SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Shifa Yousaf

Publications and source records attributed to Shifa Yousaf.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Domain-Specific Evaluation of Text-to-Speech Systems: A Multi-Metric Benchmarking Study

Recent advances in neural text-to-speech (TTS) systems have substantially improved speech naturalness and intelligibility across many languages. However, comprehensive evaluation methodologies that jointly assess perceptual quality, speaker similarity, and acoustic fidelity across diverse speech domains remain limited, particularly for low-resource and underrepresented languages. This paper presents a reproducible, multi-metric benchmarking framework for systematic evaluation of modern TTS systems through domain-specific analysis. The proposed framework integrates complementary subjective and objective evaluation protocols and is demonstrated through a comprehensive case study on a representative low-resource language spanning four speech domains: Formal, Conversational, Literary/Storytelling, and Emotional. Four state-of-the-art TTS systems -- Indic-Parler-TTS, MMS-TTS, Microsoft Edge TTS, and Google Gemini TTS -- are evaluated using MUSHRA listening tests, ABX discrimination tests, speaker similarity scoring with Resemblyzer, and acoustic analyses based on mel-cepstral distortion (MCD) and F0 RMSE over 960 audio pairs. Results reveal substantial variation in TTS performance across speech domains, with emotional speech consistently presenting the greatest synthesis challenge (mean MCD 12.03 dB; mean F0 RMSE 889 cents), while conversational speech achieves the highest overall acoustic fidelity. Beyond the empirical findings, this work provides a reproducible evaluation framework, publicly releasing evaluation scripts, result tables, and executable Colab notebooks to support standardized benchmarking and future research on TTS evaluation for low-resource languages.

cs.CL

"Can You See Me Think?" Grounding LLM Feedback in Keystrokes and Revision Patterns

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist in evaluating student writing, researchers have begun questioning whether these models can be cognitively grounded, that is, whether they can attend not just to the final product, but to the process by which it was written. In this study, we explore how incorporating writing process data, specifically keylogs and time-stamped snapshots, affects the quality of LLM-generated feedback. We conduct an ablation study on 52 student essays comparing feedback generated with access to only the final essay (C1) and feedback that also incorporates keylogs and time-stamped snapshots (C2). While rubric scores changed minimally, C2 feedback demonstrated significantly improved structural evaluation and greater process-sensitive justification.

cs.HC