The limits of the Mean Opinion Score for speech synthesis evaluation

The release of WaveNet and Tacotron has forever transformed the speech synthesis landscape. Thanks to these game-changing innovations, the quality of synthetic speech has reached unprecedented levels. However, to measure this leap in quality, an overwhelming majority of studies still rely on the Absolute Category Rating (ACR) protocol and compare systems using its output; the Mean Opinion Score (MOS). This protocol is not without controversy, and as the current state-of-the-art synthesis systems now produce outputs remarkably close to human speech, it is now vital to determine how reliable this score is.To do so, we conducted a series of four experiments replicating and following the 2013 edition of the Blizzard Challenge. With these experiments, we asked four questions about the MOS: How stable is the MOS of a system across time? How do the scores of lower quality systems influence the MOS of higher quality systems? How does the introduction of modern technologies influence the scores of past systems? How does the MOS of modern technologies evolve in isolation?The results of our experiments are manyfold. Firstly, we verify the superiority of modern technologies in comparison to historical synthesis. Then, we show that despite its origin as an absolute category rating, MOS is a relative score. While minimal variations are observed during the replication of the 2013-EH2 task, these variations can still lead to different conclusions for the intermediate systems. Our experiments also illustrate the sensitivity of MOS to the presence/absence of lower and higher anchors. Overall, our experiments suggest that we may have reached the end of a cul-de-sac by only evaluating the overall quality with MOS. We must embark on a new road and develop different evaluation protocols better suited to the analysis of modern speech synthesis technologies

Predicting the Quality of Synthesized and Natural Speech Impaired by Packet Loss and Coding Using PESQ and P.563 Models

This paper investigates the impact of independent and dependent losses and coding on speech quality predictions provided by PESQ (also known as ITU-T P.862) and P.563 models, when both naturally-produced and synthesized speech are used. Two synthesized speech samples generated with two different Text-to-Speech systems and one naturally-produced sample are investigated. In addition, we assess the variability of PESQ’s and P.563’s predictions with respect to the type of speech used (naturally-produced or synthesized) and loss conditions as well as their accuracy, by comparing the predictions with subjective assessments. The results show that there is no difference between the impact of packet loss on naturally-produced speech and synthesized speech. On the other hand, the impact of coding is different for the two types of stimuli. In addition, synthesized speech seems to be insensitive to degradations provided by most of the codecs investigated here. The reasons for those findings are particularly discussed. Finally, it is concluded that both models are capable of predicting the quality of transmitted synthesized speech under the investigated conditions to a certain degree. As expected, PESQ achieves the best performance over almost all of the investigated conditions