Speech Quality Assessment

Modern text-to-speech (TTS) systems can clone a target speaker from a short reference clip or be fine-tuned on a target voice, yet their behaviour on morphologically rich, lower-resource languages such as Turkish remain under-characterised. We present a systematic benchmark of four contemporary systems (Chatterbox, CosyVoice, OmniVoice, and VoxCPM2) evaluated across fine-tuned and zero-shot configurations, contrasted with a conventional VITS baseline and anchored to natural gold speech. Each configuration is scored with eighteen complementary objective metrics spanning learned naturalness predictors (UTMOS v2, DNSMOS-Pro, SCOREQ, WhisQA, AudioBox-PQ, NatScore, SpeechLMScore), intelligibility and signal-quality estimators (SQUIM PESQ/SI-SDR/STOI, Brouhaha), speaker similarity, distributional fidelity (TTSDS) and low-level acoustic descriptors. We further analyse how quality varies with utterance length and quantify long-form temporal consistency through speaker-identity and naturalness drift over chunked utterances. We release our evaluation code to support reproducible TTS evaluation.

Human mean opinion scores (MOS) are costly to collect, and non-intrusive MOS predictors degrade sharply outside their training domain. ProxyMOS turns a pool of public MOS predictors into a single stronger model without new human labels. Eight predictors are benchmarked against human ratings; the five most informative enter a subset search under uniform, correlation-weighted, error-weighted, MSE-optimised and adaptive per-utterance routing; and the best routed four-model ensemble labels 807k unlabeled utterances that train a wav2vec 2.0 student. On URGENT the student reaches Spearman $ρ=0.802$ against $0.773$ for the best teacher. On mos260, a new Russian TTS benchmark of 4,600 utterances from 38 synthesis conditions, it reaches $ρ=0.636$ against $0.613$ per utterance and $0.95$ per condition, matching its own routed ensemble in one forward pass. Adaptive routing is the only rule that does not degrade when weak predictors are added. Model, ONNX exports and mos260 are released. It's about 950 characters; arXiv's limit is 1,920. I kept $ρ$ because arXiv renders it on the abstract page. If you'd rather avoid math, replace $ρ=0.802$ with rho = 0.802 and do the same for the other $...$ values.

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.

LLM-as-a-judge is widely used for evaluating text, but extending this paradigm to speech requires models to interpret acoustic as well as linguistic evidence. This introduces a modality-specific risk: a speech judge may treat a perceptually salient cue as evidence of quality even when that cue is irrelevant to the target criterion or receives more weight than human listeners give it. We call this behavior an acoustic shortcut. To study it, we audit six speech LLM judges using controlled manipulations of intensity, content richness, and emotional delivery. We evaluate both pointwise scoring and pairwise comparison, using human preference calibration to interpret the results. The judges consistently reward louder audio, prefer content-rich speech more strongly than human listeners do, and map emotional delivery into quality preferences. These effects are most visible in pairwise comparison, while pointwise scores often obscure them. More concerningly, the accompanying rationales rarely identify the acoustic cue that changes a judgment and instead repeatedly rely on a limited vocabulary, leaving them acoustically underspecified. Together, these findings show that reliable speech judges must both resist acoustic shortcuts and ground their rationales in the acoustic evidence behind their decisions. To support reproducibility and future audits, we also release SpeechJudgeAudit, the controlled stimuli and evaluation tools used in this study.

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.

Human speech conveys rich perceptual information, such as emotion and speaker identity, yet most automatic speech quality judges reduce it to a single naturalness score. We study diagnostic speech judges: given two candidates, a diagnostic judge decides which is better, along which perceptual dimensions (e.g., timbre, emotion, timing) they differ, and which audible cues support its decision. Learning such judges is challenging: expert annotation is costly, and simply prompting a frontier audio-language model to produce labels is unreliable: our probing reveals substantial errors and unstable instruction following. We introduce SpeechCritic, which learns a diagnostic judge in a reference-conditioned cross-lingual setting from only about 300 human-labeled comparisons. Rather than replacing the frontier model, SpeechCritic calibrates it with these labels: for each dimension, it selects the acoustic measurements that agree with human judgments, maps them to A/Tie/B probabilities, and passes these to the model as non-binding hints alongside the audio. Compared with the same model labeling without hints, this raises dimension-level agreement with humans by 6.3 points and cuts the mismatch with human Tie rates by 10.4 points. We then train a 7B judge on this supervision and find that different training signals shape different judge behaviors: SFT establishes the task, OPD transfers the teacher's dimension-level strengths and weaknesses, and RL helps most on clear-cut comparisons where human raters agree. Notably, human listeners also find that RL makes rationales cite more specific, localized acoustic cues, although it never directly rewards rationale text. Finally, we show that the pipeline is language-pair agnostic by instantiating it on both English-Japanese and English-Spanish. Together, these results demonstrate a path from limited human preferences to a diagnostic speech judge.

