Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Neural-Enhanced Rate Adaptation and Computation Distribution for Emerging mmWave Multi-User 3D Video Streaming Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reinforcement-learning agent that first chooses where each 360-degree VR video segment is decoded and rendered, and only then sets the bitrate, beats rate-only adaptation on viewport quality, rebuffering, and quality consistency in…

desk verdict A solid simulator study of cascaded DRL for joint rate/computation control in 360 VR over mmWave; the headline gains are real inside the simulator but conditional on an oracle-viewport assumption and modified baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13337 v1 pith:QUJDCLTR submitted 2025-05-19 cs.IT cs.ETcs.MMcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT

Babak Badnava , Jacob Chakareski , Morteza Hashemi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITcs.ETcs.MMcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT
keywords 360-degreevideostreamingvirtualrealitymillimeter-wavenetworksmulti-accessedgecomputingdeepreinforcementlearningrateadaptationcomputationoffloadingqualityofexperience
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 takes on the communication-versus-computation tension in 360-degree virtual-reality streaming over millimeter-wave links: rendering video at a nearby edge server saves work on the headset but enlarges the data that must cross the wireless link, while rendering on the headset saves bandwidth but can exhaust device processing and stall playback. The authors formulate a constrained video-quality maximization problem that couples two decisions for each video segment — how many viewport enhancement layers to stream (rate adaptation) and where decoding and rendering happen (computation distribution) — and solve it with deep reinforcement learning that requires no model of the environment, only past playback statistics and content information. Their central claim is that the order of these decisions matters: a cascaded agent that chooses computation distribution first and rate second (C1R2) yields the best policy, with 5.21–6.06 dB higher viewport PSNR, 2.18–2.70 times less rebuffering time, and 4.14–4.50 dB less quality variation than rate-only state-of-the-art baselines in a trace-driven simulator. If correct, this suggests edge-assisted VR delivery should treat computation placement as a learned, online decision rather than a fixed system choice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a multi-task neural network cascade: a two-stage actor in which the later stage receives the earlier stage's action as an additional input, making the second policy explicitly conditional on the first. R1C2 conditions computation distribution on the chosen rate, while C1R2 conditions rate adaptation on the chosen computation distribution, and the shared state is the same playback statistics and video information for all users. Training uses dual-clip proximal policy optimization with an auxiliary phase of behavioral-cloning KL penalties and value losses, and the rebuffering-time and quality-variation constraints are folded into the reward through Lagrangian coefficients that are updated online. The cascade does the work the paper claims: it lets one sub-policy see the other sub-policy's decision, which is how the agent captures the interdependence between bitrate and processing location.

What would settle it

Add measured viewport-prediction error to the simulator (for example, 5–20 degrees of angular noise) and rerun C1R2 against R1C2; if the computation-first advantage shrinks or reverses, the central ordering claim depends on perfect viewports rather than on the cascade itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multitask learning can replace fixed assumptions about where video processing happens. For each group of pictures, the agent chooses a one-hot computation-distribution action — decode and render at the edge, decode at the edge and render at the headset, or decode and render at the headset — together with a rate action selecting how many enhancement layers to stream for the user's viewport. The objective is to maximize viewport PSNR (peak signal-to-noise ratio, a standard quality measure) while keeping rebuffering time and viewport quality variation below user-specified thresholds, with edge-computing resources shared across all users. The paper introduces three actor-critic agents: a joint MTRC, a rate-first cascade R1C2, and a computation-first cascade C1R2, all trained with real 360-degree video rate-distortion data, head-movement traces, and mmWave throughput traces. The reported result is that C1R2 outperforms the rate-only baselines by 5.21–6.06 dB in viewport PSNR, 2.18–2.70× in rebuffering time, and 4.14–4.50 dB in quality variation, while R1C2 tends to give the lowest rebuffering time across video content and network conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the paper's stated assumption that each user's viewport is available or accurately predicted, since viewport PSNR and the choice of viewport-specific enhancement layers are evaluated on that true field of view, and imperfect prediction would degrade both the measured quality and the learned policy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Computation placement can be part of the same online control loop as bitrate selection, rather than a fixed architectural choice made before streaming starts.
  • Rate adaptation gains access to the time a segment needs for decoding and rendering, so bitrate can be chosen against the actual delivery deadline instead of throughput alone.
  • Adaptive Lagrangian coefficients allow a single policy to enforce per-user rebuffering and quality-variation targets without manually tuned weights in the reward.
  • Shared edge-computing constraints can be handled by per-user policy updates whose joint probability ratios propagate one user's policy change into other users' rewards.
  • Under high-throughput mmWave conditions the advantage of learning computation placement shrinks, so the practical value of the approach concentrates in constrained network regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the ordering principle — fix the constraint-setting decision before the resource-consuming decision — should generalize to other edge systems where a placement action determines a deadline or budget for a later allocation action, such as cache placement before delivery scheduling.
  • Inference: because all reported quality numbers are computed over the user's true viewport, the paper's stated viewport-availability assumption is the most likely place for real-world performance to diverge; testing C1R2 under head-movement prediction error would bound the expected deployment loss.
  • Inference: a natural ablation the paper does not run is to feed the rate agent a soft probability over computation-distribution choices instead of the sampled one-hot action; if soft conditioning preserves the gains, the benefit may be information sharing rather than strict sequential causality.
  • Inference: the same cascade idea could be applied to joint caching and delivery decisions, where a cache miss constrains the feasible bitrate in a way that mirrors how computation location constrains bitrate here.
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 studies joint rate adaptation and computation distribution for multi-user 360-degree VR video streaming over mmWave networks. It formulates a constrained quality-maximization problem with rebuffering-time and quality-variation constraints, proposes a PPO-based deep reinforcement learning framework called MTRC, and extends it to two cascaded variants, R1C2 and C1R2, in which one decision stage receives the output of the other. The methods are evaluated in a trace-driven simulator built from a UHD 360-degree video dataset, head-movement traces, and commercial mmWave throughput traces. The headline claim is that C1R2 outperforms ECU-Pensieve and Headset-Pensieve by 5.21-6.06 dB in viewport PSNR, 2.18-2.70x in rebuffering time, and 4.14-4.50 dB in quality variation. The paper also reports per-video results, network-condition breakdowns, and a perceptual-quality comparison using SSIM, VMAF, and MSE.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the paper makes a useful contribution to edge-assisted VR streaming: it demonstrates that jointly deciding where to decode/render and how much rate to allocate can improve QoE, and the cascaded policy structure is a clean way to handle interdependent action spaces. The trace-driven evaluation uses real datasets and includes useful ablations (ECU-R and Headset-R) plus per-video and per-network-condition tables. I do not see a circularity problem in using QoE components both as rewards and as evaluation metrics, since that is standard practice for RL streaming agents. The main qualifications are that the simulator is not released, the headline experiments assume perfect viewport information, and the baselines do not have the computation-placement decision variable; these issues are addressable in revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [II, VI] The central performance claim is measured under an oracle-viewport assumption that is acknowledged but not tested. Section II states that the authors 'assume the availability (or prediction) of viewport information,' and Section VI uses ground-truth head-movement data to construct the viewport enhancement layers and to compute viewport PSNR. In a deployed system, enhancement layers for a GoP must be chosen before the user's head orientation at playback is known, so prediction error will place enhancement effort outside the true viewport and will also change the reward signal used for training. Please add a noisy-viewport or predicted-viewport experiment with a prediction horizon equal to the GoP duration and error calibrated to head-trace data, and report the resulting PSNR, rebuffering time, and quality variation; without it, the 5.21-6.06 dB headline gain is conditional on perfect information.
  2. [V, Eqs. (8)-(10), Algorithm 1] The Lagrange multiplier updates in Eqs. (8)-(10) and Algorithm 1 (lines 9-10) are not a valid saddle-point solution. For fixed primal actions, minimizing mu0(H0-S) over mu0 >= 0 gives mu0 = 0 when H0-S > 0 and an unbounded solution when H0-S < 0, so Eq. (10) cannot yield the intended finite multipliers. Moreover, the gradient of this expression with respect to mu0 is H0-S, so the update mu0 <- mu0 + lambda * grad_{mu0} L_{mu0} increases the coefficient when rebuffering is below target and decreases it when rebuffering exceeds target, which is the opposite of the stated intent. This needs to be corrected, or the update must be explicitly presented as a heuristic with the sign and convergence behavior justified.
  3. [VI, first paragraph and Tables III-V] The comparison baselines are all constrained to a fixed computation location: ECU-Pensieve, ECU-COREL, and ECU-BBA compute at the ECU, while the Headset variants compute at the headset. None of these baselines can select the computation distribution, so the reported gains over them conflate the benefit of the new decision variable with the benefit of the proposed learning and cascade design. The ECU-R/Headset-R ablations are helpful, but the manuscript should also compare against a joint-decision baseline, such as Pensieve or COREL augmented with a computation-placement action, so that the contribution of the architecture rather than the extra degree of freedom is identified.
  4. [VI, Tables III-V] The evaluation reports only means and standard deviations over 300 test episodes, and the claimed ranking is not supported by any significance test or confidence interval. For example, in Table III (low throughput) C1R2 is 53.65 +/- 1.85 dB versus ECU-R at 53.17 +/- 1.54 dB, and in Table IV (low throughput) C1R2 has 0.58 +/- 1.16 s rebuffering versus Headset-BBA at 0.07 +/- 0.05 s. Please add paired significance tests or bootstrap confidence intervals for the headline comparisons. In addition, since all results come from a self-built simulator, releasing the simulator and the training/evaluation configuration would allow readers to verify the internal consistency of the environment and the exact reward formulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7d)] Eq. (7d) uses phi^{m,3}_n, but the one-hot computation-distribution vector is defined in Eq. (6) with indices 0, 1, and 2 only; the third term should use phi^{m,2}_n.
  2. [Table VI] The heading 'YSME' in Table VI appears to be a typo and should read 'MSE'.
  3. [Eqs. (17), (20), (21)] The loss name 'L Jonit' is a misspelling of 'L Joint' and should be corrected consistently.
  4. [Abstract and Table III] The abstract's claimed PSNR range of 5.21-6.06 dB does not exactly match the values implied by Table III across the two Pensieve baselines (approximately 5.18-6.22 dB); please harmonize the stated ranges and identify precisely which tables support the abstract numbers.
  5. [Table IV] The Headset-BBA row shows unusually low rebuffering time under low throughput (0.07 +/- 0.05 s) compared with all other baselines, but this result is not discussed; a brief explanation would help the reader interpret the table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are simulator evaluations against external baselines; the reward/evaluation alignment is standard RL practice, not a fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an RL training loop: the MTRC/C1R2/R1C2 agents are trained with PPO on rewards equal to per-step changes in the QoE objective (Eqs. 8 and 11), and the Section VI 'deployment performance' reports viewport PSNR, rebuffering time, and quality variation measured from a trace-driven simulator built on an external 360-degree video dataset [44] and real-world mmWave traces [56]. The coincidence between reward components and evaluation metrics is the standard objective design for an RL streaming agent, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the Lagrangian multipliers in Eq. (10) are updated online to enforce user-specified constraints H0 and H1, and they are not used as test-time predictions. The decoding/rendering model and dataset cited from [3] and [44] are external empirical inputs that share a co-author, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and they do not by themselves force the reported gains. Baselines (Pensieve, COREL, BBA) are independent external algorithms, and the comparisons are self-contained in the simulator. The oracle-viewport assumption (Section II) is a limitation for deployment robustness, not a circular step. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation results depend on these hand-set values and on assumptions about viewport knowledge, the linear computation model, and the representativeness of the datasets. The paper does not perform sensitivity analysis with respect to the free parameters, so the claimed PSNR and rebuffering gains are tied to this specific parameterization.

