Contemporary deep speech enhancement (SE) models are often trained with specific auxiliary terms in the loss function as a way to improve their performance in terms of perceptual metrics. Nevertheless, a higher score on a perceptual metric does not necessarily correlate with an improved listening experience. Through objective and subjective experiments, we assess the performance of SE models trained with two different types of auxiliary PESQ loss terms. The numerical evaluation on a suite of standard metrics suggests that, while models optimized for PESQ naturally obtain higher PESQ scores in the test set, for most other metrics the scores do not significantly change. In some cases, the PESQ loss even results in worse PESQ scores on mismatched data. A formal listening experiment reveals that the models without a PESQ loss were generally preferred over models that include it, across all settings. Finally, we analyze the relative importance of PESQ in the composite metrics CSIG, CBAK and COVL, and find that PESQ dominates all of them. Our study highlights the perils of over-reliance on PESQ and stresses the importance of a complete evaluation procedure for SE.
Speech enhancement language models achieve strong results when trained on discrete audio tokens, but their optimization relies on token-level cross-entropy rather than the perceptual metrics used for evaluation. We introduce a post-training stage for autoregressive speech enhancement language models using Group Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO) with multi-metric perceptual rewards. Our method directly optimizes non-differentiable quality metrics (DNSMOS, WER, and UTMOS) as reward signals, without learned surrogates or offline preference pairs. Applied to two autoregressive base models, UniSE and GenSE, our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on the DNS2020 benchmark. A human evaluation ablation further shows that the composite multi-metric reward is preferred over any single-metric variant, confirming that multi-reward optimization avoids the reward hacking observed with single-metric training.
Frédéric Berdoz, Luca A. Lanzendörfer, Antonis Asonitis +1
Speech enhancement (SE) is commonly applied as a preprocessing step in spoken AI pipelines under the assumption that better audio quality improves downstream task performance. Whether SE-induced distortions propagate to downstream LLM task performance remains an open question. We introduce Output Divergence Rate (ODR), which measures how often SE changes an LLM's intent classification relative to clean speech, and benchmark five conditions on 2,974 SLURP clips using Whisper large-v3 and wav2vec2-large cascades. Every condition produces ODR significantly above zero (p<0.001, binomial test). MetricGAN{+} more than doubles ODR versus unenhanced noisy speech (0.318 vs. 0.135) despite improving PESQ, and unmitigated echo reaches an ODR of 0.836 through speaker substitution, a failure WER cannot capture. Audio quality metrics range from near-zero to moderate correlation with ODR (SQUIM-MOS ρ=−0.068, PESQ ρ=−0.467). The MetricGAN{+} and echo results replicate across ASR architectures, indicating that standard audio quality metrics are insufficient for LLM pipeline quality.
Non-intrusive MOS predictors are widely used instead of subjective listening tests to evaluate and rank speech enhancement (SE) systems. If they accurately reflect perceived quality, raising their scores should lead to higher-quality speech. We present the first comprehensive analysis of test-time optimization for the SE task, which directly modifies the enhanced signal to raise the average of multiple MOS predictor scores. On seven systems from the URGENT 2026 challenge, we find that 1)~all the optimized predicted scores increase while reference-based metrics remain nearly unchanged, 2)~a non-optimized predicted score does not increase, and 3)~a MUSHRA listening test shows no improvement in perceived quality. These findings reveal a risk that such optimization can distort evaluations, e.g., biasing comparisons of SE systems regardless of their perceived quality. We believe these findings can inform future evaluation practices: they suggest that predictors used for optimization should not be used for evaluation, and that challenges should keep the predictors used for ranking undisclosed.