Localising artifacts in synthetic speech remains challenging, as most evaluation methods yield only global quality scores. This paper presents XSQ-AST, a framework that combines the SQ-AST speech quality model with WhisperX phoneme alignment and multiple saliency methods to produce temporally localised artifact diagnostics without model retraining. Saliency maps are projected onto continuous distributions via kernel density estimation and onto phoneme boundaries via phoneme-discretised saliency maps. A 40-participant listening test validated the framework across five perceptual dimensions. Attention Rollout, Attention Flow and an adapted GradCAM produced temporal distributions that correlated with listener highlights, with different methods best suited to different artifact types. An AUC-ROC analysis confirmed discrimination above chance.

Speech assessment tools for speakers with speech pathology must be both accurate and interpretable if they are to be adopted in clinical practice. Existing reference-audio measures such as the Neural Acoustic Distance (NAD) reach high speaker-level correlations with listener intelligibility scores but operate on self-supervised features that are hard to interpret, providing only frame-level explanations. We propose ART-NAD, a reference-audio intelligibility metric that replaces the \texttt{wav2vec2} features of NAD with vocal-tract constriction variables (tract variables, TVs) predicted from audio by a speaker-independent acoustic-to-articulatory inversion model trained on the same \texttt{wav2vec2} features. ART-NAD is computed as the multivariate Dynamic Time Warping distance between the nine-channel quasi-TV trajectories of the test and one or more references. Across 20 reference-audio protocols spanning six pathological-speech datasets and five languages, ART-NAD with silence trimming (ART-NAD-FA) reaches the same average speaker-level Pearson correlation as NAD-FA (both $r=0.71$) on the same self-supervised backbone, with no significant per-protocol difference (Wilcoxon $p=0.18$), and is the strongest reference-audio metric on 6 of the 20 protocols. Beside the score itself, each TV channel visualizes which constriction deviates from the reference over time, providing interpretable information as to where articulation breaks down.

Most multilingual dysarthria-severity systems either train on a single aetiology-language pair or pool heterogeneous aetiologies into one label space. We test that pooling assumption with four matched HuBERT-base contrastive embedding models under a shared backbone, training recipe, corpus registry and held-out evaluation: one mixed-aetiology baseline and three aetiology-specific models for cerebral palsy (CP), Parkinson's disease (PD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Training combines clinically labelled speech with ordinal pseudo-labels from a training-free phonological profiling method [1], [2]. On speaker-disjoint, leakage-filtered held-out subsets, the per-aetiology models outperform the mixed baseline across all three target aetiologies: CP (macro F1 0.829 vs 0.676, +22.6 % relative), PD (0.715 vs 0.511, +40.0 %) and ALS (0.788 vs 0.596, +32.3 %). On CP, adding 144 SAP and 44 CDSD pseudo-labelled speakers lifts macro F1 from 0.786 to 0.829 over a clinical-only CP model (+4.3 percentage points). Training data span three to seven languages per aetiology. We position this as a controlled comparison of label-space design choices and discuss pseudo-label calibration, split hygiene, and confidence-thresholded deployment as important limitations for future work.

Speech Quality Assessment (SQA) is essential for modern speech technologies, and recent non-intrusive SQA predictors increasingly rely on Speech Foundation Models (SFMs). However, because SFMs expose representations from many layers, it remains unclear which depths are most informative for MOS prediction and how multi-layer information should be combined reliably across backbones and datasets. We benchmark ten SFMs on four MOS datasets under three regimes: full fine-tuning, last-layer probing with a frozen encoder, and naive cross-layer weighted aggregation. We find that the best layer is strongly backbone- and dataset-dependent, and that naive weighted fusion can be unstable across settings. We further evaluate a layer-calibrated aggregation variant that applies per-layer adapters before pooling, which improves the robustness of multi-layer fusion and narrows the gap to full fine-tuning while keeping the backbone frozen.

Mean Opinion Score (MOS) is the gold standard for evaluating synthesized speech naturalness. However, current automatic MOS predictors are dominated by self-supervised learning (SSL) models that prioritize high-level semantics, potentially compromising their ability to capture critical acoustic details. In this paper, we systematically investigate representations from three paradigms: SSLs, acoustic-only neural audio codecs (NACs), and unified NACs that integrate semantics into reconstruction-based architectures. Extensive benchmarking on the standard BVCC and multiple out-of-domain (OOD) datasets demonstrates that features synergizing semantic understanding with fine-grained acoustic modeling achieve a higher performance upper bound in speech quality assessment. Ultimately, our findings highlight that semantics alone are not enough; a dual focus on semantic content and acoustic fidelity is essential for robust MOS prediction.

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.

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.

Current voice AI benchmarks typically evaluate isolated capabilities such as speech intelligibility, word error rate, or text-based dialogue quality, but they rarely test whether systems harness the acoustic information that distinguishes spoken language from its textual representation. To this end, we introduce the Real World Voice EQ Bench, a multidimensional benchmark for evaluating voice AI across text-to-speech (TTS), speech-to-speech (STS), speech understanding (SU), and automatic speech recognition (ASR). Our evaluations indicate that performance is highly dimension-specific. For TTS, naturalness, expressiveness, identity stability, and reliability are largely independent evaluation dimensions. For STS, access to audio does not guarantee use of vocal affect, and some agents remain largely transcript-driven. For SU, models perform unevenly across paralinguistic tasks. For ASR, real world accent, emotion, noise, and conversational conditions expose failures that are not captured by established clean-speech benchmarks. Together, these results show that voice AI should be evaluated as a profile of acoustic, expressive, interactional, and robustness capabilities rather than by a single aggregate score.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) are increasingly used as automatic judges for speech evaluation. However, high agreement with human ratings does not guarantee that their verdicts are grounded in the audio. A judge may instead rely on specialist labels or reference data supplied by the evaluation protocol itself, taking a shortcut in place of listening to the audio. In this paper, we audit such protocol-level ``shortcuts'' in LALM judges across three common deployment protocols: feature-blueprint judging, where the audio is replaced by a structured text description of acoustic features, reference-conditioned judging, and pairwise A/B comparison. Across six judges and four attributes, we find that several LALMs rely on protocol-level shortcuts. For example, in feature-blueprint judging, incorrect specialist labels reduce five judges' emotion accuracy to 0.10 or below, and in concatenated A/B comparisons, Qwen3-Omni-Thinking often picks the same slot regardless of order swaps. These results indicate that aggregate agreement can overstate the validity of LALM judges unless the model and the evaluation protocol are assessed jointly, and that each model-protocol pair should be evaluated with a matched shortcut probe.

Streaming speech-to-speech language models aim to answer spoken queries directly with synthetic speech. However, standard speech and text benchmarks do not capture whether these systems behave naturally in conversations, where timing, turn-taking, prosody, interpersonal stance, language and dialect consistency, and relationship-aware appropriateness jointly shape perceived quality. We introduce SPEARBench, a benchmark for evaluating naturalness in speech-to-speech language models from question-answer interactions. SPEARBench constructs controlled dialogue prompts from the Seamless Interaction corpus, runs inference across multiple models, and evaluates generated answers using a multidimensional protocol that covers response latency, interruptions, speech quality, ASR robustness, language and dialect consistency, emotional naturalness, interpersonal stance, and explainable distributional baselines. The benchmark includes original human answers as a reference condition and reports results for several contemporary models. Results show that current models can achieve high signal-level quality and low ASR error while still differing from human conversational behavior in latency, overlap, dialect preservation, emotional adaptation, and interpersonal stance dynamics.

Text-to-speech (TTS) evaluation is an open challenge. While the primary target was "naturalness," recent fidelity gains shifted focus toward "appropriateness" and whether speech is correct for its context. In this work, we examine how perception changes when the expected downstream use varies. We measure the appropriateness and human-likeness of five SOTA TTS systems across five domains: AI assistant, reader, actor, animated character, and spontaneous speaker. Results show appropriateness varies across domains independently of naturalness. While systems shine at reading, expressive domains remain challenging, and optimizing for one can degrade others. Furthermore, naturalness scores tend to penalize stylized speech while rewarding spontaneity. Finally, our study also highlights blind spots in one-size-fits-all evaluation metrics across more expressive domains. We demonstrate that TTS performance is not "solved" but depends on the target domain, requiring context-aware evaluation.

UTMOS has become one of the most commonly used deep neural network-based speech quality assessment (SQA) metrics in speech processing research. In this paper, we attack UTMOS to probe its robustness. Starting from high-quality speech samples, we optimize the input in two directions: a score-preserving attack, which degrades perceived quality while maintaining the predicted score, and a quality-preserving attack, which lowers the predicted score while maintaining perceived quality. We consider three input spaces: raw waveform, mel spectrogram with a HiFi-GAN vocoder, and the latent space of EnCodec, a neural audio codec. Experimental results show that score-preserving attacks are effective against UTMOS. Although perfect quality-preserving attacks are more difficult, optimization in the EnCodec latent space provides the best chance of success. These results reveal failure modes of UTMOS and highlight the importance of robustness analysis for DNN-based SQA metrics.

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have been widely used as judge models for the automatic evaluation of generated speech. However, prior approaches predominantly focus on holistic naturalness, leaving fine-grained paralinguistic distinctions underexplored. We introduce ParaPairAudioBench, a pairwise benchmark of 5,175 audio pairs across five paralinguistic dimensions: Style, Rate, Emphasis, Age, and Gender. Our experiments show that current LALM judges still lag behind human judgments by 32%p on average and exhibit severe calibration failures, particularly in Tie cases where the correct decision is to abstain. To further analyze lexical versus acoustic reliance, the benchmark includes both same-transcript and cross-transcript conditions. ParaPairAudioBench enables multi-dimensional, calibration-aware assessment of the reliability of LALM-as-a-Judge for paralinguistic speech evaluation.

This work investigates the interpretability of a Wav2Vec 2.0based speech intelligibility assessment model for oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients through canonical correlation analysis. By measuring the correlation between the model embeddings and eGeMAPS low-level descriptors (LLDs) as an interpretable reference, we analyze how acoustic information is encoded across the model layers. The analysis is conducted at two levels: individual LLDs layer-wise, and group-level: prosodic, spectral, and voice quality. Results show that the learned representations are most strongly correlated with spectral and prosodic features, with the first MFCC coefficient yielding the highest correlations across all layers. At the group level, spectral and prosodic groups achieve correlations of 0.77 and 0.71 respectively, while voice quality reaches 0.65. Beyond model interpretability, this work also offers practical guidance on acoustic feature selection for pathological speech assessment.

Automatic dysarthria severity assessment is limited by the scarcity of labeled pathological speech data. To address this, we propose Cross-lingual Retrieval-Augmented Classification (CRAC), which leverages speech from a different language via an align-retrieve-fuse pipeline. Supervised contrastive learning first shapes a severity-focused embedding space, then a vector database is built from the opposite-language corpus. During both training and inference, the classifier retrieves top-k references from the aligned space and fuses them with the input via cross-attention. Evaluated on Korean post-stroke and Italian ALS dysarthria datasets under a speaker-independent three-class protocol, CRAC achieves balanced accuracies of 87.3% on Korean and 86.7% on Italian, improving over monolingual baselines by 8.4 and 20.0 percentage points, respectively.

Voice reconstruction using Text-to-Speech (TTS) offers a communication method for people with speech disorders, which aims to retain their speaker identity while improving intelligibility. Previous work generally relies on Mean Opinion Score (MOS) to evaluate naturalness and speaker similarity, but this has limited sensitivity and reliability. We propose an evaluation framework with subjective and objective components. Subjectively, we evaluate perceived intelligibility and speaker identity using Best Worst Scaling (BWS) with situational framing. Objectively, we demonstrate that standard measures fail to predict reconstruction success for highly unintelligible speakers, so we introduce a novel dual-reference distributional measure to assess the trade-off between intelligibility and speaker identity. By evaluating the output of 17 zero-shot TTS systems for 193 speakers, we show that our framework provides a reliable and task-aligned approach for assessing voice reconstruction.

Dysarthria severity assessment is essential for therapy planning and longitudinal monitoring, yet manual perceptual rating is time-consuming and variable across clinicians. Although deep learning models achieve strong performance, their black-box nature limits clinical adoption. Existing speech explainability methods typically provide acoustic feature importance scores that are difficult for end-users to interpret. We propose an influence-based, instance-level explainability framework that explains each decision through supportive and competing training samples. Using gradient-based influence approximations, we compute per-utterance influence scores to identify supportive and competing training samples for each prediction. Controlled deletion experiments from 5 to 20 percent validate the explanations, showing that removing highly influential samples systematically shifts predictions. This approach provides auditable explanations by linking decisions to perceptible reference cases.

