Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 78 references

A Unifying Perspective on Audio Generative Modeling: Latent Representations and Modeling Strategies

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Audio generative quality is determined by matching a latent's dependency horizon and conditional ambiguity to the model, not by choosing discrete or continuous tokens.

desk verdict Organizing audio generation around representation-model pairs is a genuine contribution, but the paper's prescriptive Principle 2 remains underdetermined by its own proxies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08667 v1 pith:JHBN3UEO submitted 2026-08-09 eess.AS

Dongchao Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AS
keywords audiogenerativemodelinglatentrepresentationdiscretetokenscontinuouslatentsdependencyhorizonconditionalambiguityresidualvectorquantizationstreaminggeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Every audio generative system makes two coupled choices—what latent representation to generate and how to model its distribution—and the paper argues these cannot be evaluated apart. The real design axis is not whether the latent is discrete or continuous, but how far its useful context extends (dependency horizon) and how much uncertainty remains after conditioning (conditional ambiguity). These two dimensions refine the common semantic-versus-acoustic intuition into testable questions: put global modeling capacity on long-horizon structure, and delegate conditionally ambiguous detail to local or iterative generators. A sympathetic reader would take away a design and evaluation framework: compare systems as representation–model pairs under matched distortion, compute, and latency. If the paper is right, codec quality alone is a poor predictor of generative quality, and RVQ's codebook depth is an ordering of capacity, not of semantics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is Principle 2—'predict long-range structure, generate ambiguous detail'—made measurable by two diagnostics. Dependency horizon is captured by the context-ablation curve $h_\delta$, which asks how long useful history keeps improving validation loss; conditional ambiguity is captured by how many perceptually valid samples remain under fixed conditioning, or by the quality gap between a deterministic regressor and a distributional head. Around this pair the paper organizes the rest: a four-objective representation design space (burden, distortion, empirical modelability, streaming compatibility), the chain-rule factorizations of RVQ's time/depth grid and of sequential models, and critical-path network evaluations $E_G$ as a cost measure distinct from latency or token count. These pieces do the work of converting 'semantics is low-entropy, acoustics is high-entropy' from an intuition into placement questions about where global versus local capacity should go.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison of two latent configurations matched in reconstruction distortion, training compute, and inference cost—say a 12.5 Hz, eight-codebook stream versus a 75 Hz single-codebook stream—and measure downstream generation quality while sweeping usable context length. If the configurations show identical dependency-horizon and conditional-ambiguity profiles yet one is consistently easier for the same generator family to model, the claim that dependency horizon and ambiguity rather than token category or codebook depth govern modelability would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distinction between discrete and continuous latents describes only the output interface, while dependency horizon, conditional ambiguity, and streaming requirements determine how that interface should be modeled. The paper proposes two principles: reconstruction quality does not determine modelability (Principle 1), and one should predict long-range structure while generating ambiguous detail (Principle 2). Concretely, after conditioning on the past, each latent variable is treated as either long-range structure $s_t$ or remaining realization detail $a_t$, with the chain rule $H(s_t,a_t|z_{<t})=H(s_t|z_{<t})+H(a_t|z_{<t},s_t)$ making plain that the two roles demand different modeling capacity. Dependency horizon is measured by a context-ablation curve $h_\delta=\min\{h:L(h)\le L(h_{\max})+\delta\}$, and conditional ambiguity by diversity among perceptually acceptable samples or by the gap between a deterministic predictor and a distributional head. Applied to representative systems, this yields the paper's sharpest conclusions: RVQ provides ordered capacity but not ordered semantics; AudioLM's semantic-then-acoustic cascade is one placement of the global/local boundary, not a universal template; and autoregressive, iterative, and hybrid schemes differ chiefly in how they trade retained conditional structure against critical-path generation cost.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's design advice rests on the assumption that a latent's variables can be split into long-range structure versus conditionally ambiguous detail, and that this split can be read off from context-ablation curves and ambiguity proxies; the paper concedes the split may remain entangled and that the controlled comparisons needed to verify it are still missing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Codec and generator benchmarks should report generation quality, not just reconstruction, and should match perceptual distortion, training compute, inference cost, and lookahead when comparing latents.
  • A latent whose context-ablation curve keeps improving with history should be handled by a long-context autoregressive or hybrid model; a latent whose remaining ambiguity is large under conditioning should be paired with a diffusion, flow, mixture, or masked-iterative head.
  • Residual codebook order should not be read as a semantic hierarchy; semantic supervision or factor assignment is a deliberate placement decision, not a property RVQ already provides.
  • Swapping a discrete codec for a continuous latent, or vice versa, does not remove the global-versus-local allocation problem; the same dependency and ambiguity analysis applies on both sides of the interface.
  • For streaming systems, the framework predicts that hybrid designs—a causal outer process over blocks with an iterative or distributional inner head—are a natural fit, because they put long-range state on the serial path and ambiguous detail on the parallel inner path.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if Principle 2 is causal rather than merely descriptive, measuring the context-ablation curve and conditional-ambiguity proxies on a candidate latent before training a full generator could serve as a cheap screening test; the paper does not itself propose such a protocol.
  • Beyond the paper: the framework implies a direct experiment for the 'capacity is moved, not removed' claim—hold nominal bitrate fixed and compare low-frame-rate/deep-RVQ against high-frame-rate/shallow-RVQ at matched compute and distortion; if one configuration dominates on downstream generation despite identical dependency and ambiguity profiles, the exchange is not neutral.
  • Beyond the paper: the semantic-rate curve suggested for continuous latents could be extended to discrete latents by sweeping codebook count and codebook size at fixed bitrate, turning the framework's diagnostic dimensions into a standard modelability report.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that audio generative models should be analyzed and designed as a coupled pair: a latent representation plus a distribution model matched to its dependency structure. It organizes representation design through four objectives (burden, distortion, empirical modelability, streaming compatibility) and distribution modeling through two diagnostic dimensions (dependency horizon and conditional ambiguity). The chain-rule factorizations in Equations (6), (9), (11), and (15) are exact identities, and the paper uses them to frame existing systems: RVQ provides ordered capacity but not ordered semantics; AudioLM's semantic–acoustic cascade is one possible placement of the global/local boundary; AR, iterative refinement, and hybrid schemes differ in how they trade dependency horizon against critical-path cost. The paper presents no new experiments; Table 1 is explicitly a worked literature analysis, and Section 7 openly lists the controlled comparisons that are still missing.

