Distributional Metrics for Evaluating Spoken Conversational Systems

Speech-to-speech (S2S) AI agents are advancing rapidly, yet evaluation lacks interpretable speech-native measures for conversational prosody and rhythm. Because $F_0$, speaking rate, articulation rate, and pausing shift with model-predicted speaker traits and interaction state, pooled human statistics can be poorly calibrated for evaluating a particular output. Using 4000+ hours of dyadic English conversation from the Seamless Interaction dataset, we construct matched reference regimes for $F_0$ mean, $F_0$ expressivity, speech rate, articulation rate, pause ratio, and mean pause duration. We then define a percentile-based evaluation protocol: extract the same metrics from an S2S output waveform, compare them to the closest matched human reference stratum, and report percentile deviations or 5th-95th percentile out-of-regime flags. On held-out human rows, pooled references over-flag state-conditioned $F_0$ expressivity and rhythm, while matched references return flag rates closer to the nominal 10% and make deviation direction interpretable. These outputs serve as behavioral plausibility checks that complement, rather than replace, perceptual and user-centered evaluation.

The pursuit of human-like conversational agents has long been guided by the Turing test. For modern speech-to-speech (S2S) systems, a critical yet unanswered question is whether they can converse like humans. To tackle this, we conduct the first Turing test for S2S systems, collecting 2,968 human judgments on dialogues between 9 state-of-the-art S2S systems and 28 human participants. Our results deliver a clear finding: no existing evaluated S2S system passes the test, revealing a significant gap in human-likeness. To diagnose this failure, we develop a fine-grained taxonomy of 18 human-likeness dimensions and crowd-annotate our collected dialogues accordingly. Our analysis shows that the bottleneck is not semantic understanding but stems from paralinguistic features, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona. Furthermore, we find that off-the-shelf AI models perform unreliably as Turing test judges. In response, we propose an interpretable model that leverages the fine-grained human-likeness ratings and delivers accurate and transparent human-vs-machine discrimination, offering a powerful tool for automatic human-likeness evaluation. Our work establishes the first human-likeness evaluation for S2S systems and moves beyond binary outcomes to enable detailed diagnostic insights, paving the way for human-like improvements in conversational AI systems.

A conversational speech model has to decide, at every pause, whether to speak. Existing evaluations test boundary detection, policy adherence, or aggregate statistics, not this decision. We place real-time speech systems at 427 pauses and 482 turn ends from 176 unscripted conversations in Seamless Interaction, give each the conversation so far, and score what it generates against what the person did: whether and how soon it speaks at a pause; its latency, length, and wording at a turn end; and whether it can answer a question about the preceding 30 to 120 seconds. Across six systems, the hosted APIs (GPT Realtime, Gemini 3.1 Flash Live, Grok Voice) respond at almost every pause whichever endpointer they use; only their latency, about 1 to 4 s with silence-based endpointers and about 8 s with semantic turn detection, decides whether the words land inside the pause. The full-duplex models (PersonaPlex, Moshi) are the only systems that regularly stay silent and the only ones that interrupt within a human reaction time. Hosted systems reply longer than the person. Given the history as text, hosted systems recall 41 to 60% of conversation facts under a Claude Opus 5.5 judge and 19 to 26% under a strict word matcher; hearing it as audio, full-duplex models recall 17 to 22% and 12 to 15%. We release the labels, points, harness, and every output.