free parameters (9)
  • H0 (target rebuffering time) = 2 seconds
    System-set constraint target in the Lagrangian and reward (Table I). It controls how hard the agent avoids rebuffering.
  • H1 (maximum quality variation) = 1.09 to 2.99 dB per video
    Per-video constraint target in the Lagrangian and reward (Table I).
  • alpha (rendering size expansion factor) = 2.1
    Simulator parameter from Eq. (7d); affects transmitted size after rendering.
  • beta (compression reduction factor) = 0.6
    Simulator parameter; affects decoded size and rendering complexity.
  • ECU decoding/rendering speeds = 7.5 and 20 Gbps
    Computational capacity of the edge unit in the simulator (Table I).
  • Headset decoding/rendering speeds = 0.2 and 9.4 Gbps
    Computational capacity of each VR headset (Table I).
  • Initial Lagrange multipliers mu0, mu1 = 0.1, 0.1
    Initialized by hand (Algorithm 1, line 1) and then learned; the initialization affects early training but not the converged policy.
  • Entropy weight kappa = 0.01
    Exploration-exploitation trade-off in PPO loss (Table I).
  • Discount factor gamma = 0.99
    Standard RL discount (Section V).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Viewport information is available (or perfectly predicted) for each user at decision time.
    Quality q(e_m_n) is computed as PSNR over the user's FoV, and enhancement layers are selected per tile. The paper states this in Section II and assumes it throughout the state and reward design.
  • domain assumption Decoding and rendering times are proportional to the bitrate divided by the device's processing speed (model from [3]).
    Section III-A defines D_m_n = s_tilde(e)/Z_dec and P_m_n = s(e)/Z_rend with s_tilde(e) = d(e) and s(e) = d(e)/beta. The validity of the results depends on this linear complexity model.
  • domain assumption The rate-distortion tables from the Full UHD 360-degree dataset [44] correctly describe the PSNR achieved by each enhancement-layer combination.
    The quality function q(.) is evaluated using the dataset's bitrate and MSE values in the simulator (Section VI).
  • domain assumption The mmWave throughput traces from commercial 5G operators [56] are representative of the deployment conditions of interest.
    Training and testing draw from these traces to model the time-varying channel (Section VI).
  • standard math PPO with dual-clip converges to a near-optimal policy for this MDP within 5,000 episodes.
    The training section assumes the RL algorithm learns a good policy; no convergence guarantees are provided. This is a standard working assumption in DRL system papers.
  • ad hoc to paper The primal-dual coefficient update (Eq. 10) converges to Lagrange multipliers that steer the policy toward the constraints H0 and H1.
    The paper updates mu0, mu1 via gradient steps on the dual function (Algorithm 1, lines 9-10) but does not prove convergence when the primal is solved approximately by a neural policy. This is a load-bearing assumption for the constrained formulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neural-Enhanced Rate Adaptation and Computation Distribution for Emerging mmWave Multi-User 3D Video Streaming Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUJDCLTR

@misc{pith2026250513337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neural-Enhanced Rate Adaptation and Computation Distribution for Emerging mmWave Multi-User 3D Video Streaming Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUJDCLTR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13337}
}
abstract

We investigate multitask edge-user communication-computation resource allocation for $360^\circ$ video streaming in an edge-computing enabled millimeter wave (mmWave) multi-user virtual reality system. To balance the communication-computation trade-offs that arise herein, we formulate a video quality maximization problem that integrates interdependent multitask/multi-user action spaces and rebuffering time/quality variation constraints. We formulate a deep reinforcement learning framework for \underline{m}ulti-\underline{t}ask \underline{r}ate adaptation and \underline{c}omputation distribution (MTRC) to solve the problem of interest. Our solution does not rely on a priori knowledge about the environment and uses only prior video streaming statistics (e.g., throughput, decoding time, and transmission delay), and content information, to adjust the assigned video bitrates and computation distribution, as it observes the induced streaming performance online. Moreover, to capture the task interdependence in the environment, we leverage neural network cascades to extend our MTRC method to two novel variants denoted as R1C2 and C1R2. We train all three methods with real-world mmWave network traces and $360^\circ$ video datasets to evaluate their performance in terms of expected quality of experience (QoE), viewport peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), rebuffering time, and quality variation. We outperform state-of-the-art rate adaptation algorithms, with C1R2 showing best results and achieving $5.21-6.06$ dB PSNR gains, $2.18-2.70$x rebuffering time reduction, and $4.14-4.50$ dB quality variation reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Edge-assisted VR system model: Multiple VR headsets connected to an edge computing unit (ECU) via a mmWave network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-layer 360◦ video model (lower left corner): Viewport-specific enhancement layers combined with a wide 360◦ panorama baseline layer are transmitted to a VR headset via a mmWave wireless link. As the number of added enhancement layers increases, the video bitrate and the video quality delivered to the VR user increase. Rate Adaptation for VR Systems. The authors in [29] proposed a FoV prediction algorithm, where… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VR headset playback buffer dynamics. A. User Headset Model The VR headset is connected to the ECU via a mmWave wireless link for video streaming. The ECU decides on sending raw (i.e., compressed), decoded, or decoded and rendered video to each headset. The VR headsets are also equipped with a CPU and GPU to process the videos in case the ECU decides to send the raw video to the user. We assume that the n th VR heads… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our MTRC architecture comprises actor and critic networks. Based on the observed state information for each user, the actor network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) MTRC makes a joint decision on rate adaptation and computation distribution action. (b) and (c) R1C2 and C1R2 employ neural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance trade-offs between rebuffering time (RT), quality variation (QV), and PSNR during testing stage. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Network throughput cumulative distribution function (CDF). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    State of the Edge,

