Audio Large Language Models Can Be Descriptive Speech Quality Evaluators
Audio LLM;Speech quality evaluation
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Please refer to the weakness part.
This paper proposes to predict the MOS within the framework of a currently popular audio LLM scheme. The authors present their method clearly and effectively, detailing how the model assesses various aspects of audio quality before generating an overall MOS score. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, indicating that the proposed method achieves a higher accuracy in MOS prediction compared to traditional regression-based methods.
This paper focuses on predicting MOS using a recently popular audio LLM approach. The model provides a natural language description of audio quality across several key dimensions, such as noisiness, coloration, and discontinuity, before assigning an overall MOS score. This process resembles a CoT approach, in which the model evaluates different aspects of audio quality to arrive at a final score. The authors claim that this method of MOS prediction is more accurate than traditional regression-based MOS prediction models.
- According to the ITU-T definition, the MOS should be an integer between 1 and 5. However, in the example provided in Section 1, the sentence ".....Taking into account all factors, the overall MOS score is only 2.4" conflicts with this definition, as MOS should not be a decimal. This discrepancy suggests a fundamental misalignment with the official MOS standard, which could impact the validity of the work.
- Although the authors extend the application of audio LLMs to MOS prediction, this appears to be a relatively incremental extension of prior works, such as SALMONN, which already covers a wide range of audio understanding tasks. As such, the methodological contribution may seem limited, potentially lacking the level of innovation typically expected at ICLR.
- The authors mention in Section 4.3 that the model requires SFT before RL. However, SFT is not mentioned at all until this point, which may lead readers to assume that RL alone is responsible for training the model. A more transparent approach would be to explicitly state from the outset that the model uses a typical SFT + RL pipeline, rather than emphasizing only certain parts of the process.
- In later sections, the term "full-ft" appears, but it is unclear if this is meant to refer to the same process as SFT. If they are indeed synonymous, it would be clearer and less confusing to use consistent terminology throughout the paper. This will ensure readers understand the training pipeline without ambiguity.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Please explain the reason for lower LCC and SRCC for LIVE and P501 datasets.

Please share details on how you plan to generate descriptive text for audio data maintaining uniformity
The paper shows clear outcomes for the novel proposal and experiment
- ALLD achieves the best performance across all systems according to evaluation metrics, and the BLEU score demonstrates the efficacy of this distillation strategy
- Paper describes means of generating evaluation data which is descriptive and can improve Audio LLM performance
The paper contributes to the below 3 aspects and talks importance of descriptive information of audios in Multimodal LLM
(i) Importance of speech quality evaluation in multimodal agents especially for speech. (ii) Provide descriptive speech quality evaluation sets important for benchmarking the evaluation of audio quality in Audio LLMs. (iii) A novel learning strategy called ALLD that allows end to end perception and generation
While the improvements from the experiments have shown improvement its not clear on why the LCC and SRCC haven't improved for LIVE and P501 datasets.
Also, descriptive language is subjective to users, unlike evaluation score like BLEU, how do you propose to adhere to similar descriptive style for the evaluation generation
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Can the authors kindly clarify the framework or the decision criteria for generating preference judgments when systems perform differently across sub-dimensions?
2. If the teacher model used during distillation is the same as the description generator of the training dataset, could this lead to a potential bias in the interpretation of the BLEU scores? 
3. Is there empirical support for the claim that human listeners cannot distinguish between original and edited speech produced by VoiceCraft? Including a perceptual test comparing original and VoiceCraft-edited audio samples or citing relevant literature if such a test exists can help here.
**Originality**: This work introduces a descriptive, language-based dataset for speech quality assessment, allowing audio LLMs to conduct more nuanced evaluations. The ALLD framework presents an innovative approach by guiding audio LLMs through token-level distillation.


**Quality**: The comparisons between traditional regression methods and descriptive, audio LLM-based approaches offer valuable insights into fine-tuning and demonstrate the effectiveness of natural language guidance.


**Clarity**: The paper is generally well-written and clear, though Section 2.2 could benefit from further refinement.


**Significance**: Repurposing Audio LLMs for speech quality evaluation addresses a critical need, given the limited availability of reliable automated metrics and the high costs of subjective evaluation. This work provides a pr
This paper presents an innovative approach to integrating speech quality evaluation into audio large language models (audio LLMs), addressing a gap in audio LLMs that typically overlook signal quality. The authors introduce a novel dataset that pairs Mean Opinion Score (MOS) ratings with natural language-based assessments (text descriptions) across multiple dimensions of audio quality, including noisiness, coloration, discontinuity, and loudness. This allows the audio LLM to generate descriptive judgments of quality. They propose an "Alignment with LLM Distillation" (ALLD) framework, distilling knowledge from a reference LLM to guide the audio LLM in emulating human-like quality assessments. Experimental results show that ALLD outperforms traditional MOS prediction models in both accuracy and descriptive capability, achieving lower mean square errors and higher BLEU scores.
* While a strengths and weaknesses comparison between two systems across specific sub-dimensions is reasonable, it is unclear how a human or LLM might synthesize these into an overall preference judgment. For example, if System 1 outperforms System 2 in one sub-dimension but falls behind in another, the basis for an overarching preference remains ambiguous. The dataset relies on LLM responses to make arbitrary decisions on whether Speech A or Speech B is preferable, using sub-dimensional scores as part of the reasoning. This raises concerns about consistency and the interpretability of such comparative judgments.
* Since the Teacher model is also used as the description generator, it would be useful to explore the generalizability of the ALLD framework. Given that BLEU scores are calculated on synthetic descriptions produced by the Teacher, examining how well ALLD performs on independently generated descriptions could add valuable insights. For example, one could compare ALLD with a smaller set of human-generated descriptions on the same dataset to assess its generalizability further.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. The formulate 1 looks like it is based on token level. However the formulate 2 is sequence level. How is formulate 1 rewritten into formulate 2?
2. why the proposed ALLD gave improved results over Full-FT? Could you share more insights? Is the improvement from the newly prepared data corpus? or the proposed ALLD method?
1. The paper introduces a new dataset for speech quality evaluation using human like natural language description. 
2. The proposed ALLD seems like an interesting approach which leverages token level distillation based on the implicit reward modeling from DPO.
3. The paper also shows that the speech quality evaluation can be integrated into multitask learning framework without degrading the performance of other tasks. 
4. The experiment results look promising
This paper introduces a new approach for the speech quality evaluation tasks using audio llm. Additionally, the paper also introduce a new dataset for speech quality evaluation that include human like natural language description of the quality of speech. The proposed method alignment with LLM distillation (ALLD) for the audio LLM training. The ALLD aligns the generated sequence of the audio LLM to an expert LLM's response based on meta-information. The author also evaluated the proposed ALLD model on several evaluation dataset. The experiments showed that the proposed method outperformed SOTA regression model.
1. The author might need give better clarification of the dataset. At the beginning, I had the impression that the corpus was newly created from the paper. Actually the dataset is from previous work but generated the human like description labels from LLM. 
2. The proposed method showed better results than Full-ft method. However, the improvement doesn't look significant.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024audio,
title={Audio Large Language Models Can Be Descriptive Speech Quality Evaluators},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=U42TkrEDzb},
note={under review}
}
An ideal multimodal agent should be aware of the quality of its input modalities. Recent advances have enabled large language models (LLMs) to incorporate auditory systems for handling various speech-related tasks. However, most audio LLMs remain unaware of the quality of the speech they process. This limitation arises because speech quality evaluation is typically excluded from multi-task training due to the lack of suitable datasets. To address this, we introduce the first natural language-based speech evaluation corpus, generated from authentic human ratings. In addition to the overall Mean Opinion Score (MOS), this corpus offers detailed analysis across multiple dimensions and identifies causes of quality degradation. It also enables descriptive comparisons between two speech samples (A/B tests) with human-like judgment. Leveraging this corpus, we propose an alignment approach with LLM distillation (ALLD) to guide the audio LLM in extracting relevant information from raw speech and generating meaningful responses. Experimental results demonstrate that ALLD outperforms the previous state-of-the-art regression model in MOS prediction, with a mean square error of 0.17 and an A/B test accuracy of 98.6%. Additionally, the generated responses achieve BLEU scores of 25.8 and 30.2 on two tasks, surpassing the capabilities of task-specific models. This work advances the comprehensive perception of speech signals by audio LLMs, contributing to the development of real-world auditory and sensory intelligent agents.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Audio LLM Speech quality evaluation
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/b6f26d4a5941544b2f308fdbc4bfebc338ffcc22.pdf
applications to computer vision, audio, language, and other modalities
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Audio Large Language Models Can Be Descriptive Speech Quality Evaluators
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission