Papers › Objective Metrics to Evaluate Residual-Echo Suppression During Double-Talk
Objective Metrics to Evaluate Residual-Echo Suppression During Double-Talk
Amir Ivry, Israel Cohen, Baruch Berdugo
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Human subjective evaluation is optimal to assess speech quality for human perception. The recently introduced deep noise suppression mean opinion score (DNSMOS) metric was shown to estimate human ratings with great accuracy. The signal-to-distortion ratio (SDR) metric is widely used to evaluate residual-echo suppression (RES) systems by estimating speech quality during double-talk. However, since the SDR is affected by both speech distortion and residual-echo presence, it does not correlate well with human ratings according to the DNSMOS. To address that, we introduce two objective metrics to separately quantify the desired-speech maintained level (DSML) and residual-echo suppression level (RESL) during double-talk. These metrics are evaluated using a deep learning-based RES-system with a tunable design parameter. Using 280 hours of real and simulated recordings, we show that the DSML and RESL correlate well with the DNSMOS with high generalization to various setups. Also, we empirically investigate the relation between tuning the RES-system design parameter and the DSML-RESL tradeoff it creates and offer a practical design scheme for dynamic system requirements.
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
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