Paper detail

AECMOS: A speech quality assessment metric for echo impairment

Traditionally, the quality of acoustic echo cancellers is evaluated using intrusive speech quality assessment measures such as ERLE \cite{g168} and PESQ \cite{p862}, or by carrying out subjective laboratory tests. Unfortunately, the former are not well correlated with human subjective measures, while the latter are time and resource consuming to carry out. We provide a new tool for speech quality assessment for echo impairment which can be used to evaluate the performance of acoustic echo cancellers. More precisely, we develop a neural network model to evaluate call quality degradations in two separate categories: echo and degradations from other sources. We show that our model is accurate as measured by correlation with human subjective quality ratings. Our tool can be used effectively to stack rank echo cancellation models. AECMOS is being made publicly available as an Azure service.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.