Investigation for Relative Voice Impression Estimation

Kenichi Fujita, Yusuke Ijima · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Pairwise Preference

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Paralinguistic and non-linguistic aspects of speech strongly influence listener impressions. While most research focuses on absolute impression scoring, this study investigates relative voice impression estimation (RIE), a framework for predicting the perceptual difference between two utterances from the same speaker. The estimation target is a low-dimensional vector derived from subjective evaluations, quantifying the perceptual shift of the second utterance relative to the first along an antonymic axis (e.g., ``Dark--Bright''). To isolate expressive and prosodic variation, we used recordings of a professional speaker reading a text in various styles. We compare three modeling approaches: classical acoustic features commonly used for speech emotion recognition, self-supervised speech representations, and multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Our results demonstrate that models using self-supervised representations outperform methods with classical acoustic features, particularly in capturing complex and dynamic impressions (e.g., ``Cold--Warm'') where classical features fail. In contrast, current MLLMs prove unreliable for this fine-grained pairwise task. This study provides the first systematic investigation of RIE and demonstrates the strength of self-supervised speech models in capturing subtle perceptual variations.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

55/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 65%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.