PashtoTTS-Bench: automated screening for low-resource non-Latin-script text-to-speech

Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive. We deconstruct "naturalness" into a linguistically grounded annotation schema spanning 10 distinct perceptual dimensions, and use it to construct the first dimension-level meta-evaluation benchmark for TTS, comprising 860 utterances annotated by trained linguist raters. Results from benchmarking four MOS predictors and four Audio-LLM judges reveal that MOS predictors collapse onto acoustic signal quality, while Audio-LLM judges show selective, prompt-dependent detection that does not generalise across all dimensions. Neither class reliably captures a breadth of linguistically structured speech errors. Our dataset, annotation schema, and evaluation code are publicly released to support more targeted and interpretable TTS evaluation.

Recent advances in neural text-to-speech (TTS) systems have substantially improved speech naturalness and intelligibility across many languages. However, comprehensive evaluation methodologies that jointly assess perceptual quality, speaker similarity, and acoustic fidelity across diverse speech domains remain limited, particularly for low-resource and underrepresented languages. This paper presents a reproducible, multi-metric benchmarking framework for systematic evaluation of modern TTS systems through domain-specific analysis. The proposed framework integrates complementary subjective and objective evaluation protocols and is demonstrated through a comprehensive case study on a representative low-resource language spanning four speech domains: Formal, Conversational, Literary/Storytelling, and Emotional. Four state-of-the-art TTS systems -- Indic-Parler-TTS, MMS-TTS, Microsoft Edge TTS, and Google Gemini TTS -- are evaluated using MUSHRA listening tests, ABX discrimination tests, speaker similarity scoring with Resemblyzer, and acoustic analyses based on mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and F0 RMSE over 960 audio pairs. Results reveal substantial variation in TTS performance across speech domains, with emotional speech consistently presenting the greatest synthesis challenge (mean MCD 12.03 dB; mean F0 RMSE 889 cents), while conversational speech achieves the highest overall acoustic fidelity. Beyond the empirical findings, this work provides a reproducible evaluation framework, publicly releasing evaluation scripts, result tables, and executable Colab notebooks to support standardized benchmarking and future research on TTS evaluation for low-resource languages.

Standard text-to-speech (TTS) evaluation measures intelligibility (WER, CER) and overall naturalness (MOS, UTMOS) but does not quantify accent. A synthesiser may score well on all four yet sound non-native on features that are phonemic in the target language. For Indic languages, these features include retroflex articulation, aspiration, vowel length, and the Tamil retroflex approximant (letter zha). We present PSP, the Phoneme Substitution Profile, an interpretable, per-phonological-dimension accent benchmark for Indic TTS. PSP decomposes accent into six complementary dimensions: retroflex collapse rate (RR), aspiration fidelity (AF), vowel-length fidelity (LF), Tamil-zha fidelity (ZF), Frechet Audio Distance (FAD), and prosodic signature divergence (PSD). The first four are measured via forced alignment plus native-speaker-centroid acoustic probes over Wav2Vec2-XLS-R layer-9 embeddings; the latter two are corpus-level distributional distances. In this v1 we benchmark four commercial and open-source systems (ElevenLabs v3, Cartesia Sonic-3, Sarvam Bulbul, Indic Parler-TTS) on Hindi, Telugu, and Tamil pilot sets, with a fifth system (Praxy Voice) included on all three languages, plus an R5->R6 case study on Telugu. Three findings: (i) retroflex collapse grows monotonically with phonological difficulty Hindi < Telugu < Tamil (~1%, ~40%, ~68%); (ii) PSP ordering diverges from WER ordering -- commercial WER-leaders do not uniformly lead on retroflex or prosodic fidelity; (iii) no single system is Pareto-optimal across all six dimensions. We release native reference centroids (500 clips per language), 1000-clip embeddings for FAD, 500-clip prosodic feature matrices for PSD, 300-utterance golden sets per language, scoring code under MIT, and centroids under CC-BY. Formal MOS-correlation is deferred to v2; v1 reports five internal-consistency signals plus a native-audio sanity check.