Papers for

voice technology developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

On-policy methods improve one-shot speaker personalization for text-to-speech

Beyond Fixed Targets: On-Policy One-Shot Speaker Personalization for Autoregressive Text-To-Speech Models

Abstract: One-shot personalization of autoregressive (AR) text-to-speech (TTS) models remains challenging because supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a single reference pair rapidly degrades generation quality. We identify fixed, off-policy supervision as a key cause of failure in one-shot SFT for AR TTS, leading to blank or near-empty outputs at inference. Diversifying the training data with zero-shot pseudo-pairs eliminates this failure but yields little improvement in speaker similarity and increases word error rate because the targets remain fixed and teacher-forced. We therefore propose two on-policy approaches for one-shot speaker personalization: Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a speaker-similarity reward and On-Policy Self-Distillation (OPSD) with soft supervision from a reference-conditioned teacher. Both on-policy methods improve speaker similarity while preserving intelligibility, with different trade-offs: GRPO achieves the strongest overall performance, whereas OPSD enables substantially faster adaptation without external reward evaluation. Further analysis confirms that these gains stem from on-policy supervision rather than target diversity, establishing on-policy training as an effective framework for one-shot AR TTS personalization.

Tue 13 OctSound
The gist
One-shot speaker personalization means teaching a text-to-speech (TTS) system to imitate someone's voice from just one example. The authors found that typical training methods cause the system to produce bad or empty speech when given a new voice. They fixed this by training the system in a way that learns from its own outputs rather than fixed examples, using two new on-policy techniques. These methods made the computer-generated voice sound more like the target speaker without losing clarity, balancing quality and adaptation speed.
Open → 2610.17838v1

Tracing key components controlling emotion in AI speech synthesis

Tracing a Sparse Emotion-Control Circuit in LLM-Based Text-to-Speech

Abstract: LLM-based text-to-speech (TTS) models can generate emotionally expressive speech, but how reference emotion is routed through the model and realized in decoded speech remains unclear. We introduce two emotion-sensitive metrics for matched neutral and emotional syntheses---a codec trajectory score and a late residual direction score---and use them to score activation-patching interventions. Under controlled matched-reference conditions, this analysis identifies a sparse source-to-readout component-level circuit: 23--27 attention heads and MLPs per emotion, roughly 5% of the components considered, recover or suppress 74--88% of the late emotion-readout shift on held-out cases. The circuit combines a shared component backbone with emotion-specific components; cross-emotion activation swaps reduce the target readout in 47 of 48 cases. In decoded speech, the same intervention produces consistent changes in pitch, energy, and spectral brightness over 24 matched pairs per emotion. A readout-matched residual-direction baseline produces only 17--27% of the intervention's pitch effect, showing that internal readout movement alone does not explain the decoded acoustic changes. These results trace a compact causal route from reference-derived prefix information to emotion-relevant properties of generated speech.

Sun 4 OctSoundArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Text-to-speech models can add emotions to computer-generated speech, but it's unclear how these emotions work inside the models. The authors developed new ways to measure emotion signals and tested which parts of the model control emotional expression. They found a small set of components responsible for creating emotional changes in speech and showed these cause real acoustic differences like pitch and tone. This helps us understand how emotions are turned into voice in AI systems.
Open → 2610.05080v1

Neural audio codecs reveal and alter speaker traits with sparse codes

Towards Interpretable Framework for Neural Audio Codecs via Sparse Autoencoders: Exploration toward Age, Gender, and Accent Steering

Abstract: Neural audio codecs (NACs) are widely used in speech generation and audio-language modeling, yet how they encode speaker-trait information remains poorly understood. Prior work applied sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to investigate accent information in NACs through task-level analysis. Here, we extend this analysis to the waveform level and to age, gender, and accent, using SAE steering to probe trait-related information in sparse activations. We identify trait-associated dimensions, modify their activations, and evaluate the resulting reconstructed speech. Across five NACs, steering the selected dimensions induces target-directed shifts in speaker-trait predictions. A random-dimension baseline on Mimi produces smaller shifts, supporting the relevance of the selected dimensions. However, responses vary across codecs, traits, and steering directions, and increasing steering strength does not consistently amplify the intended shifts. Steering also generally increases word error rates and lowers predicted perceptual quality. These findings suggest that SAEs capture speaker-trait information in steerable activations, while the accompanying quality degradation highlights the need to better separate trait-related information from other information.

Mon 28 SeptSound
The gist
Audio compression tools called neural audio codecs store voice information in ways that are hard to interpret. The authors studied how these tools capture traits like age, gender, and accent by using a special method to find parts of the code linked to these traits. Changing those parts can shift the perceived speaker traits, but it often makes the speech sound worse and less clear. This shows that while the codes do hold speaker details, separating them cleanly from other audio features is still a challenge.
Open → 2609.34052v1