• Roman Odarchenko National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine
  • Maryna Ivanova National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Maksym Riabenko National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine
  • Al-Mudhafar Akil Abdulhussein M. National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine



cellular network, network architecture, procedures, QoE, QoS, monitoring


Today, most telecommunication service providers are interested in making sure that customers are satisfied with the services they receive. It is obvious that users of a certain service will continue to choose the same provider if their expectations of service quality have been met. Therefore, in order to meet customer expectations, providers need to constantly measure the current level of quality of the services they provide. In order to provide the best quality services by telecommunications providers, companies need to consider not only network quality and QoS, but also QoE. Surveying subscribers in view of the expansion of the network and the increase in the number of services provided is no longer a productive process, thus there is a need to ensure consistent end-to-end monitoring of the quality of the user experience. Based on these considerations, this paper proposed to use a machine learning model called "Random Forest" for data analysis, and also step-by-step described the stages of analysis based on historical data. In the course of the study, it was possible to test the QoE prediction method depending on the QoS parameters. It turned out that it is possible to reduce the data set proposed in the second section without affecting the accuracy and performance of the calculations performed by the machine learning model. However, the remaining parameters are predicted with 100% accuracy, which is an excellent result. Thus, the proposed method using machine learning algorithms can be used in its work by telecommunication providers and mobile operators to ensure end-to-end monitoring of the level of user satisfaction with the services provided by the provider.

Author Biographies

Roman Odarchenko, National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine

Doctor of technical Sciences, Professor, head of the Department of Telecommunications and Radioelectronic Systems, Faculty of Aeronautics, Electronics and Telecommunications

Maryna Ivanova, National Aviation University, Kyiv, Ukraine

Engineer of Information and Telecommunication System, master of the Department of Telecommunications and Radioelectronic Systems, Faculty of Aeronautics, Electronics and Telecommunications

Maksym Riabenko, National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine

Postgraduate student of Technical Sciences, Faculty of Aeronautics, Electronics and Telecommunications

Al-Mudhafar Akil Abdulhussein M., National aviation University, Kiev, Ukraine

Postgraduate student of programming engineering


Definitions of terms related to quality of service. ITU-T E.800, 2008. 30 с.

Le Callet P., Möller S., Perkis A. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. COST IC1003 Qualinet, 2003. 24 с.

Reiter U., Brunnström K., De Moor K., Larabi M.-C., Pereira M., Pinheiro A., You J., Zgank A. Factors influencing Quality of Experience. Springer, 2014.

Alreshoodi M., Woods J. Survey on QoEQoS correlation models for multimedia services. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems (IJDPS). 2013. № 3. С. 53–72.

Katranaras E., Odarchenko R., Osman H., Patsouras I., et al. D7.4 Final integrated 5G-TOURS ecosystem and technical validation results. 5G-TOURS - ICT-19-2019. P. 21-26.

Laghari K., Connelly K. Toward total quality of experience: a QoE model in a communication ecosystem. IEEE Communication Magazine, 2012. T. 50, № 4. P. 58–65.

ITU-T Recommendation P.10/G.100. Vocabulary for performance and quality of service. Amendment 2: New definitions for inclusion in Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100, 2008.

ETSI Technical Report. Human Factors (HF); Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements for real-time communication services, 2010.

Van Ewijk A., De Vriendt J., Finizola L. Quality of Service for IMS on Fixed Networks. Business Models and Drivers for Next-Generation IMS Services. США: International Engineering Consortium, 2007.

O'Neill T. M. Quality of Experience and Quality of Service for IP video conferencing. Polycom, 2002.

Siller M. and Woods J. C. QoS arbitration for improving the QoE in multimedia transmission. Proceedings of the International Conference on Visual Information Engineering, 2003. P. 238–241.

Empirix. Assuring QoE on Next Generation Networks. Whitepaper, 2001. URL: date 25.11.2022)

Soldani D. Means and methods for collecting and analyzing QoE measurements in wireless networks. Proceedings of International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, 2006. P. 531–535.

De Moor K., Ketykó I., Joseph W. Proposed framework for evaluating quality of experience in a mobile, testbed-oriented living lab setting. Mobile Networks and Applications, 2010. V. 14, № 3. P. 378–391.

Baraković S., Baraković J., Bajrić H. QoE dimensions and QoE measurement of NGN services. Белград, Сербія: Proceedings of the 18th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR '10).

Stevens S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Guilford, J. P. A generalized psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 1932. V.39, №1, P. 73-85.

Fechner G. T., Boring E. G., Howes D. H., Adler H. E. Elements of psychophysics, 1966. V.1.

Fiedler M., Hossfeld T., Phuoc T.-G. A generic quantitative relationship between quality of experience and quality of service. Network, IEEE, 2010. V.24, №2. P. 36-41.





Electronics, telecommunications and radio engineering