    SeaGate, “State of the Edge,” https://www.seagate.com/www-content/enterprise-storage/it-4-0/images/Data-At-The-Edge-UP1.pdf, 2019, [Online]

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Towards Enabling Next Generation Societal Virtual Reality Applications for Virtual Human Teleportation,

    J. Chakareski, M. Khan, and M. Yuksel, “Towards Enabling Next Generation Societal Virtual Reality Applications for Virtual Human Teleportation,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Millimeter Wave and Free-Space-Optics for Future Dual-Connectivity 6DOF Mobile Multi-User VR Streaming,

    J. Chakareski, M. Khan, T. Ropitault, and S. Blandino, “Millimeter Wave and Free-Space-Optics for Future Dual-Connectivity 6DOF Mobile Multi-User VR Streaming,” ACM Trans. Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications. , vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1–25, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Virtual Reality (VR) Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis,

    F. B. Insights, “Virtual Reality (VR) Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis,” https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/ virtual-reality-market-101378, [Online]

    work page

  5. [5]

    6DOF Virtual Reality Dataset and Performance Evaluation of Millimeter Wave vs. Free-Space- Optical Indoor Communications Systems for Lifelike Mobile VR Streaming,

    J. Chakareski, M. Khan, T. Ropitault, and S. Blandino, “6DOF Virtual Reality Dataset and Performance Evaluation of Millimeter Wave vs. Free-Space- Optical Indoor Communications Systems for Lifelike Mobile VR Streaming,” in Proc. 54 th Asilomar Conf. on Sig., Sys., and Computers , 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Phasic Policy Gradient,

    K. Cobbe, J. Hilton, O. Klimov, and J. Schulman, “Phasic Policy Gradient,” arXiv:2009.04416, 2020

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Instance-Aware Semantic Segmentation via Multi-task Network Cascades,

    J. Dai, K. He, and J. Sun, “Instance-Aware Semantic Segmentation via Multi-task Network Cascades,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016. 14

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Openai gym,

    G. Brockman, V . Cheung, L. Pettersson, J. Schneider, J. Schulman, J. Tang, and W. Zaremba, “Openai gym,” arXiv:1606.01540, 2016

    arXiv 2016

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    MEC-Assisted FoV-Aware and QoE-Driven Adaptive 360° Video Streaming for Virtual Reality,

    C.-H. Hsu, “MEC-Assisted FoV-Aware and QoE-Driven Adaptive 360° Video Streaming for Virtual Reality,” in 16th Intern. Conf. on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN) , 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    A View Synthesis-Based 360° VR Caching System Over MEC-Enabled C-RAN,

    J. Dai, Z. Zhang, S. Mao, and D. Liu, “A View Synthesis-Based 360° VR Caching System Over MEC-Enabled C-RAN,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Tile-Based Edge Caching for 360° Live Video Streaming,

    P. Maniotis and N. Thomos, “Tile-Based Edge Caching for 360° Live Video Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Joint Radio Communication, Caching, and Computing Design for Mobile Virtual Reality Delivery in Fog Radio Access Networks,

    T. Dang and M. Peng, “Joint Radio Communication, Caching, and Computing Design for Mobile Virtual Reality Delivery in Fog Radio Access Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    UA V-Assisted Edge Computing and Streaming for Wireless Virtual Reality: Analysis, Algorithm Design, and Performance Guarantees,

    L. Zhang and J. Chakareski, “UA V-Assisted Edge Computing and Streaming for Wireless Virtual Reality: Analysis, Algorithm Design, and Performance Guarantees,” IEEE Trans. on V ehicular Technology, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    On the Placement of Edge Servers in Mobile Edge Computing,

    H. Liu, S. Wang, H. Huang, and Q. Ye, “On the Placement of Edge Servers in Mobile Edge Computing,” in 2023 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) , 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Design of Virtual Reality Education Platform based on 5G MEC,

    Z. Guo, P. Zhang, and J. Xia, “Design of Virtual Reality Education Platform based on 5G MEC,” in 2021 20th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Communications , 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Edge-Enabled Metaverse: The Convergence of Metaverse and Mobile Edge Computing,

    N. Aung, S. Dhelim, L. Chen, H. Ning, L. Atzori, and T. Kechadi, “Edge-Enabled Metaverse: The Convergence of Metaverse and Mobile Edge Computing,” Tsinghua Science and Technology , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    A Real-Time Architecture of 360-Degree Panoramic Video Streaming System,

    M. Han, S.-H. Lee, and S. Ok, “A Real-Time Architecture of 360-Degree Panoramic Video Streaming System,” in 2019 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Innovation and Invention (ICKII) , 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    RealVR: Efficient, Economical, and Quality-of- Experience-Driven VR Video System Based on MPEG OMAF,

    Q. Zhang, J. Wei, S. Wang, S. Ma, and W. Gao, “RealVR: Efficient, Economical, and Quality-of- Experience-Driven VR Video System Based on MPEG OMAF,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Communication-Constrained Mobile Edge Computing Systems for Wireless Virtual Reality: Scheduling and Tradeoff,

    X. Yang, Z. Chen, K. Li, Y . Sun, N. Liu, W. Xie, and Y . Zhao, “Communication-Constrained Mobile Edge Computing Systems for Wireless Virtual Reality: Scheduling and Tradeoff,” IEEE Access , 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Resource Management for Pervasive-Edge-Computing-Assisted Wireless VR Streaming in Industrial Internet of Things,

    P. Lin, Q. Song, D. Wang, F. R. Yu, L. Guo, and V . C. M. Leung, “Resource Management for Pervasive-Edge-Computing-Assisted Wireless VR Streaming in Industrial Internet of Things,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    An Adaptive Wireless Virtual Reality Framework in Future Wireless Networks: A Distributed Learning Approach,

    F. Guo, R. Yu, H. Zhang, H. Ji, V . C. M. Leung, and X. Li, “An Adaptive Wireless Virtual Reality Framework in Future Wireless Networks: A Distributed Learning Approach,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Data Correlation-Aware Resource Management in Wireless Virtual Reality (VR): An Echo State Transfer Learning Approach,

    M. Chen, W. Saad, C. Yin, and M. Debbah, “Data Correlation-Aware Resource Management in Wireless Virtual Reality (VR): An Echo State Transfer Learning Approach,” IEEE Trans. on Communications , 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    MAC Scheduling for Multiuser Wireless Virtual Reality in 5G MIMO-OFDM Systems,

    M. Huang and X. Zhang, “MAC Scheduling for Multiuser Wireless Virtual Reality in 5G MIMO-OFDM Systems,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops) , 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Live 360 ◦ Video Streaming to Heterogeneous Clients in 5G Networks,

    J. Chakareski and M. Khan, “Live 360 ◦ Video Streaming to Heterogeneous Clients in 5G Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Multipath Cooperative Communications Networks for Augmented and Virtual Reality Transmission,

    X. Ge, L. Pan, Q. Li, G. Mao, and S. Tu, “Multipath Cooperative Communications Networks for Augmented and Virtual Reality Transmission,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    MEC-Assisted Panoramic VR Video Streaming Over Millimeter Wave Mobile Networks,

    Y . Liu, J. Liu, A. Argyriou, and S. Ci, “MEC-Assisted Panoramic VR Video Streaming Over Millimeter Wave Mobile Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    mmWave Networking and Edge Computing for Scalable 360 ◦ Video Multi-User Virtual Reality,

    S. Gupta, J. Chakareski, and P. Popovski, “mmWave Networking and Edge Computing for Scalable 360 ◦ Video Multi-User Virtual Reality,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    An Edge-Computing Based Arch. for Mobile Aug. Reality,

    J. Ren, Y . He, G. Huang, G. Yu, Y . Cai, and Z. Zhang, “An Edge-Computing Based Arch. for Mobile Aug. Reality,” IEEE Network , 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Predictive Adaptive Streaming to Enable Mobile 360-Degree and VR Experiences,

    X. Hou, S. Dey, J. Zhang, and M. Budagavi, “Predictive Adaptive Streaming to Enable Mobile 360-Degree and VR Experiences,” IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Sparkle: User-Aware Viewport Prediction in 360-Degree Video Streaming,

    J. Chen, X. Luo, M. Hu, D. Wu, and Y . Zhou, “Sparkle: User-Aware Viewport Prediction in 360-Degree Video Streaming,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    User Navigation Modeling, Rate-Distortion Analysis, and End-to-End Optimization for Viewport-Driven 360◦ Video Streaming,

    J. Chakareski, X. Corbillon, G. Simon, and V . Swaminathan, “User Navigation Modeling, Rate-Distortion Analysis, and End-to-End Optimization for Viewport-Driven 360◦ Video Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Optimizing Fixation Prediction Using Recurrent Neural Networks for 360 ◦ Video Streaming in Head-Mounted Virtual Reality,

    C.-L. Fan, S.-C. Yen, C.-Y . Huang, and C.-H. Hsu, “Optimizing Fixation Prediction Using Recurrent Neural Networks for 360 ◦ Video Streaming in Head-Mounted Virtual Reality,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Seer: Learning-Based 360 ◦ Video Streaming for MEC-Equipped Cellular Networks,

    S. Kumar, A. Franklin A, J. Jin, and Y .-N. Dong, “Seer: Learning-Based 360 ◦ Video Streaming for MEC-Equipped Cellular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering , 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Improving Virtual Reality Streaming using HTTP/2,

    S. Petrangeli, V . Swaminathan, M. Hosseini, and F. De Turck, “Improving Virtual Reality Streaming using HTTP/2,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Multimedia Systems Conference , 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    RAPT360: Reinforcement Learning-Based Rate Adaptation for 360-Degree Video Streaming With Adaptive Prediction and Tiling,

    N. Kan, J. Zou, C. Li, W. Dai, and H. Xiong, “RAPT360: Reinforcement Learning-Based Rate Adaptation for 360-Degree Video Streaming With Adaptive Prediction and Tiling,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Viewport-aware adaptive 360°video streaming using tiles for virtual reality,

    C. Ozcinar, A. D. Abreu, and A. Smolic, “Viewport-aware adaptive 360°video streaming using tiles for virtual reality,” ArXiv: abs/1711.02386 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Design and Analysis of MEC- and Proactive Caching-Based 360 ◦ Mobile VR Video Streaming,

    Q. Cheng, H. Shan, W. Zhuang, L. Yu, Z. Zhang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Design and Analysis of MEC- and Proactive Caching-Based 360 ◦ Mobile VR Video Streaming,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    BONES: Near-Optimal Neural-Enhanced Video Streaming,

    L. Wang, S. Singh, J. Chakareski, M. Hajiesmaili, and R. K. Sitaraman, “BONES: Near-Optimal Neural-Enhanced Video Streaming,” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems

  31. [39]

    When Virtual Reality Meets Rate Splitting Multiple Access: A Joint Communication and Computation Approach,

    N. Q. Hieu, D. N. Nguyen, D. T. Hoang, and E. Dutkiewicz, “When Virtual Reality Meets Rate Splitting Multiple Access: A Joint Communication and Computation Approach,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Graph based Joint Computing and Communication Scheduling for Virtual Reality Applications,

    F. Liu, H. Li, P. Wang, K. Shi, and Y . Hu, “Graph based Joint Computing and Communication Scheduling for Virtual Reality Applications,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference , 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    MUVR: Supporting Multi-User Mobile Virtual Reality with Resource Constrained Edge Cloud,

    Y . Li and W. Gao, “MUVR: Supporting Multi-User Mobile Virtual Reality with Resource Constrained Edge Cloud,” in 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC) , 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Wireless Multiplayer Interactive Virtual Reality Game Systems With Edge Computing: Modeling and Optimization,

