pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19597 · v1 · pith:MUPXAZIRnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 💻 cs.SD · cs.AI· cs.LG

PrefSQA: Pairwise Preference Prediction for Speech Quality Assessment and the Critical Role of High Quality Datasets

Junyi Fan , Donald S. Williamson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 18:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SD cs.AIcs.LG
keywords speech quality assessmentpairwise preference predictionmean opinion scorepreference labelsimpairment attentionnon-matching referencedataset quality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pairwise preference prediction produces cleaner labels than mean opinion scores for speech quality assessment when high-quality datasets are used.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Mean opinion scores introduce labeling noise due to rater variability and differences in listening tests. The paper shifts focus to pairwise preference labels obtained by direct signal comparisons, which reduce this variability. It introduces PrefSQA, a model that adds uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and a non-matching-reference comparison module. Tests across five refined datasets, including simulated low-noise sets and human preferences, show modest gains on MOS-derived data but clearer improvements elsewhere. This demonstrates the value of high-quality preference data for more reliable speech quality prediction.

Core claim

PrefSQA performs MOS-free preference prediction by incorporating uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and non-matching-reference comparison modules; when trained on refined high-quality preference datasets it outperforms baselines, with gains that are small on MOS-derived data but clear on low-noise simulated and human preference sets.

What carries the argument

PrefSQA model with uncertainty-aware logits, impairment attention head, and non-matching-reference comparison module that processes direct signal comparisons to produce preference predictions.

If this is right

  • Preference-based training reduces the impact of rater variability on speech quality models.
  • High-quality preference datasets enable larger performance gains than MOS-derived ones.
  • The impairment attention head and non-matching-reference module help handle diverse signal conditions.
  • Models trained this way can generalize better to unseen speech data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be tested on real-world telephony or streaming audio where reference signals are absent.
  • Preference labels might allow consistent model training across different acoustic environments without recalibrating MOS scales.
  • Combining preference data with limited MOS data could further stabilize predictions in mixed datasets.

Load-bearing premise

Pairwise preference labels from direct comparisons are inherently less variable and less noisy than scalar MOS labels.

What would settle it

A controlled listening test that measures and compares the variance of repeated preference judgments versus repeated MOS ratings on the same speech signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19597 by Donald S. Williamson, Junyi Fan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PrefSQA model architecture for input waveform x with semantic-acoustic encoders, augmented with uncertainty-aware preference logits, a lightweight impairment attention head (purple blocks), and a feature-level non-matching-reference (NMR) head (blue blocks). The other input waveform y (not shown here) goes through the same process. 2. Method 2.1. Backbones: dual encoders [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that scalar MOS labels for speech quality assessment suffer from rater variability and listening-test differences that introduce noise, while pairwise preference prediction yields cleaner labels because listeners compare signals directly. It proposes PrefSQA, which adds uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and a non-matching-reference comparison module. The authors refine five datasets (MOS-derived preference sets plus low-noise simulated sets with matching and non-matching content), conduct experiments on human preference data, and test generalization to unseen data. Results are described as showing only small gains on MOS-derived sets but clearer improvements over baselines on the higher-quality preference sets, thereby highlighting the value of clean preference data.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold after verification, the work would usefully direct attention to dataset cleanliness as a primary driver of model performance in speech quality assessment and demonstrate that preference formulations can exploit high-quality labels more effectively than MOS. The multi-dataset protocol (including simulated low-noise and unseen-test conditions) is a positive feature that supports reproducibility and falsifiability. The architectural additions could be adopted more broadly if ablations confirm their incremental value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and §4 (Datasets)] Introduction and §4 (Datasets): The central motivation—that direct pairwise comparisons inherently produce less variable and less noisy labels than scalar MOS—is asserted without any reported quantification of inter-rater agreement, transitivity violations, or label variance on matched content. This measurement is load-bearing for the claim that preference prediction itself reduces noise rather than merely correlating with cleaner data sources.
  2. [§5 (Experiments)] §5 (Experiments): The reported pattern of 'small improvements on MOS-derived data' versus 'clear improvement' on other sets is consistent with gains tracking data cleanliness rather than the preference formulation or the proposed modules; however, no statistical tests, ablation isolating the preference loss from data quality, or baseline implementation details are supplied to adjudicate this alternative explanation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The directional claims would be strengthened by inclusion of at least one quantitative result (e.g., ΔPCC or ΔMSE on a held-out set) so readers can gauge effect size without reading the full experiments section.
  2. [§3 (Method)] Notation: The precise formulation of the uncertainty-aware logits and the impairment attention head should be given as explicit equations with variable definitions to allow replication.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The two major comments identify important gaps in evidentiary support for the central motivation and in the experimental analysis. We address each point below, indicate where revisions will be made, and note one aspect we cannot fully resolve with the existing data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Introduction and §4 (Datasets): The central motivation—that direct pairwise comparisons inherently produce less variable and less noisy labels than scalar MOS—is asserted without any reported quantification of inter-rater agreement, transitivity violations, or label variance on matched content. This measurement is load-bearing for the claim that preference prediction itself reduces noise rather than merely correlating with cleaner data sources.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript asserts the noise-reduction benefit of pairwise preferences without providing direct quantification on matched content. This claim draws from prior literature on MOS variability, but the current datasets (MOS-derived preference sets and simulated low-noise sets) do not contain the multiple independent ratings per pair needed to compute inter-rater agreement or transitivity statistics. We will revise the introduction to tone down the inherent claim, cite supporting literature more explicitly, and clarify that the primary empirical contribution concerns the value of high-quality preference data rather than a new proof of label cleanliness. A limitation paragraph will be added in §4. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §5 (Experiments): The reported pattern of 'small improvements on MOS-derived data' versus 'clear improvement' on other sets is consistent with gains tracking data cleanliness rather than the preference formulation or the proposed modules; however, no statistical tests, ablation isolating the preference loss from data quality, or baseline implementation details are supplied to adjudicate this alternative explanation.