Significance. The paper's main value is as a conceptual framework and a common vocabulary for comparing representation–model pairs. Its strengths are its internal consistency: the core chain-rule equations are exact identities, no free parameters are fitted to make the framework work, and the paper is unusually transparent about what it does not validate (Section 7). The four-objective framing and the insistence that reconstruction quality does not determine modelability (Principle 1) are useful correctives to codec-only evaluation. The paper also poses its central design claim, Principle 2, as an explicit hypothesis rather than a proven result, and it identifies the controlled experiments needed to test it. If the operationalization gap discussed below can be closed, the framework would be a genuinely useful unifying perspective for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (8)] The paper's actionable design guidance rests on Principle 2, but the proposed operational proxies do not determine a unique split between s_t and a_t. Equation (8) defines hδ as a history-length threshold on validation loss, and Section 2.3 defines conditional ambiguity via sample diversity and the deterministic-versus-distributional head gap. These measure different quantities, and neither is shown to characterize a partition of z_t. A variable such as speaker identity under text-only conditioning has a long dependency horizon (hδ is large, so it should receive global capacity) and high conditional ambiguity (multiple speakers are valid, so the ambiguity proxy says delegate it to a local or iterative generator). The two diagnostics therefore give opposite advice for the same variable, and Principle 2's recommendation is underdetermined. The paper honestly concedes in Section 2.3 that s_t and a_t 'need not be explicit coordinates' and in Section 7 that controlled comparisons are missing, but the framework's central design claim needs either a decision procedure that resolves such conflicts or an explicit downgrade of Principle 2 to a heuristic checklist.
  2. [§6.5] The design hypothesis for unified audio models restates Principle 2 under the names g and ℓ, and therefore inherits the same underdetermination. The claim that an error in g changes global continuation while multiple values of ℓ remain perceptually valid presupposes that the g/ℓ boundary is known before the framework is applied; but the paper provides no method to measure whether a given variable belongs to g or ℓ for an arbitrary latent. Section 7.4 lists possible boundaries (between tokenizers, RVQ layers, model stages, outer/inner loops) but does not say how to test which one is correct. This leaves the main design advice of the paper unable to be applied uniquely to a new representation–model pair.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] Principle 2 is labeled a principle but described in the same section as a 'design hypothesis'; recommend renaming it to 'Hypothesis 2' for consistency and to avoid overclaiming.
  2. [§2.3 and §4.2] The notation z_t = (s_t, a_t) is introduced for the chain-rule decomposition, but the aggregate symbols s and a used in Section 4.2 and Section 6.4 are never formally defined; please align the notation.
  3. [Table 1] The table's 'Global signal' column mixes variables explicitly exposed by the representation with external conditioning (for example, text conditioning in VALL-E and MusicGen); a separate column or a legend would clarify the distinction.
  4. [Throughout] There are several formatting and typographical issues, including 'V ALL-E' for 'VALL-E', 'V oicebox' for 'Voicebox', and inconsistent capitalization of 'VAE' and 'mel'; these should be cleaned up.
  5. [References] The manuscript cites a number of 2026 arXiv preprints (e.g., MOSS-Audio-Tokenizer, DashengTokenizer, WavCube, TADA) as established systems; for a journal version, please indicate their publication or review status, or mark them clearly as preprints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is organizational, its core equations are identities, and the author's prior systems are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-input-called-prediction move. Equations (6), (7), (9), (11), and (15) are chain-rule identities used only to organize where dependencies can be placed, and the paper explicitly refuses to infer architecture from them: "The equality itself favors no architecture" (Section 4) and "They do not determine one architecture from the latent alone" (Section 6). Principle 2 is presented as a design hypothesis, not as a derived theorem: "This is the lens we use throughout the paper, but st and at need not be explicit coordinates of a learned latent. They denote functional roles that may remain entangled in practice" (Section 2.3). The operational proxies are offered as testable questions with an explicit caveat: "Neither proxy identifies a unique semantic-versus-acoustic split, but together they turn the two concepts into testable questions" (Section 2.3). Section 7 acknowledges the missing controlled comparisons: "The table does not establish that one allocation is optimal; that requires the controlled comparisons proposed in Section 7" (Section 6.4). Thus no empirical prediction is being passed off as already validated by the framework itself. The advice that long-horizon variables should receive global capacity is close to definitional if one identifies st as 'variables requiring long-context prediction', but the paper labels it a design hypothesis and leaves the st/at separation explicitly entangled, so this is not a hidden reduction of an output to an input. The only mild concern is the number of self-citations (UniAudio, LLM-Codec, HiFi-Codec, ALMTokenizer, WavCube, among others) used as worked examples, but the framework's internal logic also leans heavily on external systems (AudioLM, VALL-E, MusicGen, SoundStorm, CALM, DiTAR, DAC), and accepting or rejecting the self-cited papers would not change the identities in Equations (6)-(15) or the four-objective design space. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central framework introduces no fitted constants: the equations are exact chain-rule identities, and all numeric examples (frame rates, bitrates) come from cited systems. The assumptions that carry the framework are the separability of long-range structure from ambiguous detail, the validity of the context-ablation proxy, and the use of perceptual equivalence as a criterion. The two diagnostic dimensions are introduced as constructs without independent falsifiable handles, which is why the correctness risk is medium.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The exact chain-rule expansion of H(z) over time and codebook depth is the correct basis for comparing modeling schemes (Equations 6, 9, 11, 15).
    These are identities, so they are not the source of risk. The risk enters when the paper treats the identity as a design map, which is the second axiom below.
  • ad hoc to paper Long-range structure st and conditionally ambiguous detail at can be separated in audio latents (Principle 2, Section 2.3).
    The paper concedes st and at need not be explicit coordinates and may remain entangled. If the separation cannot be operationalized, the framework cannot determine where global versus local capacity should go.
  • domain assumption The context-ablation curve L(h) and its horizon hδ (Equation 8) give a meaningful measure of dependency horizon across model families and budgets.
    L(h) depends on model family, normalization, and training budget; the paper provides no evidence that the horizon transfers across architectures. It is a plausible proxy, not a validated quantity.
  • domain assumption Perceptual equivalence can serve as a conditioning-relative criterion for conditional ambiguity.
    The paper invokes perceptual equivalence (e.g., ViSQOL) but fixes no operational metric; the criterion is defined relative to conditioning sets and equivalence criteria that are left open.
invented entities (2)
  • dependency horizon
    purpose: Diagnostic dimension for how far useful context extends for a latent variable, used to decide where to allocate long-context modeling capacity.
    Defined through a context-ablation proxy (Equation 8), but no external benchmark or falsifiable prediction is attached; Section 7 calls for the studies that would validate it.
  • conditional ambiguity
    purpose: Diagnostic dimension for how much perceptually acceptable variation remains after conditioning, used to decide whether detail can be delegated to local or iterative generators.
    Defined relative to an open conditioning set and perceptual equivalence criterion; no measurement protocol is shipped with the paper, so it has no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unifying Perspective on Audio Generative Modeling: Latent Representations and Modeling Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHBN3UEO

@misc{pith2026260808667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unifying Perspective on Audio Generative Modeling: Latent Representations and Modeling Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHBN3UEO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08667}
}
read the original abstract

Every audio generative system makes two coupled decisions: what representation to generate, and how to model its distribution. This paper organizes audio generative modeling around this coupling. For representation design, we compare discrete, continuous, and hybrid latents through four objectives: representation burden, distortion, empirical modelability, and streaming compatibility. For distribution modeling, rather than treating a latent's difficulty as an intrinsic scalar, we use two diagnostic dimensions: dependency horizon, how far useful context extends, and conditional ambiguity, how much uncertainty remains after conditioning. These dimensions refine the common semantic-versus-acoustic intuition: variables with a long dependency horizon should receive global modeling capacity. Conditionally ambiguous detail may be delegated to a local or iterative generator. Applied to representative systems, this view shows that RVQ's residual order gives ordered capacity but not ordered semantics, that AudioLM's semantic-versus-acoustic cascade is one explicit placement of this boundary rather than a universal template, and that autoregression, iterative refinement, and hybrid designs differ chiefly in how they trade dependency horizon against critical-path generation cost. The distinction between discrete and continuous latents describes the output interface; dependency horizon, conditional ambiguity, and streaming determine how that interface should be modeled. Rather than cataloguing individual systems, we provide an evaluation and design framework for comparing representation-model pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic view of four objectives in audio representation design. The tetrahedral drawing is a mnemonic for interacting Pareto objectives, not a metric geometry: the axes have different units and are not barycentric coordinates. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RVQ’s bet: build capacity in depth, not by raising the frame rate. The first quantizer is coarsest; each later layer quantizes the previous residual. One frame can therefore hold enough information for fidelity even at a low frame rate. If the frame rate is r and there are K codebooks, flattening gives Kr token decisions per second. Parallel prediction keeps the temporal length at r, but each frame becomes a structu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AudioLM’s cascade: semantic tokens anchor long-range content. Acoustic tokens recover timbre, prosody, and detail. The important idea is the division of labor, not the exact three-stage implementation. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mel-spectrogram is the original audio latent in practice: a lower-rate time–frequency scaffold that keeps the coarse structure of speech and leaves waveform realization to a vocoder. A typical mel representation turns a long waveform into a compact N ×80 matrix. It…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    SoundStream: An End-to-End Neural Audio Codec

    Zeghidour et al. SoundStream: An End-to-End Neural Audio Codec. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107. 03312, 2021. IEEE/ACM TASLP

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    High Fidelity Neural Audio Compression

    Défossez et al. High Fidelity Neural Audio Compression. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13438, 2023. (EnCodec), TMLR

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers

    Wang et al. Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers. https://arxiv. org/abs/2301.02111, 2023. (V ALL-E)

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Simple and Controllable Music Generation

    Copet et al. Simple and Controllable Music Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05284, 2023. (MusicGen), NeurIPS

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    UniAudio: An Audio Foundation Model Toward Universal Audio Generation

    Yang et al. UniAudio: An Audio Foundation Model Toward Universal Audio Generation. https://arxiv. org/abs/2310.00704, 2024. ICML

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Moshi: a speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue

    Défossez et al. Moshi: a speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.00037, 2024. (incl. Mimi)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    AudioLM: a Language Modeling Approach to Audio Generation

    Borsos et al. AudioLM: a Language Modeling Approach to Audio Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2209.03143, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    DiTAR: Diffusion Transformer Autoregressive Modeling for Speech Generation

    Jia et al. DiTAR: Diffusion Transformer Autoregressive Modeling for Speech Generation. https://arxiv. org/abs/2502.03930, 2025. ICML

    arXiv 2025

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Continuous Audio Language Models

    Simon Rouard, Manu Orsini, Axel Roebel, Neil Zeghidour, and Alexandre Défossez. Continuous Audio Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06926, 2025. (CALM; consistency head over an audio V AE; from the Mimi/Moshi team)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Cover and Joy A

    Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas.Elements of Information Theory. Wiley-Interscience, 2nd edition, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    UniAudio 1.5: LLM-driven Audio Codec is A Few-shot Audio Task Learner

    Yang et al. UniAudio 1.5: LLM-driven Audio Codec is A Few-shot Audio Task Learner. https://arxiv. org/abs/2406.10056, 2024. (LLM-Codec), NeurIPS

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The Information Bottleneck Method

    Tishby, Pereira, and Bialek. The Information Bottleneck Method. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/ 0004057, 2000. 18

    2000

  5. [13]

    High-Fidelity Audio Compression with Improved RVQGAN

    Kumar et al. High-Fidelity Audio Compression with Improved RVQGAN. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306. 06546, 2023. (DAC), NeurIPS

    2023

  6. [14]

    Discrete Audio Tokens: More Than a Survey! https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10274, 2025

    Mousavi et al. Discrete Audio Tokens: More Than a Survey! https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10274, 2025. TMLR

    2025

  7. [15]

    HiFi-Codec: Group-residual Vector quantization for High Fidelity Audio Codec

    Yang et al. HiFi-Codec: Group-residual Vector quantization for High Fidelity Audio Codec. https://arxiv. org/abs/2305.02765, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    WavTokenizer: an Efficient Acoustic Discrete Codec Tokenizer for Audio Language Modeling

    Ji et al. WavTokenizer: an Efficient Acoustic Discrete Codec Tokenizer for Audio Language Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16532, 2025. ICLR

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    BigCodec: Pushing the Limits of Low-Bitrate Neural Speech Codec

    Xin et al. BigCodec: Pushing the Limits of Low-Bitrate Neural Speech Codec. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.05377, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Finite Scalar Quantization: VQ-V AE Made Simple

    Mentzer et al. Finite Scalar Quantization: VQ-V AE Made Simple. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.15505,

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation

    Borsos et al. SoundStorm: Efficient Parallel Audio Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09636, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Masked Audio Generation using a Single Non-Autoregressive Transformer

    Ziv et al. Masked Audio Generation using a Single Non-Autoregressive Transformer. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2401.04577, 2024. (MAGNeT), ICLR

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    w2v-BERT: Combining Contrastive Learning and Masked Language Modeling for Self-Supervised Speech Pre-Training.https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06209, 2021

    Chung et al. w2v-BERT: Combining Contrastive Learning and Masked Language Modeling for Self-Supervised Speech Pre-Training.https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.06209, 2021. ASRU

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    SpeechTokenizer: Unified Speech Tokenizer for Speech Large Language Models

    Zhang et al. SpeechTokenizer: Unified Speech Tokenizer for Speech Large Language Models. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2308.16692, 2024. ICLR

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    SoCodec: A Semantic-Ordered Multi-Stream Speech Codec for Efficient Language Model Based TTS.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00933, 2024

    Guo et al. SoCodec: A Semantic-Ordered Multi-Stream Speech Codec for Efficient Language Model Based TTS.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00933, 2024. SLT 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    SemantiCodec: An Ultra Low Bitrate Semantic Audio Codec for General Sound

    Liu et al. SemantiCodec: An Ultra Low Bitrate Semantic Audio Codec for General Sound. https://arxiv. org/abs/2405.00233, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Codec Does Matter: Exploring the Semantic Shortcoming of Codec for Audio Language Model

    Ye et al. Codec Does Matter: Exploring the Semantic Shortcoming of Codec for Audio Language Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17175, 2025. (X-Codec), AAAI

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Units

    Hsu et al. HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Units. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07447, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    WavLM: Large-Scale Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Full Stack Speech Processing

    Chen et al. WavLM: Large-Scale Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Full Stack Speech Processing. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2110.13900, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    MOSS-Audio-Tokenizer: Scaling Audio Tokenizers for Future Audio Foundation Models

    Gong et al. MOSS-Audio-Tokenizer: Scaling Audio Tokenizers for Future Audio Foundation Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10934, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    ALMTokenizer: A Low-bitrate and Semantic-rich Audio Codec Tokenizer for Audio Language Modeling.https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10344, 2025

    Yang et al. ALMTokenizer: A Low-bitrate and Semantic-rich Audio Codec Tokenizer for Audio Language Modeling.https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10344, 2025. ICML

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fewer-token Neural Speech Codec with Time-invariant Codes

    Ren et al. Fewer-token Neural Speech Codec with Time-invariant Codes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 00014, 2024. (TiCodec), ICASSP

    2024

  23. [31]

    Learning Source Disentanglement in Neural Audio Codec.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11228,

    Bie et al. Learning Source Disentanglement in Neural Audio Codec.https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11228,

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    NaturalSpeech 3: Zero-Shot Speech Synthesis with Factorized Codec and Diffusion Models

    Ju et al. NaturalSpeech 3: Zero-Shot Speech Synthesis with Factorized Codec and Diffusion Models. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.03100, 2024. (FACodec), ICML. 19

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    CosyV oice: A Scalable Multilingual Zero-shot TTS Synthesizer based on Supervised Semantic Tokens.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05407, 2024

    Du et al. CosyV oice: A Scalable Multilingual Zero-shot TTS Synthesizer based on Supervised Semantic Tokens.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05407, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Seed-TTS: A Family of High-Quality Versatile Speech Generation Models

    Anastassiou et al. Seed-TTS: A Family of High-Quality Versatile Speech Generation Models. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2406.02430, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Stable Audio Open.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14358, 2024

    Evans et al. Stable Audio Open.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14358, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    NaturalSpeech 2: Latent Diffusion Models are Natural and Zero-Shot Speech and Singing Synthesizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09116, 2023

    Kai Shen, Zeqian Ju, Xu Tan, Yanqing Liu, Yichong Leng, Lei He, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhao, and Jiang Bian. NaturalSpeech 2: Latent Diffusion Models are Natural and Zero-Shot Speech and Singing Synthesizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09116, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Make-An-Audio: Text-To-Audio Generation with Prompt-Enhanced Diffusion Models

    Huang et al. Make-An-Audio: Text-To-Audio Generation with Prompt-Enhanced Diffusion Models. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2301.12661, 2023. ICML

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    DashengTokenizer: One layer is enough for unified audio understanding and generation

    Dinkel et al. DashengTokenizer: One layer is enough for unified audio understanding and generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23765, 2026

    2026

  31. [39]

    WavCube: Unifying Speech Representation for Understanding and Generation via Semantic- Acoustic Joint Modeling.https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06407, 2026

    Yang et al. WavCube: Unifying Speech Representation for Understanding and Generation via Semantic- Acoustic Joint Modeling.https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06407, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ming-UniAudio: Speech LLM for Joint Understanding, Generation and Editing with Unified Representation

    Yan and others (Inclusion AI). Ming-UniAudio: Speech LLM for Joint Understanding, Generation and Editing with Unified Representation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05516, 2025. (MingTok-Audio continuous tokenizer)

    2025

  33. [41]

    LoSATok: Low-dimensional Semantic-Acoustic Tokenizer for Cross-Domain Audio Understanding and Generation.https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27840, 2026

    Zhang et al. LoSATok: Low-dimensional Semantic-Acoustic Tokenizer for Cross-Domain Audio Understanding and Generation.https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27840, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow Matching for Generative Modeling.https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02747, 2023. ICLR

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    V oicebox: Text-Guided Multilingual Universal Speech Generation at Scale.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2306.15687, 2023

    Le et al. V oicebox: Text-Guided Multilingual Universal Speech Generation at Scale.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2306.15687, 2023. NeurIPS

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    GIVT: Generative Infinite-V ocabulary Transformers

    Tschannen et al. GIVT: Generative Infinite-V ocabulary Transformers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312. 02116, 2024. ECCV

    2024

  37. [45]

    Autoregressive Image Generation without Vector Quantization

    Li et al. Autoregressive Image Generation without Vector Quantization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 11838, 2024. (MAR), NeurIPS

    2024

  38. [46]

    Hyperspherical Latents Improve Continuous-Token Autoregressive Generation

    Guolin Ke and Hui Xue. Hyperspherical Latents Improve Continuous-Token Autoregressive Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24335, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    MaskGIT: Masked Generative Image Transformer

    Chang et al. MaskGIT: Masked Generative Image Transformer. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04200,

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    On Generative Spoken Language Modeling from Raw Audio

    Lakhotia et al. On Generative Spoken Language Modeling from Raw Audio. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2102.01192, 2021. TACL

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Textually Pretrained Speech Language Models

    Hassid et al. Textually Pretrained Speech Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.13009, 2023. NeurIPS 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    MusicLM: Generating Music From Text.https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11325, 2023

    Agostinelli et al. MusicLM: Generating Music From Text.https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11325, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Diffsound: Discrete Diffusion Model for Text-to-sound Generation

    Yang et al. Diffsound: Discrete Diffusion Model for Text-to-sound Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2207.09983, 2023. IEEE/ACM TASLP. 20

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    InstructTTS: Modelling Expressive TTS in Discrete Latent Space with Natural Language Style Prompt.https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13662, 2024

    Yang et al. InstructTTS: Modelling Expressive TTS in Discrete Latent Space with Natural Language Style Prompt.https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13662, 2024. IEEE/ACM TASLP

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    E2 TTS: Embarrassingly Easy Fully Non-Autoregressive Zero-Shot TTS

    Eskimez et al. E2 TTS: Embarrassingly Easy Fully Non-Autoregressive Zero-Shot TTS. https://arxiv. org/abs/2406.18009, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    F5-TTS: A Fairytaler that Fakes Fluent and Faithful Speech with Flow Matching

    Chen et al. F5-TTS: A Fairytaler that Fakes Fluent and Faithful Speech with Flow Matching. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.06885, 2025. ACL

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Autoregressive Speech Synthesis without Vector Quantization

    Meng et al. Autoregressive Speech Synthesis without Vector Quantization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 08551, 2025. (MELLE), ACL

    2025

  49. [57]

    VibeV oice Technical Report.https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19205, 2025

    Microsoft. VibeV oice Technical Report.https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19205, 2025. Microsoft

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    DASB — Discrete Audio and Speech Benchmark

    Mousavi et al. DASB — Discrete Audio and Speech Benchmark. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14294, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    TADA: A Generative Framework for Speech Modeling via Text-Acoustic Dual Alignment

    Dang et al. TADA: A Generative Framework for Speech Modeling via Text-Acoustic Dual Alignment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23068, 2026

    2026

  52. [60]

    FlexiCodec: A Dynamic Neural Audio Codec for Low Frame Rates

    Li et al. FlexiCodec: A Dynamic Neural Audio Codec for Low Frame Rates. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2510.00981, 2026. ICLR

    2026

  53. [61]

