Perceptual Differences and Preferences in Speech Enhancement

We investigate whether predicted Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) can reliably support system-level comparisons of speech enhancement (SE) methods by introducing system-level preference accuracy (SPA). Although MOS prediction models are widely used to evaluate SE systems, their performance is typically assessed by correlation with human-rated MOS, which does not guarantee agreement on which system is better. SPA addresses this gap by directly evaluating whether predicted and human-rated MOS yield the same system preferences. Using SPA, we systematically evaluate three settings: single prediction models, ensembling, and domain adaptation. Through experiments, SPA varies substantially across single prediction models, from 9.4% to 76.8%. Even the best model disagrees with human judgments in approximately 23% of system comparisons. Ensembling yields only limited improvement, while domain adaptation tends to substantially improve SPA in the closed condition but brings only modest gains in the more practical open condition, where neither the target systems nor the speakers are known. These results suggest that SPA can reveal errors correlation-based evaluation alone does not expose, and that predicted MOS alone can lead to unreliable conclusions in practical SE system comparison.

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.

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.