MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039983951 · doi:10.1587/elex.1.380

Evaluation of speech quality using digital watermarking

2004· article· en· W2039983951 on OpenAlexaff
Libin Cai, Jiying Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueIEICE Electronics Express · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPESQComputer scienceMean opinion scoreQuality (philosophy)Digital watermarkingSpeech recognitionComputationActive listeningPSQMSound qualitySpeech codingArtificial intelligenceLinear predictive codingSpeech enhancementAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech quality evaluation is a very important research topic. Mean Opinion Score (MOS) is reliable but the listening test is very expensive, time consuming, and sometimes impractical. The existing objective quality assessment methods require either the original speech or complicated computation model, which makes some applications of quality evaluation impossible. We propose to use digital audio watermarking to evaluate the quality of speech. Our method does not need original signal or computation model. The experimental results show that the method yields accurate quality scores which are very close to the results of PESQ.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEICE Electronics ExpressSame topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207