. RFC 2861 (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. T.Y. Huang et al. 2012. Confused, Timid, and Unstable: Picking a Video Streaming Rate is Hard. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. T.Y. Huang et al. 2014. A Buffer-based Approach to Rate Adaptation: Evidence from a Large Video Streaming Service. In SIGCOMM. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Jaderberg et al. 2017. Reinforcement learning with unsupervised auxiliary tasks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Jiang, V. Sekar, and H. Zhang. 2012. Improving Fairness, Efficiency, and Stability in HTTP-based Adaptive Video Streaming with FESTIVE. In CoNEXT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Jiang et al. 2016. CFA: A Practical Prediction System for Video QoE Optimization. In NSDI. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. I. Ketykó et al. 2010. QoE Measurement of Mobile YouTube Video Streaming. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mobile Video Delivery (MoViD). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. V. R Konda and J. N. Tsitsiklis. 2000. Actor-critic algorithms. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 1008--1014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. S. S. Krishnan and R. K. Sitaraman. 2012. Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior: Inferring Causality Using Quasi-experimental Designs. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference (IMC). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Z. Li et al. 2014. Probe and Adapt: Rate Adaptation for HTTP Video Streaming At Scale. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. H. Mao, M. Alizadeh, I. Menache, and S. Kandula. 2016. Resource Management with Deep Reinforcement Learning. In HotNets. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh. 2017. Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve. (2017). http://web.mit.edu/pensieve/content/pensieve-tech-report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. V. Mnih et al. 2015. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518 (2015), 529--533. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. V. Mnih et al. 2016. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 1928--1937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. K.P. Mok, E. W. W. Chan, X. Luo, and R. K.C. Chang. 2011. Inferring the QoE of HTTP Video Streaming from User-viewing Activities. In Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Measurements Up the Stack (W-MUST). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. R. K. P. Mok, E. W. W. Chan, and R. K. C. Chang. 2011. Measuring the quality of experience of HTTP video streaming. In 12th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2011) and Workshops. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. R. Netravali et al. 2015. Mahimahi: Accurate Record-and-Replay for HTTP. In Proceedings of USENIX ATC.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. K. Piamrat, C. Viho, J. M. Bonnin, and A. Ksentini. 2009. Quality of Experience Measurements for Video Streaming over Wireless Networks. In Proceedings of the 2009 Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG). IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. W. B. Powell. 2007. Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the curses of dimensionality. Vol. 703. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. B. Recht, C. Re, S. Wright, and F. Niu. 2011. Hogwild: A lock-free approach to parallelizing stochastic gradient descent. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 693--701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. H. Riiser et al. 2013. Commute Path Bandwidth Traces from 3G Networks: Analysis and Applications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys). ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. K. Rowling. 2000. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. London: Bloomsbury.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandvine. 2015. Global Internet Phenomena-Latin American & North America.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. D. Silver et al. 2016. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529 (2016), 484--503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. K. Spiteri, R. Urgaonkar, and R. K. Sitaraman. 2016. BOLA: Near-Optimal Bitrate Adaptation for Online Videos. CoRR abs/1601.06748 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Y. Sun et al. 2016. CS2P: Improving Video Bitrate Selection and Adaptation with Data-Driven Throughput Prediction. In SIGCOMM. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. R. S. Sutton et al. 1999. Policy gradient methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation.. In NIPS, Vol. 99. 1057--1063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Synaptic. 2016. synaptic.js -- The javascript architecture-free neural network library for node.js and the browser. https://synaptic.juancazala.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. TFLearn. 2017. TFLearn: Deep learning library featuring a higher-level API for TensorFlow. http://tflearn.org/. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. J. van der Hooft et al. A learning-based algorithm for improved bandwidth-awareness of adaptive streaming clients. In 2015 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. A. S. Vezhnevets et al. 2017. FeUdal Networks for Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01161 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. K. Winstein, A. Sivaraman, and H. Balakrishnan. Stochastic Forecasts Achieve High Throughput and Low Delay over Cellular Networks. In NSDI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Y. Wu and Y. Tian. 2017. Training agent for first-person shooter game with actor-critic curriculum learning. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. X. Yin, A. Jindal, V. Sekar, and B. Sinopoli. 2015. A Control-Theoretic Approach for Dynamic Adaptive Video Streaming over HTTP. In SIGCOMM. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Y. Zaki et al. 2015. Adaptive congestion control for unpredictable cellular networks. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. X. K. Zou. 2015. Can Accurate Predictions Improve Video Streaming in Cellular Networks?. In HotMobile. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGCOMM '17: Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication
          August 2017
          515 pages
          ISBN:9781450346535
          DOI:10.1145/3098822

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 7 August 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader