# Video Streaming in Urban Vehicular Environments: Junction-Aware Multipath Approach
## 4 Performance Evaluation
In addition, the approach avoids the occurrence of loops or local maxima as opposite direction vehicles are avoided, except in the case of the non-availability of a vehicle in the direction of the DVN. Consequently, the results show that JA-MVS outperforms both JMSR and AMVT. The percentage gains of the three schemes are 77.6%, 81.0% and 84.7% for JMSR, AMVT and the proposed JA-MVS schemes, respectively. Figure 5: Packet Loss Ratio based on (**a**) varied vehicle densities and (**b**) data rates. The average percentages of performance improvement of the JA-MVS over JMSR and AMVT are 7.1% and 3.7%, respectively. Figure 6b depicts the results of the SSIM index based on different video data rates. The different data rates of transmission are employed in order to show that the proposed scheme has the ability to make a fast NFV selection for video data transmission without encountering a large queuing of video data packets at the receiver vehicle. The result of the experimentation demonstrates that the value of the SSIM index increases as the transmitted data rates increases for all the three schemes. The increase in the value of the SSIM index reaches its peak when the data rate is above 1000 kbps and below 1400 kbps. The SSIM index value tends to decline when the data rate is above 1400 kbps. However, the values of the SSIM index for each of the schemes are above average value, which is 0.5. Further, as observed from the results, the proposed JA-MVS performs better than both JMSR and AMVT. The improved performance can be related to the comprehensive selection procedure which includes all three different cases of the junction area, which provides a faster and more current status of vehicle position before selecting a vehicle as an NFV. Considering the selection, video traffic due to video queuing is minimized; hence, there is little or no traffic of video data. Considering the results, the proposed JA-MVS scheme outperforms the two baseline schemes. The average percentage gains of the three schemes are 77.5%, 80.1% and 84.0% for JMSR, AMVT, and the proposed JA-MVS, respectively. The percentages of the performance improvement of JA-MVS against JMSR and AMVT are 6.5% and 3.9%, respectively. The End-to-End Delay (E2 ED) is studied alongside different densities of vehicles and data rates, which are shown in Figure 7a,b, respectively. Figure 7a demonstrates that both JMSR and JA-MVS have lower transmission delay in contrast with AMVT. The E2 ED has been plotted alongside different densities of vehicles. A high delay is experienced in AMVT considering the fact that more than two routes have been considered, which can lead to the severe collision of video packets due to route coupling, thus causing a delay in video packet arrival time. Although, the JMSR also encountered a little delay, it is lower than that of AMVT. The result of the E2 ED of JMSR is almost the same as that of the proposed JA-MVS scheme. This is connected with the fact that there is frequent signaling during communication between all neighbor vehicles. In video streaming, the delivery of data packets with few losses is more important than a delay of \(\leq\)5 s being experienced, because the loss of packets affects the quality of the video streaming. Thus, there is a balance in the tradeoff between cost and performance. Meanwhile, the overall delay experienced for the two aforementioned schemes is minimal. Therefore, the JA-MVS scheme outperformed the JMSR with only a small marginal difference. The JA-MVS

Figure 6: Structural Similarity Index based on (**a**) varied numbers of vehicles and (**b**) data rates. performs better than the AMVT scheme because the proposed scheme employed different junction area situations to select the best forwarding vehicle towards the DVN. It also continues transmission through the selected NFV except if the vehicle is no longer in the neighborhood of the PFV.