# Survey on Quality of Experience Evaluation for Cloud-Based Interactive Applications
## 2 Related Works
[25] analysed the latest research on cloud gaming from different aspects, covering cloud gaming platforms, optimisation techniques, and commercial cloud gaming services. Within the paper, they devoted a subsection to analysing proposals for evaluating QoE in cloud gaming but overlooked other types of CIAs. However, the authors provided an enumeration of the content of the works without addressing the metrics or processing details. The authors did not provide a taxonomy of the proposals or a comparison between their advantages and disadvantages. [PERSON] et al. [26] analysed the cloud gaming environment and looked at future development issues that could help provide QoS in line with service-level agreements and increase the satisfaction level of cloud gaming users, thus improving QoE. In their work, they only dedicated a subsection to exposing methods for QoE quantification in cloud gaming, ignoring other types of CIAs. They grouped together proposals that evaluated video streaming, proposals that evaluated network aspects, and proposals based on their qualitative comparison of characteristics and performance. However, the number of proposals analysed was small, and the authors did not emphasise the difference between QoS and QoE metrics. [PERSON] et al. [27] reviewed interactive remote rendering systems proposed in the literature. They provided a tutorial on how these systems work (architecture, rendering, examples, and challenges). In addition to not taking into account other types of CIAs, the authors only dedicated a small subsection to explaining the importance of evaluating QoE. However, it was a summary of proposals; they did not describe each work, the metrics, or the processing used. Moreover, they did not provide a taxonomy or compare the advantages of each of the proposals. None of these papers covered the three main categories of CIAs: remote desktop, cloud gaming, and interactive web applications. Other works focused on a specific CIA of recent interest, such as cloud gaming. This is the case with [PERSON] et al. [28] and [PERSON] et al. [29]. In these works, the exclusive focus on cloud gaming prevented the leveraging of strategies employed by other authors in other CIAs for QoE quantification. In the case of [PERSON] et al. [28], they conducted a survey outlining the architectural peculiarities and user requirements of these types of services. However, the processing of some proposals was not detailed, making it difficult to understand the derivation of QoE metrics. [PERSON] et al. [29] concentrated on examining QoE provisioning concerning delay-sensitive video computing requirements, encompassing various facets such as service ubiquity, device diversity, network heterogeneity, and operational variability. The paper delved into the challenges associated with QoS provisioning within converged networks and explored their ramifications for QoE provisioning, with a particular emphasis on the realm of cloud gaming. Despite extensively reviewing and analysing relevant literature, the paper fell short of presenting a taxonomy elucidating the parameters, processing methodologies, or output metrics employed. The closest studies to our work are those carried out by [PERSON] et al. [30] and [PERSON] et al. [31]. In their survey, [PERSON] et al. [30] studied proposals for QoE evaluation of mobile cloud computing. However, they focused exclusively on evaluating services that can be accessed from a mobile device and overlooked any other types of CIAs. They only addressed the quantification of responsiveness and visual content quality. The number of proposals was small, and there was no comparison between them. They did not clarify the difference between the proposals and their advantages and drawbacks. The survey by [PERSON] et al. [31] mainly consisted of a proposal for quantifying QoE in cloud services. However, the authors carried out a prior analysis of the state of the art to describe other proposals. The survey focused on general cloud services and not CIAs, so most of the proposals ignored their particularities.