Evaluates generalized speech enhancement and audio-visual speech resynthesis across multiple distortion types (denoising, separation, inpainting, video-to-speech). Measures content intelligibility, audio-video synchronization, perceptual quality, and low-level signal reconstruction. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LRS3, EasyCom, 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 revise-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Revise Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-revise-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: revise-eval
description: Evaluates generalized speech enhancement and audio-visual speech resynthesis across multiple distortion types (denoising, separation, inpainting, video-to-speech). Measures content intelligibility, audio-video synchronization, perceptual quality, and low-level signal reconstruction. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LRS3, EasyCom, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports WER.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2212.11377
bibtex_key: hsu2022revise
confidence: high
---
# revise-eval
> ReVISE: Self-Supervised Speech Resynthesis with Visual Input for Universal and Generalized Speech Enhancement — Hsu et al. (2022) (arXiv:2212.11377, 2022)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates generalized speech enhancement and audio-visual speech resynthesis across multiple distortion types (denoising, separation, inpainting, video-to-speech). Measures content intelligibility, audio-video synchronization, perceptual quality, and low-level signal reconstruction.
## Datasets
- **LRS3** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **EasyCom** — total ?; splits: train (-1), valid (-1), test (-1)
## Metrics
- `WER` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Word Error Rate: percentage of incorrectly recognized words relative to the reference transcript, computed using a public ASR model.
- `LSE-D` — range: other
- SyncNet temporal distance: average predicted temporal distance between audio and video frames over the test set.
- `LSE-C` — range: other
- SyncNet confidence: average confidence score of the audio-video synchronization prediction over the test set.
- `MOS` — range: [1, 5]
- Mean Opinion Score: subjective quality rating on a 1–5 scale (0.5 increments), averaged across ≥15 raters per sample using CrowdMOS.
- `ESTOI` — range: [0, 1]
- Extended Short-Time Objective Intelligibility: estimates speech intelligibility based on temporal envelope correlation between reference and enhanced speech.
- `MCD` — range: other
- Mel Cepstral Distortion: measures the Euclidean distance between mel cepstral coefficients of reference and synthesized speech.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Video frames (head-crop at 25fps) and/or audio features (23-dim Mel FBank, 10ms shift, stacked every 4 frames). For EasyCom, beamformed multi-channel audio or single-channel distant mic audio paired with video.
**Output**: Resynthesized audio waveform (16kHz sampling rate).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, references, videos=None):
wer = compute_wer(predictions, references, asr_model='public_model')
lse_d, lse_c = compute_syncnet(predictions, videos)
mos = compute_mos(predictions, num_raters=15, scale=[1,5])
estoi = compute_estoi(predictions, references)
mcd = compute_mcd(predictions, references)
return {'WER': wer, 'LSE-D': lse_d, 'LSE-C': lse_c, 'MOS': mos, 'ESTOI': estoi, 'MCD': mcd}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using the distant microphone audio as the clean reference for EasyCom instead of the close-talking microphone.
- Assuming LRS3 contains real-world noisy speech; all enhancement tasks are artificially corrupted (mixed with AudioSet noise, other speakers, or zeroed frames).
- MOS evaluation requires exactly 50 randomly sampled test files and ≥15 raters per file via CrowdMOS, not ad-hoc listening.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> For content, we use the WER computed with a speech recognition model to measure the intelligibility quantitatively similar to[[36]], [[37]]. The public model from [[56]] is used, which reports a WER of 5.6% on LRS3 test split and 35.7% on the EasyCom close-talking validation set. For synchronization, following[[21]] we use SyncNet[[9]] metrics, the predicted temporal distance between audio and video (LSE-D) and the prediction’s confidence (LSE-C) are averaged over the entire test set. For quality, we follow the tradition of text-to-speech synthesis evaluation and conduct subjective mean opinion score (MOS) studies with a scale from 1 to 5 and a 0.5 increment. We evaluate 50 randomly sampled files from the test set, where each sample was evaluated by at least 15 raters using the CrowdMOS package[[47]]. Finally, to evaluate reconstruction of low-level details as typically done in speech denoising or source separation studies, we include ESTOI[[51]] and Mel cepstral distortion (MCD)[[28]].
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{hsu2022revise,
title={ReVISE: Self-Supervised Speech Resynthesis with Visual Input for Universal and Generalized Speech Enhancement},
author={Hsu et al. (2022)},
year={2022},
note={arXiv:2212.11377}
}
```
- arXiv: 2212.11377
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!