Existing mean opinion score (MOS) prediction models typically predict utterance-level naturalness MOS and can be insensitive to localized pitch-accent errors. We propose Pitch-Accent-focused Speech Quality Assessment (PASQA), which explicitly targets pitch-accent correctness. To train our model, we construct a controlled Japanese accent-error dataset by changing accent patterns using an accent-controllable text-to-speech system, and compute a pseudo accent-quality score from the accent-error rate. PASQA builds on self-supervised representations and employs mora-conditioned fusion, ranking loss, an auxiliary accent-error localization task, and speaker-invariant training. Experiments show that conventional models fail to preserve the ordering by accent-error severity, whereas PASQA achieves high ordering accuracy on both seen and unseen speakers. Further, PASQA shows stronger agreement with human accent-correctness judgments. The code is available at https://github.com/lycorp-jp/PASQA.

Mean opinion score (MOS) prediction models are widely used as proxy metrics in text-to-speech (TTS) research, yet their ability to capture quality differences beyond acoustic fidelity remains unclear. We investigate this via controlled perturbations on speech: acoustic degradation, prosodic errors, and manipulation of speaker-specific characteristics such as pitch and speaking rate. We obtained MOS predictions for these speech samples from both human listeners and the model, and analyzed the differences in their perceptual characteristics. Results show that most models track acoustic degradation well, while all are insensitive to prosodic errors despite large subjective score drops. For speaker characteristics, models exhibit a double dissociation: strong mean fundamental frequency (F0) biases absent in human ratings, yet insensitivity to speaking rate and F0 variability that humans notice. These findings highlight limitations of scalar MOS prediction beyond acoustic fidelity.

Mean opinion scores (MOS) are widely used for speech quality assessment, yet scalar labels are sensitive to rater variability and listening test differences. This introduces labeling noise, which limits the reliability of MOS prediction. Preference prediction reduces this variability as listeners compare signals directly, producing cleaner labels. We study MOS-free preference prediction and propose PrefSQA, which incorporates uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and a module based on non-matching-reference comparisons. We use and refine five datasets, including MOS-derived and low-noise simulated sets with matching and non-matching content, experiment with human preference sets, and test on unseen data. Experiments show small improvements on MOS-derived data, while other sets reveal clear improvement over the baselines, highlighting the value of high-quality preference data and demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Dysarthria is a speech disorder marked by reduced intelligibility and communicative effectiveness. Automatic utterance-level assessment of dysarthric speech can support scalable speech monitoring and therapy-related analysis. Yet training such systems is bottlenecked by the scarcity of clinically annotated dysarthric speech. This work proposes to augment dysarthric speech assessment using data from speech synthesis evaluations, specifically human-annotated utterances with Mean Opinion Score (MOS) labels from the QualiSpeech corpus. Experiments show that fine-tuning on speech synthesis assessment data consistently improves performance on both intelligibility and naturalness prediction, while joint training yields gains primarily on naturalness. These results suggest that synthesis artifacts and dysarthric speech share perceptual commonalities, and speech synthesis evaluation corpora offer a practical augmentation source that reduces reliance on scarce clinical annotations.

Non-verbal vocalizations (NVs), such as laughter, sighs, and coughs, are important acoustic cues for emotion and intent. Existing speech quality assessment methods typically focus on overall naturalness, while non-verbal TTS evaluations mainly examine whether a target NV appears with the correct type and position. However, the perceptual quality of NV events themselves remains underexplored. To address this gap, we construct an NV-MOS dataset containing outputs from multiple NV-TTS systems and naturally occurring NV samples, with ratings collected from three acoustic experts on a perceptual quality scale. We further analyze audio-capable multimodal large language models such as Gemini and find clear inconsistencies between their scores and expert ratings. These results suggest that general-purpose multimodal models cannot reliably replace human judgments for NV quality assessment. We then propose NVMOS, to our knowledge the first model that can reliably predict the perceptual quality of NV events in speech. Experimental results show that, with a local NV-event focusing module, NVMOS reaches expert-level or stronger agreement with human MOS.