Evaluates a model's ability to synthesize high-fidelity, intelligible speech directly from visual lip movements. It probes perceptual audio quality, content accuracy, and speaker identity preservation in a cross-dataset generalization setting. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LRS3-TED, LRS2-BBC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports WER.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill lip-to-speech-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Lip To Speech Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-lip-to-speech-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: lip-to-speech-eval
description: Evaluates a model's ability to synthesize high-fidelity, intelligible speech directly from visual lip movements. It probes perceptual audio quality, content accuracy, and speaker identity preservation in a cross-dataset generalization setting. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LRS3-TED, LRS2-BBC, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports WER.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.11477
bibtex_key: liang2026sldl2s
confidence: high
---
# lip-to-speech-eval
> SLD-L2S: Hierarchical Subspace Latent Diffusion for High-Fidelity Lip to Speech Synthesis — Liang et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.11477, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates a model's ability to synthesize high-fidelity, intelligible speech directly from visual lip movements. It probes perceptual audio quality, content accuracy, and speaker identity preservation in a cross-dataset generalization setting.
## Datasets
- **LRS3-TED** — total 150000; splits: train (-1), val (-1), test (-1)
- **LRS2-BBC** — total 144000; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `WER` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Word Error Rate calculated using the AUTO-AVSR model, measuring the percentage of incorrectly recognized words relative to the ground truth transcript.
- `UTMOS` — range: [1, 5]
- Non-intrusive reference-free model predicting a mean opinion score (MOS) on a 1-to-5 scale to correlate with human quality judgments.
- `SCOREQ` — range: [1, 5]
- Reference-free model predicting a MOS on a 1-to-5 scale for perceptual quality assessment.
- `D-BERT` — range: [-1, 1]
- Cosine similarity between SSL embeddings of synthesized and target speech, measuring semantic similarity.
- `SECS` — range: [-1, 1]
- Cosine similarity between speaker embeddings extracted from synthesized and target speech using Resemblyzer, measuring speaker identity preservation.
- `MOS` — range: [1, 5]
- Human-rated Mean Opinion Score on a 1-to-5 scale assessing naturalness, intelligibility, and speaker similarity.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Mouth region-of-interest video frames (88x88 grayscale) processed into 1024-dimensional visual features via AV-Hubert Large, plus a 256-dimensional speaker identity embedding from a reference utterance.
**Output**: Continuous latent vectors of the X-Codec-hubert neural audio codec, which are subsequently decoded into 16 kHz audio waveforms.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(synthesized_audio, target_audio, target_transcript):
wer = auto_avsr.transcribe(synthesized_audio) / len(target_transcript)
d_bert = cosine_similarity(hubert_embed(target_audio), hubert_embed(synthesized_audio))
secs = cosine_similarity(resemblyzer_embed(target_audio), resemblizer_embed(synthesized_audio))
utmos = utmos_model.predict(synthesized_audio)
scoreq = scoreq_model.predict(synthesized_audio)
return {'WER': wer, 'D-BERT': d_bert, 'SECS': secs, 'UTMOS': utmos, 'SCOREQ': scoreq}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using standard ASR instead of AUTO-AVSR for WER calculation, which ignores visual cues and inflates error rates.
- Confusing reference-free metrics (UTMOS, SCOREQ) with intrusive metrics; these require no target audio and predict MOS directly.
- Subjective MOS evaluation requires exactly 15 participants rating 30 samples per criterion; deviating from this protocol invalidates comparability.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We perform a comprehensive evaluation of our proposed SLD-L2S framework using a suite of objective and subjective metrics. The evaluation is designed to assess three critical aspects of the synthesized speech: perceptual quality, content intelligibility, and speaker similarity. For objective evaluation, we employ the following metrics: Quality: We assess perceptual quality using UTMOS and SCOREQ. Both are non-intrusive, reference-free models that predict a mean opinion score (MOS) on a 1-to-5 scale, designed to correlate with human quality judgments. Intelligibility: We measure intelligibility from two perspectives. First, the word error rate (WER) is calculated using the AUTO-AVSR. Second, we utilize SpeechBERTScore (D-BERT)... Speaker Similarity: We quantify speaker identity preservation using speaker embedding cosine similarity (SECS).
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{liang2026sldl2s,
title={SLD-L2S: Hierarchical Subspace Latent Diffusion for High-Fidelity Lip to Speech Synthesis},
author={Liang et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.11477}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.11477
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!