    Signal Estimation from Modified Short-Time Fourier Transform, 1984

    Griffin and Lim. Signal Estimation from Modified Short-Time Fourier Transform, 1984. IEEE TASSP

    1984

  54. [62]

    WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio

    van den Oord et al. WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03499, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    HiFi-GAN: GANs for Efficient and High Fidelity Speech Synthesis

    Kong et al. HiFi-GAN: GANs for Efficient and High Fidelity Speech Synthesis. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2010.05646, 2020. NeurIPS

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Natural TTS Synthesis by Conditioning WaveNet on Mel Spectrogram Predictions

    Shen et al. Natural TTS Synthesis by Conditioning WaveNet on Mel Spectrogram Predictions. https: //arxiv.org/abs/1712.05884, 2018. (Tacotron 2), ICASSP

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Conditional Variational Autoencoder with Adversarial Learning for End-to-End Text-to-Speech

    Kim et al. Conditional Variational Autoencoder with Adversarial Learning for End-to-End Text-to-Speech. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.06103, 2021. (VITS), ICML

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A Scale for the Measurement of the Psychological Magnitude Pitch

    Stevens, V olkmann, and Newman. A Scale for the Measurement of the Psychological Magnitude Pitch. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1915893, 1937. (the mel scale), J. Acoust. Soc. Am

    1937 doi

  59. [67]

    Comparison of Parametric Representations for Monosyllabic Word Recognition in Continuously Spoken Sentences

    Davis and Mermelstein. Comparison of Parametric Representations for Monosyllabic Word Recognition in Continuously Spoken Sentences. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASSP.1980.1163420, 1980. (MFCC), IEEE TASSP

    1980

  60. [68]

    WaveGrad: Estimating Gradients for Waveform Generation

    Chen et al. WaveGrad: Estimating Gradients for Waveform Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009. 00713, 2020. ICLR 2021

    2009

  61. [69]

    DiffWave: A Versatile Diffusion Model for Audio Synthesis

    Kong et al. DiffWave: A Versatile Diffusion Model for Audio Synthesis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009. 09761, 2020. ICLR 2021

    2009

  62. [70]

    dMel: Speech Tokenization made Simple.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15835, 2024

    Bai et al. dMel: Speech Tokenization made Simple.https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15835, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Grad-TTS: A Diffusion Probabilistic Model for Text-to-Speech

    Popov et al. Grad-TTS: A Diffusion Probabilistic Model for Text-to-Speech. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2105.06337, 2021. ICML 2021

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    DiffSinger: Singing V oice Synthesis via Shallow Diffusion Mechanism

    Liu et al. DiffSinger: Singing V oice Synthesis via Shallow Diffusion Mechanism. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2105.02446, 2021. AAAI 2022

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Sound Texture Perception via Statistics of the Auditory Periphery: Evidence from Sound Synthesis.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.06.032, 2011

    McDermott and Simoncelli. Sound Texture Perception via Statistics of the Auditory Periphery: Evidence from Sound Synthesis.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.06.032, 2011. Neuron. 21

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    Neural Discrete Representation Learning

    van den Oord et al. Neural Discrete Representation Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00937, 2017. (VQ-V AE), NeurIPS

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    SNAC: Multi-Scale Neural Audio Codec.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14411, 2024

    Siuzdak et al. SNAC: Multi-Scale Neural Audio Codec.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14411, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    An Image is Worth 32 Tokens for Reconstruction and Generation

    Yu et al. An Image is Worth 32 Tokens for Reconstruction and Generation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 07550, 2024. (TiTok), NeurIPS

    2024

  69. [77]

    FlexTok: Resampling Images into 1D Token Sequences of Flexible Length

    Bachmann et al. FlexTok: Resampling Images into 1D Token Sequences of Flexible Length. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.13967, 2025. ICML

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Variable-rate discrete representation learning

    Dieleman et al. Variable-rate discrete representation learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06089, 2021. 22 Appendix A Why Audio Needs a Latent A.1 Mel as the first widely used latent Generating audio in a latent space is older than learned codecs. The mel-spectrogram already a...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.