    Authors: We accept that the current experimental section does not include statistical significance tests or ablations that cleanly separate the contribution of the preference loss from dataset cleanliness. The observed pattern is indeed consistent with the paper’s emphasis on data quality. In the revision we will add paired statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) on the reported improvements, expand the ablation study to include a controlled comparison of MOS-derived versus simulated preference training while holding the model fixed, and provide fuller baseline implementation details (hyperparameters, training schedules, and code references). These additions will help adjudicate the alternative explanation. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct quantification of inter-rater agreement, transitivity violations, or label variance on matched content for pairwise preferences versus MOS cannot be performed with the datasets used in the manuscript without new data collection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is an empirical study proposing PrefSQA for pairwise preference prediction in speech quality assessment. It relies on experimental evaluation across multiple datasets rather than any mathematical derivation chain. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations are present in the provided text. The core motivation regarding label cleanliness is presented as an assumption supported by performance comparisons on external data, not as a result that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The approach is self-contained against benchmarks and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior self-work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies insufficient detail for exhaustive ledger; only the core domain assumption about preference label quality is extractable.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Pairwise preference labels reduce rater variability compared with scalar MOS labels
    Stated directly in the opening sentences as the motivation for shifting from MOS to preferences.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5671 in / 1194 out tokens · 41016 ms · 2026-06-26T18:51:42.758743+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Introduction Perceptual speech quality assessment (SQA) plays a crucial role in speech enhancement, text-to-speech (TTS), and automatic speech recognition systems [1]. Although subjective listening tests remain the most reliable way to assess speech quality, they are expensive, time-consuming, and impractical to run at large scales required by modern spee...

  2. [2]

    The noise creates difficulty for supervised learning and obscures quality differ- ences between signals

    all contribute to high labeling noise [4]. The noise creates difficulty for supervised learning and obscures quality differ- ences between signals. These issues motivated a shift toward preference-based assessment, where listeners compare quality levels of two signals rather than assign absolute scores. Pair- wise judgments reduce subjective variability, ...

  3. [3]

    PrefSQA: Pairwise Preference Prediction for Speech Quality Assessment and the Critical Role of High Quality Datasets

    and WavLM [21], as the starting point for our model de- sign. We then introduce original architectural decisions to im- prove pairwise preference modeling. Specifically, our model is augmented with uncertainty-aware Bradley-Terry preference logits [22], a lightweight impairment attention head that em- phasizes local degradations, and a feature-level non-m...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    xpreferred overy

    Method 2.1. Backbones: dual encoders Figure 1 illustrates the PrefSQA architecture for a single sig- nal in a pair. Following [16], pretrained wav2vec2 and WavLM encoders provide semantic and acoustically sensitive represen- tations, respectively, for a waveform. The wav2vec2 branch uses the last hidden state, while the WavLM branch passes the full set of...

  5. [5]

    The NMR lossL NMR is scaled byλand then added to the primary loss to form the total lossLin (4)

    onz x,y, wheremindexes pairs in a batch andc[m]equals 1 if the label indicatesxis preferred and 0 otherwise. The NMR lossL NMR is scaled byλand then added to the primary loss to form the total lossLin (4). LBT = BCEwithLogits zx,y[m], c[m] (3) L=L BT +λL NMR (4)

  6. [6]

    MOS-derived datasets: NISQA and SOMOS For the NISQA data, we use the full dataset including all sub- set conditions (e.g., P501, LIVE, SIM)

    Datasets 3.1. MOS-derived datasets: NISQA and SOMOS For the NISQA data, we use the full dataset including all sub- set conditions (e.g., P501, LIVE, SIM). We maintain all these subset conditions and also the original train, validation, and test split conditions. All pairs are generated inside those spe- cific conditions and no utterances are moved across ...

  7. [7]

    Experimental setup Input signals are resampled to 16 kHz, truncated or zero-padded to a maximum length of 6 seconds, with an attention mask marking valid samples

    Experimental Results 4.1. Experimental setup Input signals are resampled to 16 kHz, truncated or zero-padded to a maximum length of 6 seconds, with an attention mask marking valid samples. The layer-weighted sum module uses temperature 0.5 and gate dropout 0.1. The two-layer feature processors for the encoders each have a 64-dimensional bottle- neck. A si...

  8. [8]

    It is worth mentioning that these two datasets only contain pairs with matching speech content

    to reflect performance on labels collected from real listen- ing tests. It is worth mentioning that these two datasets only contain pairs with matching speech content. We also use the IUB dataset [26], constructed from the COSINE corpus through MUSHRA tests, solely for testing to assess the model’s gener- alization capabilities. We use its scaled MOS for ...

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Conclusion and Future Work This paper studies MOS-free pairwise preference prediction for perceptual speech quality assessment by introducing PrefSQA, a dual encoder system that fuses wav2vec 2.0 and WavLM fea- tures with uncertainty-aware logits, impairment attention, and a lightweight in-batch NMR head to refine global rankings. The experiments show tha...

  10. [10]

    Acknowledgment This work was supported in part by the Ohio Supercomputer Center, NSF award IIS-2235228, and NSF award IIS-2523648

  11. [11]

    Use of Generative AI Disclosure Generative AI tools have been used for editing and polishing this manuscript

  12. [12]

    P. C. Loizou,Speech Quality Assessment. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 623–654

    2011

  13. [13]

    Analysis of influencing factors in speech quality assessment using crowdsourcing,

    R. Zequeira Jim ´enez, “Analysis of influencing factors in speech quality assessment using crowdsourcing,” Doctoral Thesis, Tech- nische Universit¨at Berlin, Jan. 2022

    2022

  14. [14]

    Comparison between the discrete ACR scale and an extended continuous scale for the quality assessment of transmitted speech,

    F. K ¨oster, D. Guse, M. W¨altermann, and S. M ¨oller, “Comparison between the discrete ACR scale and an extended continuous scale for the quality assessment of transmitted speech,”Fortschritte der Akustik, DAGA, vol. 3, pp. 150–153, 2015

    2015

  15. [15]

    MOS-Bench: Benchmarking Generalization Abilities of Subjective Speech Quality Assessment Models

    W.-C. Huang, E. Cooper, and T. Toda, “MOS-Bench: Bench- marking generalization abilities of subjective speech quality as- sessment models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03715, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Why rate when you could compare? using the “elochoice

    A. P. Clark, K. L. Howard, A. T. Woods, I. S. Penton-V oak, and C. Neumann, “Why rate when you could compare? using the “elochoice” package to assess pairwise comparisons of perceived physical strength,”PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 01 2018

    2018

  17. [17]

    Pair- wise comparison versus likert scale for biomedical image assess- ment,

    A. S. Phelps, D. M. Naeger, J. L. Courtier, J. W. Lambert, P. A. Marcovici, J. E. Villanueva-Meyer, and J. D. MacKenzie, “Pair- wise comparison versus likert scale for biomedical image assess- ment,”American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 204, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2015

    2015

  18. [18]

    MOSNet: Deep learning based objec- tive assessment for voice conversion,

    C.-C. Lo, S.-W. Fu, W.-C. Huang, X. Wang, J. Yamagishi, Y . Tsao, and H.-M. Wang, “MOSNet: Deep learning based objec- tive assessment for voice conversion,” inProc. Interspeech, 2019, pp. 1541–1545

    2019

  19. [19]

    NISQA: A deep CNN-self-attention model for multidimensional speech quality prediction with crowdsourced datasets,

    G. Mittag, B. Naderi, A. Chehadi, and S. M ¨oller, “NISQA: A deep CNN-self-attention model for multidimensional speech quality prediction with crowdsourced datasets,” inProc. Inter- speech, 2021, pp. 2127–2131

    2021

  20. [20]

    The V oiceMOS challenge 2024: Beyond speech quality prediction,

    W.-C. Huang, S.-W. Fu, E. Cooper, R. E. Zezario, T. Toda, H.- M. Wang, J. Yamagishi, and Y . Tsao, “The V oiceMOS challenge 2024: Beyond speech quality prediction,” in2024 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 803– 810

