Papers › An Open source Implementation of ITU-T Recommendation P.808 with Validation

An Open source Implementation of ITU-T Recommendation P.808 with Validation

17 May 2020arXiv:2005.08138archive 2025-07-28

Babak Naderi, Ross Cutler

The ITU-T Recommendation P.808 provides a crowdsourcing approach for conducting a subjective assessment of speech quality using the Absolute Category Rating (ACR) method. We provide an open-source implementation of the ITU-T Rec. P.808 that runs on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. We extended our implementation to include Degradation Category Ratings (DCR) and Comparison Category Ratings (CCR) test methods. We also significantly speed up the test process by integrating the participant qualification step into the main rating task compared to a two-stage qualification and rating solution. We provide program scripts for creating and executing the subjective test, and data cleansing and analyzing the answers to avoid operational errors. To validate the implementation, we compare the Mean Opinion Scores (MOS) collected through our implementation with MOS values from a standard laboratory experiment conducted based on the ITU-T Rec. P.800. We also evaluate the reproducibility of the result of the subjective speech quality assessment through crowdsourcing using our implementation. Finally, we quantify the impact of parts of the system designed to improve the reliability: environmental tests, gold and trapping questions, rating patterns, and a headset usage test.

Code

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

21 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 21 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 21 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from microsoft/P.808. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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