Skip to content

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

1 star

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Repository files navigation

SpeechPPL SALMon Evaluation

This repository contains code for the ACL 2026 paper On the Fallacy of Global Token Perplexity in Spoken Language Model Evaluation.

Instead of global perplexity, we report localized, windowed, normalized perplexity, and generation-based (Model-as-a-judge) alternatives for measuring SALMon performance, which has been shown to correlate more with human perception.

Install

python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
python -m pip install --upgrade pip
python -m pip install -r requirements.txt

If your environment does not already install the classifier-script imports through NeMo, install the explicit extras as well:

python -m pip install numpy tqdm transformers

Run

To obtain loss arrays and generation results, please refer to the original repos of the SLM models. We used cached arrays stored in the SpeechPPL Hugging Face collection.

Supported model IDs can be passed either by index or by name:

Index Model
0 GSLM
1 TWIST-350M
2 TWIST-1.3B
3 TWIST-7B
4 pGSLM
5 Spirit-LM-Base
6 Spirit-LM-Expressive
7 Flow-SLM-270M
8 Flow-SLM-1B
9 Flow-SLM-1B-Extended
10 Llama-Mimi1.3B
11 TASLM

Run likelihood-based SALMon evaluation for a SLM to test:

python3 salmon_eval.py 10
python3 salmon_eval.py Llama-Mimi1.3B

The default output directory is:

output/model_perplexity_eval_summary/

Run generation-based (Model-as-a-judge) evaluation for one model:

python3 salmon_gold_classifier_eval_generation.py 10
python3 salmon_gold_classifier_eval_generation.py Llama-Mimi1.3B

The default output directory is:

output/model_classifier_eval_summary/

To run the experiments:

bash run_salmon_eval_all.sh

Results

The alternative evaluation results below highlight two important conclusions:

  • Scores computed with global-ppl can differ substantially from scores computed with the alternative methods. For example, Llama-Mimi averages 73.5 across global-ppl tasks, compared with 92.1 across localized-ppl tasks, signifincantly closes the gap to human performance.
  • Model rankings also change under the alternative evaluations.
Model Config Method Sentiment Speaker Gender Bg domain Bg rand. Room Align sentiment Align background
GSLM - Global-PPL 52.5 50.5 53.0 47.5 50.5 48.0 55.0 52.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 48.5 52.0 52.0 45.0 52.0 50.0 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 53.2 50.5 49.8 52.8 52.0 47.8 56.0 43.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 52.0 49.0 48.5 47.5 46.5 42.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 55.5 47.0 49.0 46.5 45.5 51.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 55.0 55.0 50.5 59.5 55.5 53.0 - -
TWIST 350M Global-PPL 59.0 69.5 68.0 54.0 61.5 59.0 51.0 56.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 58.0 74.5 71.5 56.0 62.0 70.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 59.8 57.0 55.8 52.2 64.0 65.5 51.5 58.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 53.0 60.5 63.5 53.2 53.5 57.2 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 55.5 63.0 60.5 56.5 61.5 66.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 48.0 53.0 52.5 61.5 53.0 52.5 - -
TWIST 1.3B Global-PPL 61.0 69.0 69.5 54.5 60.5 59.5 52.5 57.0
+ Normalization (prop.) 54.0 72.5 73.0 57.5 63.5 69.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 58.2 55.2 55.0 55.2 61.8 66.0 54.0 55.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 50.0 61.5 68.0 54.8 53.0 54.2 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 52.5 65.5 62.0 60.5 62.5 62.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 48.0 55.0 54.5 62.5 54.0 53.5 - -
TWIST 7B Global-PPL 61.5 70.5 70.0 55.5 59.5 61.5 51.0 53.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 56.0 74.0 72.0 59.0 64.5 69.0 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 60.0 57.8 53.8 55.8 59.2 69.8 51.5 56.5
Localized-PPL (prop.) 53.0 55.5 65.0 58.8 56.0 57.8 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 53.0 67.0 63.5 58.0 65.0 65.5 - -
Model-as-a-judge 48.0 54.5 52.0 59.5 54.0 51.5 - -
pGSLM - Global-PPL 56.0 74.0 69.0 65.5 71.5 52.0 53.0 54.0
+ Normalization (prop.) 60.5 80.0 89.0 62.5 71.0 69.0 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 59.0 61.8 63.2 64.5 61.5 63.5 49.0 52.5
Localized-PPL (prop.) 70.5 78.5 68.0 50.5 57.5 56.0 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 66.0 82.5 87.5 57.0 66.5 68.5 - -
Model-as-a-judge 46.5 49.5 55.5 51.0 54.0 52.5 - -
Spirit LM base Global-PPL 52.5 67.5 67.0 53.0 55.5 54.5 47.5 51.0
+ Normalization (prop.) 51.5 60.0 67.0 49.0 52.0 64.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 48.8 50.8 58.5 53.8 56.0 68.5 46.0 60.8
Localized-PPL (prop.) 54.5 62.0 64.0 56.0 48.5 52.8 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 54.0 57.0 59.5 55.5 57.0 52.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 47.5 52.0 50.5 50.5 52.5 50.0 - -
Spirit LM Expr. Global-PPL 71.0 81.5 85.5 55.5 64.0 55.5 53.0 59.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 73.5 80.0 87.0 53.5 56.5 67.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 58.5 66.0 67.5 50.0 57.5 64.8 53.0 55.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 73.5 80.5 84.5 54.5 55.0 58.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 66.5 75.5 81.0 55.5 57.0 60.5 - -
Model-as-a-judge 72.0 54.0 56.0 58.5 55.5 54.5 - -
TASTE emb Global-PPL 56.5 69.5 75.5 39.5 48.5 55.5 54.0 42.0
+ Normalization (prop.) 62.0 67.0 68.0 49.0 49.0 55.0 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 57.2 52.2 57.5 48.2 49.5 51.0 51.5 48.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 54.5 57.0 60.5 44.5 43.8 54.0 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 55.5 52.0 55.5 47.0 48.5 53.5 - -
Model-as-a-judge 95.0 100.0 100.0 61.5 54.5 57.5 - -
Flow-SLM 270M Global-PPL 61.5 75.0 76.5 66.0 65.0 56.5 59.0 53.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 77.5 86.0 82.5 56.0 63.5 80.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 65.5 68.2 71.8 55.5 60.8 66.5 54.5 55.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 75.0 72.0 77.5 62.5 62.0 67.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 75.5 68.5 77.0 54.5 63.0 78.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 85.0 87.0 92.5 77.0 86.0 69.5 - -
Flow-SLM 1B Global-PPL 65.5 77.0 79.0 69.0 66.0 76.0 58.5 54.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 78.0 85.0 87.5 58.0 69.0 88.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 67.8 66.8 75.2 59.0 61.2 77.2 58.0 53.5
Localized-PPL (prop.) 79.5 73.5 79.0 64.5 68.0 81.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 80.5 69.0 80.0 53.0 63.0 78.5 - -
Model-as-a-judge 92.5 99.5 99.0 77.0 84.5 77.0 - -
Flow-SLM 1B-ext. Global-PPL 64.5 76.0 80.5 69.5 64.5 73.5 57.5 53.5
+ Normalization (prop.) 82.5 85.0 88.5 58.5 73.5 85.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 66.5 71.2 73.0 61.5 61.8 77.0 52.0 57.0
Localized-PPL (prop.) 79.5 76.0 81.5 65.5 69.5 83.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 82.0 74.5 81.0 54.0 67.5 81.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 93.0 98.0 100.0 77.0 86.5 85.0 - -
Llama-mimi 1.3B Global-PPL 79.5 85.5 82.0 75.0 72.0 92.0 53.0 49.0
+ Normalization (prop.) 89.0 95.0 99.5 73.5 87.0 98.5 - -
Windowed-PPL (prop.) 80.5 91.2 96.2 65.2 66.5 81.2 51.0 53.5
Localized-PPL (prop.) 95.5 95.5 100.0 79.5 84.5 97.5 - -
+ Normalization (prop.) 92.0 98.0 99.0 81.0 85.0 97.0 - -
Model-as-a-judge 93.0 90.0 95.0 81.0 90.0 78.5 - -
Human - Human topline 97.2 91.5 98.6 83.1 88.7 94.4 93.3 95.7

Citation

If you like our work, please cite:

@inproceedings{hsu-etal-2026-fallacy,
    title = "On the Fallacy of Global Token Perplexity in Spoken Language Model Evaluation",
    author = "Hsu, Chan-Jan  and
      Tseng, Liang-Hsuan  and
      Lin, Yi-Cheng  and
      Kuo, Yen-Chun  and
      Chou, Ju-Chieh  and
      Chang, Kai-Wei  and
      Lee, Hung-yi  and
      Busso, Carlos",
    editor = "Liakata, Maria  and
      Moreira, Viviane P.  and
      Zhang, Jiajun  and
      Jurgens, David",
    booktitle = "Findings of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics: {ACL} 2026",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, United States",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.findings-acl.1844/",
    pages = "37000--37020",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-395-1",
    abstract = "Generative spoken language models pretrained on large-scale raw audio can continue a speech prompt with appropriate content while preserving attributes like speaker and emotion, serving as foundation models for spoken dialogue. In prior literature, these models are often evaluated using ``global token perplexity'', which directly applies the text perplexity formulation to speech tokens. However, this practice overlooks fundamental differences between speech and text modalities, possibly leading to an underestimation of the speech characteristics. In this work, we propose a variety of likelihood- and generative-based evaluation methods that serve in place of naive global token perplexity. We demonstrate that the proposed evaluations more faithfully reflect perceived generation quality, as evidenced by stronger correlations with human-rated mean opinion scores (MOS). When assessed under the new metrics, the relative performance landscape of spoken language models is reshaped, revealing a significantly reduced gap between the best-performing model and the human topline. Together, these results suggest that appropriate evaluation is critical for accurately assessing progress in spoken language modeling."
}

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

1 star

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages