Mark Levin

Ilya Trofimenko, David Kocharyan, Aleksandr Zaitsev et al.

Ensuring that Text-to-Speech (TTS) systems deliver human-perceived quality at scale is a central challenge for modern speech technologies. Human subjective evaluation protocols such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS) and Side-by-Side (SBS) comparisons remain the de facto gold standards, yet they are expensive, slow, and sensitive to pervasive assessor biases. This study addresses these barriers by formulating, and implementing a suite of novel neural models designed to approximate expert judgments in both relative (SBS) and absolute (MOS) settings. For relative assessment, we propose NeuralSBS, a HuBERT-backed model achieving 73.7% accuracy (on SOMOS dataset). For absolute assessment, we introduce enhancements to MOSNet using custom sequence-length batching, as well as WhisperBert, a multimodal stacking ensemble that combines Whisper audio features and BERT textual embeddings via weak learners. Our best MOS models achieve a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of ~0.40, significantly outperforming the human inter-rater RMSE baseline of 0.62. Furthermore, our ablation studies reveal that naively fusing text via cross-attention can degrade performance, highlighting the effectiveness of ensemble-based stacking over direct latent fusion. We additionally report negative results with SpeechLM-based architectures and zero-shot LLM evaluators (Qwen2-Audio, Gemini 2.5 flash preview), reinforcing the necessity of dedicated metric learning frameworks.

Mark Levin, Hana Chockler

Policies trained via reinforcement learning (RL) are often very complex even for simple tasks. In an episode with n time steps, a policy will make n decisions on actions to take, many of which may appear non-intuitive to the observer. Moreover, it is not clear which of these decisions directly contribute towards achieving the reward and how significant their contribution is. Given a trained policy, we propose a black-box method based on statistical covariance estimation that clusters the states of the environment and ranks each cluster according to the importance of decisions made in its states. We compare our measure against a previous statistical fault localization based ranking procedure.