Papers › Speech Quality Assessment in Crowdsourcing: Comparison Category Rating Method
Speech Quality Assessment in Crowdsourcing: Comparison Category Rating Method
Babak Naderi, Sebastian Möller, Ross Cutler
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.
Traditionally, Quality of Experience (QoE) for a communication system is evaluated through a subjective test. The most common test method for speech QoE is the Absolute Category Rating (ACR), in which participants listen to a set of stimuli, processed by the underlying test conditions, and rate their perceived quality for each stimulus on a specific scale. The Comparison Category Rating (CCR) is another standard approach in which participants listen to both reference and processed stimuli and rate their quality compared to the other one. The CCR method is particularly suitable for systems that improve the quality of input speech. This paper evaluates an adaptation of the CCR test procedure for assessing speech quality in the crowdsourcing set-up. The CCR method was introduced in the ITU-T Rec. P.800 for laboratory-based experiments. We adapted the test for the crowdsourcing approach following the guidelines from ITU-T Rec. P.800 and P.808. We show that the results of the CCR procedure via crowdsourcing are highly reproducible. We also compared the CCR test results with widely used ACR test procedures obtained in the laboratory and crowdsourcing. Our results show that the CCR procedure in crowdsourcing is a reliable and valid test method.
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