    2024

  21. [21]

    MOSPC: MOS prediction based on pairwise comparison,

    K. Wang, Y . Zhao, Q. Dong, T. Ko, and M. Wang, “MOSPC: MOS prediction based on pairwise comparison,” inProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 2023, pp. 1547–1556

    2023

  22. [22]

    SESQA: Semi-supervised learn- ing for speech quality assessment,

    J. Serr `a, J. Pons, and S. Pascual, “SESQA: Semi-supervised learn- ing for speech quality assessment,” inIEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 381–385

    2021

  23. [23]

    NORESQA: A framework for speech quality assessment using non-matching references,

    P. Manocha, B. Xu, and A. Kumar, “NORESQA: A framework for speech quality assessment using non-matching references,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 363–22 378, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    SQAPP: No-reference speech quality assessment via pairwise preference,

    P. Manocha, Z. Jin, and A. Finkelstein, “SQAPP: No-reference speech quality assessment via pairwise preference,” inIEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 891–895

    2022

  25. [25]

    UrgentMOS: Unified multi-metric and preference learning for robust speech quality assessment,

    W. Wang, W. Zhang, C. Li, J. Wang, S. Cornell, M. Sach, K. Saijo, Y . Fu, Z. Ni, B. Hanet al., “UrgentMOS: Unified multi-metric and preference learning for robust speech quality assessment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18438, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Predicting pairwise preferences between TTS audio stimuli using parallel ratings data and anti-symmetric twin neural networks,

    C. Valentini-Botinhao, M. S. Ribeiro, O. Watts, K. Richmond, and G. E. Henter, “Predicting pairwise preferences between TTS audio stimuli using parallel ratings data and anti-symmetric twin neural networks,” inProc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 471–475

    2022

  27. [27]

    Universal preference-score-based pair- wise speech quality assessment,

    Y . Shi, Y . Ai, and Z. Ling, “Universal preference-score-based pair- wise speech quality assessment,” inProc. Interspeech, 2025, pp. 1131–1135

    2025

  28. [28]

    SOMOS: The Samsung Open MOS dataset for the evaluation of neural text- to-speech synthesis,

    G. Maniati, A. Vioni, N. Ellinas, K. Nikitaras, K. Klapsas, J. S. Sung, G. Jho, A. Chalamandaris, and P. Tsiakoulis, “SOMOS: The Samsung Open MOS dataset for the evaluation of neural text- to-speech synthesis,” inProc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 2388–2392

    2022

  29. [29]

    Lib- riSpeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books,

    V . Panayotov, G. Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur, “Lib- riSpeech: An ASR corpus based on public domain audio books,” inIEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sig- nal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2015, pp. 5206–5210

    2015

  30. [30]

    The third ‘CHiME’ speech separation and recognition challenge: Dataset, task and baselines,

    J. Barker, R. Marxer, E. Vincent, and S. Watanabe, “The third ‘CHiME’ speech separation and recognition challenge: Dataset, task and baselines,” inIEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU). IEEE, 2015, pp. 504– 511

    2015

  31. [31]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech repre- sentations,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449–12 460, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    WavLM: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,

    S. Chen, C. Wang, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, S. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Li, N. Kanda, T. Yoshioka, X. Xiaoet al., “WavLM: Large-scale self- supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1505–1518, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons,

    R. A. Bradley and M. E. Terry, “Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons,”Biometrika, vol. 39, no. 3/4, pp. 324–345, 1952

    1952

  34. [34]

    Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019

    2019

  35. [35]

    SpeechLLM-as-Judges: Towards General and Interpretable Speech Quality Evaluation

    H. Wang, J. Zhao, Y . Yang, S. Liu, J. Chen, Y . Zhang, S. Zhao, J. Li, J. Zhou, H. Sunet al., “SpeechLLM-as-Judges: To- wards general and interpretable speech quality evaluation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14664, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Speechjudge: Towards human-level judgment for speech naturalness,

    X. Zhang, C. Wang, H. Liao, Z. Li, Y . Wang, L. Wang, D. Jia, Y . Chen, X. Li, Z. Chen, and Z. Wu, “SpeechJudge: Towards human-level judgment for speech naturalness,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07931, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    A pyramid recurrent network for predicting crowdsourced speech-quality ratings of real-world signals,

    X. Dong and D. S. Williamson, “A pyramid recurrent network for predicting crowdsourced speech-quality ratings of real-world signals,” inProc. Interspeech, 2020, pp. 4636–4640

    2020

  38. [38]

    A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility,

    L. I.-K. Lin, “A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility,”Biometrics, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 255–268, 1989

    1989