Non-Intrusive Speech Quality Prediction Using Modulation Energies and LSTM-Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many signal processing algorithms have been proposed to improve the quality of speech recorded in the presence of noise and reverberation. Perceptual measures, i.e., listening tests, are usually considered the most reliable way to evaluate the quality of speech processed by such algorithms but are costly and time-consuming. Consequently, speech enhancement algorithms are often evaluated using signal-based measures, which can be either intrusive or non-intrusive. As the computation of intrusive measures requires a reference signal, only non-intrusive measures can be used in applications for which the clean speech signal is not available. However, many existing non-intrusive measures correlate poorly with the perceived speech quality, particularly when applied over a wide range of algorithms or acoustic conditions. In this paper, we propose a novel non-intrusive measure of the quality of processed speech that combines modulation energy features and a recurrent neural network using long short-term memory cells. We collected a dataset of perceptually evaluated signals representing several acoustic conditions and algorithms and used this dataset to train and evaluate the proposed measure. Results show that the proposed measure yields higher correlation with perceptual speech quality than that of benchmark intrusive and non-intrusive measures when considering various categories of algorithms. Although the proposed measure is sensitive to mismatch between training and testing, results show that it is a useful approach to evaluate specific algorithms over a wide range of acoustic conditions and may, thus, become particularly useful for real-time selection of speech enhancement algorithm settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".