QoE-Driven Resource Allocation Optimized for Delay-Sensitive VR Video Uploading over Cellular Network

Adaptive Streaming of 360 Videos with Perfect, Imperfect, and Unknown FoV Viewing Probabilities in Wireless Networks

“…In the multiuser scenario, our previous works [11], [12], [17] consider the overlapping of the FoVs of different users and focus on exploiting natural [11], [12], [17], relative smoothnessenabled [17], and transcoding-enabled [12], [17] multicast opportunities to improve transmission efficiency, whereas [7] does not exploit potential multicast opportunities. In [18]- [20], the authors study adaptive streaming of multiple tiled 360 videos to multiple users, respectively, in wireless networks. Specifically, in [4], [7], [11]- [20], the authors optimize the quality level selection and communication resource allocation to maximize the total utility [13], [16], [18]- [20], minimize the total distortion [7], minimize the total transmission power [11], [12], [17], or minimize the bandwidth consumption [14], [15].…”

“…In [18]- [20], the authors study adaptive streaming of multiple tiled 360 videos to multiple users, respectively, in wireless networks. Specifically, in [4], [7], [11]- [20], the authors optimize the quality level selection and communication resource allocation to maximize the total utility [13], [16], [18]- [20], minimize the total distortion [7], minimize the total transmission power [11], [12], [17], or minimize the bandwidth consumption [14], [15]. The obtained solutions in [4], [13]- [16], [18], [19] are heuristic, the obtained solutions in [7], [17], [20] are locally optimal, and the obtained solutions in [11], [12] are globally optimal.…”

“…The existing works [4], [7], [11]- [20] mainly consider two FoV transmission methods. In [4], [7], [11], [12], [14], [16]- [18], [20], the authors transmit the set of tiles that cover the FoV which is most likely to be watched at a certain encoding rate and a safe margin at the same [11], [12], [17] or a lower encoding rate [4], [7], [14]- [16], [18], [20].…”

“…The existing works [4], [7], [11]- [20] mainly consider two FoV transmission methods. In [4], [7], [11], [12], [14], [16]- [18], [20], the authors transmit the set of tiles that cover the FoV which is most likely to be watched at a certain encoding rate and a safe margin at the same [11], [12], [17] or a lower encoding rate [4], [7], [14]- [16], [18], [20]. In [13], [19], the authors transmit the set of tiles that cover all FoVs that may be viewed at different encoding rates determined according to the viewing probability distribution over these FoVs.…”

“…In [13], [19], the authors transmit the set of tiles that cover all FoVs that may be viewed at different encoding rates determined according to the viewing probability distribution over these FoVs. In [4], [7], [11]- [20], the quality levels of adjacent tiles viewed by a user may vary significantly, leading to a poor viewing experience. To address such issue, in [4], [7], [17], [19], quality smoothness requirements are incorporated in the objective functions [4], [7], [19] or the constraints [13], [17].…”