    Z. Chen, H. Zhu, L. Song, D. He, and B. Xia, “Wireless Multiplayer Interactive Virtual Reality Game Systems With Edge Computing: Modeling and Optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Communications , 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Multi-Task Decision-Making for Multi-User 360 Video Processing over Wireless Networks,

    B. Badnava, J. Chakareski, and M. Hashemi, “Multi-Task Decision-Making for Multi-User 360 Video Processing over Wireless Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval , 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Full UHD 360-Degree Video Dataset and Modeling of Rate-Distortion Characteristics and Head Movement Navigation,

    J. Chakareski, R. Aksu, V . Swaminathan, and M. Zink, “Full UHD 360-Degree Video Dataset and Modeling of Rate-Distortion Characteristics and Head Movement Navigation,” in ACM Multimedia Sys. Conf. , 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    A Framework to Evaluate Omnidirectional Video Coding Schemes,

    M. Yu, H. Lakshman, and B. Girod, “A Framework to Evaluate Omnidirectional Video Coding Schemes,” in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality , 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve,

    H. Mao, R. Netravali, and M. Alizadeh, “Neural Adaptive Video Streaming with Pensieve,” in Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest 15 Group on Data Communication , 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    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 Trans. on Networking , 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    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,” in Proceedings of ACM Conf. on Special Interest Group on Data Comm. , 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Interference-aware queuing analysis for distributed transmission control in uav networks,

    M. Ghazikor, K. Roach, K. Cheung, and M. Hashemi, “Interference-aware queuing analysis for distributed transmission control in uav networks,” in ICC 2024 - IEEE International Conference on Communications , 2024, pp. 4524–4529

    2024

  42. [50]

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,” arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mastering Complex Control in MOBA Games with Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    D. Ye, Z. Liu, M. Sun, B. Shi, P. Zhao, H. Wu, H. Yu, S. Yang, X. Wu, Q. Guo, Q. Chen, Y . Yin, H. Zhang, T. Shi, L. Wang, Q. Fu, W. Yang, and L. Huang, “Mastering Complex Control in MOBA Games with Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in The 34 AAAI Conf. on AI , 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Energy-Efficient Deadline-Aware Edge Computing: Bandit Learning with Partial Observations in Multi-Channel Systems,

    B. Badnava, K. Roach, K. Cheung, M. Hashemi, and N. B. Shroff, “Energy-Efficient Deadline-Aware Edge Computing: Bandit Learning with Partial Observations in Multi-Channel Systems,” in GLOBECOM 2023 - 2023 IEEE Global Communications Conference , 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Buffer Awareness Neural Adaptive Video Streaming for Avoiding Extra Buffer Consumption,

    C. W. L. S. Tianchi Huang ; Chao Zhou ; Rui-Xiao Zhang, “Buffer Awareness Neural Adaptive Video Streaming for Avoiding Extra Buffer Consumption,” in IEEE INFOCOM Conf. , 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    COREL: Constrained Reinforcement Learning for Video Streaming ABR Algorithm Design Over mmWave 5G,

    X. Hu, A. Ghosh, X. Liu, Z.-L. Zhang, and N. Shroff, “COREL: Constrained Reinforcement Learning for Video Streaming ABR Algorithm Design Over mmWave 5G,” in 2023 IEEE International Workshop Technical Committee on Communications Quality and Reliability (CQR) , 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    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 Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM , ser. SIGCOMM ’14. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing ...

    2014

  48. [56]

    A Variegated Look at 5G in the Wild: Performance, Power, and QoE Implications,

    A. Narayanan, X. Zhang, R. Zhu, A. Hassan, S. Jin, X. Zhu, X. Zhang, D. Rybkin, Z. Yang, Z. M. Mao, F. Qian, and Z.-L. Zhang, “A Variegated Look at 5G in the Wild: Performance, Power, and QoE Implications,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM , 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

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

    2004

  50. [58]

    Challenges in cloud based ingest and encoding for high quality streaming media,

    A. Aaron, Z. Li, M. Manohara, J. Y . Lin, E. C.-H. Wu, and C.-C. J. Kuo, “Challenges in cloud based ingest and encoding for high quality streaming media,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , 2015, pp. 1732–1736. 16

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.