Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research exposes a critical misalignment in deep speech enhancement, demonstrating that optimizing models for the PESQ metric often degrades actual human listening preferences rather than improving them. The study warns against over-reliance on specific perceptual metrics when designing loss functions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluation procedures that include subjective testing.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Perceptual Quality Loss or Loss of Perceptual Quality?

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.35054v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.

Title:Perceptual Quality Loss or Loss of Perceptual Quality?

Abstract: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.

Audio and Speech Processing (eess.AS); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.35054 [eess.AS]

(or arXiv:2609.35054v1 [eess.AS] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35054 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 292 words

Related coverage