Non-intrusive speech quality assessment using neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the perceived quality of an audio signal is critical for many multimedia and audio processing systems. Providers strive to offer optimal and reliable services in order to increase the user quality of experience (QoE). In this work, we present an investigation of the applicability of neural networks for non-intrusive audio quality assessment. We propose three neural network-based approaches for mean opinion score (MOS) estimation. We compare our results to three instrumental measures: the perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ), the ITU-T Recommendation P.563, and the speech-to-reverberation energy ratio. Our evaluation uses a speech dataset contaminated with convolutive and additive noise, labeled using a crowd-based QoE evaluation, evaluated with Pearson correlation with MOS labels, and mean-squared-error of the estimated MOS. Our proposed approaches outperform the aforementioned instrumental measures, with a fully connected deep neural network using Mel-frequency features providing the best correlation (0.87) and the lowest mean squared error (0.15)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".