Papers › Subjective Evaluation of Noise Suppression Algorithms in Crowdsourcing

Subjective Evaluation of Noise Suppression Algorithms in Crowdsourcing

25 Oct 2020arXiv:2010.13200archive 2025-07-28

Babak Naderi, Ross Cutler

The quality of the speech communication systems, which include noise suppression algorithms, are typically evaluated in laboratory experiments according to the ITU-T Rec. P.835, in which participants rate background noise, speech signal, and overall quality separately. This paper introduces an open-source toolkit for conducting subjective quality evaluation of noise suppressed speech in crowdsourcing. We followed the ITU-T Rec. P.835, and P.808 and highly automate the process to prevent moderator's error. To assess the validity of our evaluation method, we compared the Mean Opinion Scores (MOS), calculate using ratings collected with our implementation, and the MOS values from a standard laboratory experiment conducted according to the ITU-T Rec P.835. Results show a high validity in all three scales namely background noise, speech signal and overall quality (average PCC = 0.961). Results of a round-robin test (N=5) showed that our implementation is also a highly reproducible evaluation method (PCC=0.99). Finally, we used our implementation in the INTERSPEECH 2021 Deep Noise Suppression Challenge as the primary evaluation metric, which demonstrates it is practical to use at scale. The results are analyzed to determine why the overall performance was the best in terms of background noise and speech quality.

PaperPDFCode

Code

microsoft/P.808 officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubMIT report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections