Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SLIDE: Integrating Speech Language Model with LLM for Spontaneous Spoken Dialogue Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conditioning a textless speech language model on duration-annotated phoneme sequences generated by an LLM produces spoken dialogue that is nearly as coherent as real conversation while staying as natural as the original textless model.

desk verdict SLIDE is a useful hybrid system, but its headline semantic-coherence numbers mostly measure the LLM's text quality, not the integrated model. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00805 v1 pith:3BIFBR7I submitted 2025-01-01 eess.AS cs.CLcs.SD

Haitian Lu , Gaofeng Cheng , Liuping Luo , Leying Zhang , Yanmin Qian , Pengyuan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.CLcs.SD
keywords spokendialoguegenerationspeechlanguagemodelstextlessSLMsemanticcoherencenaturalismdurationpredictionLLM-conditioneddiscreteunits
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

SLIDE is a hybrid pipeline for generating spontaneous spoken dialogue: an LLM writes the dialogue text, a two-tower transformer predicts how long each phoneme lasts, and the speech language model dGSLM is conditioned on the resulting “spoken phoneme sequence” (each phoneme repeated every 20 ms) to vocalize it. The paper's central claim is that this text-side control fixes the semantic weakness of textless speech language models without sacrificing the paralinguistic naturalism—backchannels, laughter, overlap, gaps—that makes them sound human. On the Fisher corpus, the authors report a relative perplexity reduction of 65.8% versus dGSLM (from 1228.82 to 421.29, approaching the ground-truth value of 371.16) and a meaningfulness MOS improvement from 1.52 to 4.08, while naturalness MOS stays comparable. The point of the work is to show that text and speech units can cooperate rather than compete in spoken dialogue generation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spoken phoneme sequence: a discretized, duration-carrying text representation built by forced alignment and 20 ms phoneme repetition, which lets the two-tower transformer duration predictor produce the conditioning input for dGSLM. The two-tower transformer, trained with teacher forcing, edge unit loss, and delayed duration prediction, converts written phonemes into these sequences; the conditioned dGSLM then treats the phoneme sequence as the first 4,000 tokens and continues with audio tokens, so the text determines what is said while speech units determine how it sounds. A post-processing step inserts silence tokens whenever overlaps exceed 0.6 seconds, capping overlaps at about 0.3 seconds.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of Fisher dialogues, run the SLIDE-2 pipeline end to end, transcribe the generated audio with Whisper, and compute DialoGPT perplexity against dGSLM output: the central claim collapses if the 65.8% relative reduction is not reproduced, or if a listener panel rates SLIDE-2 naturalness below dGSLM's 4.14 by a margin exceeding the confidence interval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors aim to establish that a textless spoken-dialogue model can be made semantically coherent by prepending a phoneme-level textual condition derived from an LLM's output, without giving up the paralinguistic detail that makes such models natural. The conditioning signal is not plain written phonemes but spoken phoneme sequences: each phoneme is repeated once per 20 ms frame according to forced-alignment durations, with a silence phoneme added to mark utterance boundaries. During inference, a two-tower transformer predicts these sequences from written text, and dGSLM continues from them to produce speech units that HiFi-GAN decodes into audio. The reported evidence is that SLIDE-2 reaches a transcript perplexity of 421.29 versus 1228.82 for dGSLM, a relative gap of only 11.9% from ground truth, while turn-taking event statistics (IPUs, pauses, gaps, overlaps) remain close to both dGSLM and ground truth.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that representing phoneme durations by repeating each phoneme every 20 ms—derived from forced alignment—preserves enough rhythm and turn-taking information that the conditioned model sounds as natural as the original textless dGSLM; if this repetition-based conditioning distorts timing or fluency, the naturalism claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SLIDE-2's transcript perplexity of 421.29 versus 1228.82 for dGSLM implies that a textless SLM can be steered semantically by phoneme conditioning while still generating speech units rather than text.
  • The closeness of SLIDE's turn-taking statistics to ground truth (for example, 31.3 versus 27.3 IPUs per minute, 15.8 versus 8.2 overlaps) implies that naturalistic overlap and gap behavior is not destroyed by the phoneme condition.
  • The M-MOS jump from 1.52 to 4.08 implies that listeners perceive LLM-generated continuations as far more meaningful, making spoken-dialogue generation viable for content-bearing interactive applications.
  • Because the method adds a duration predictor and conditions an existing dGSLM core, it implies an upgrade path: existing textless SLMs can be made text-controllable without redesigning their generative speech-unit core.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the same 20 ms phoneme-repetition encoding transfers to other speech-unit models; if it does, phoneme conditioning could become a general plug-in for unit-based speech generation.
  • One consequence the authors leave implicit is that the duration predictor, not the LLM, may be the main bottleneck: replacing forced-alignment-derived durations with a learned prosody model would test whether more natural rhythm further closes the perplexity gap to ground truth.
  • Because the 0.6 second overlap post-processing is applied at inference, a fair naturalism check would compare raw versus post-processed output; if silence insertion is doing most of the turn-taking work, the claim that conditioning alone preserves fluidity is weaker than it appears.
  • A useful extension would be to condition on discourse-level signals (topic, intent, emotion) alongside phonemes, turning SLIDE's pipeline into a controllable spoken-dialogue generator rather than just LLM-following vocalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SLIDE, a hybrid spoken-dialogue generation system that combines a text-based LLM with a textless speech language model. GPT-4o generates textual dialogue continuations from a transcribed prompt; the text is converted to phoneme sequences via G2P; a two-tower transformer duration predictor, trained on forced-alignment durations, converts written phoneme sequences into spoken phoneme sequences; and a dGSLM-style model conditioned on those spoken phoneme sequences generates audio tokens that are decoded by HiFi-GAN. Experiments on Fisher compare SLIDE-1 (ground-truth text conditioning), SLIDE-2 (LLM text conditioning), dGSLM, a cascaded system, and ground truth, using turn-taking event statistics, DialoGPT perplexity of the first 50 words of transcripts, and MOS ratings for naturalness and meaningfulness. The paper's headline claims are a 65.8% relative perplexity reduction over dGSLM (1228.82 to 421.29), a small 11.9% gap to ground-truth perplexity, and naturalness comparable to dGSLM while substantially improving meaningfulness.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, SLIDE would be a practical and interesting recipe for injecting LLM-level semantic control into textless speech language models while retaining their turn-taking and paralinguistic behaviors. The paper builds on established components (dGSLM, HuBERT, HiFi-GAN, G2P, Montreal Forced Aligner), evaluates on a standard large corpus, and reports subjective MOS with multiple raters, which are strengths. The central limitation is that the semantic-coherence evaluation does not isolate the contribution of the proposed speech-side components from the semantic content supplied by the LLM text, and the missing cascaded baseline prevents the reader from judging whether the improvement over dGSLM is due to the integrated system or simply to using GPT-4o for content.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Table III] The headline semantic-coherence result is confounded. In SLIDE, the audio is generated by conditioning dGSLM on spoken phoneme sequences derived from the LLM text (described in Sections II-A through II-C), so the DialoGPT perplexity of Whisper transcripts of the generated audio is largely determined by the predictability of the GPT-4o text, not by the proposed duration predictor or conditioned dGSLM. Because Table III reports '-' for the Cascaded baseline, the 65.8% relative perplexity reduction from 1228.82 to 421.29 does not establish that the integrated system improves coherence beyond a conventional LLM+TTS cascade. Please add the cascaded perplexity, report the perplexity of the LLM text before synthesis, and include an ablation in which the conditioning phoneme sequence is mismatched or the LLM text is replaced by a lower-coherence baseline.
  2. [Section III-B, Table III] The perplexity numbers are presented as point estimates with no sample size, variance, or significance test, yet the text uses the word 'significantly' for the 65.8% reduction and for the 11.9% gap to ground truth. Report the number of generated dialogues, the per-dialogue perplexity distribution or bootstrap confidence intervals, and a paired significance test against dGSLM and ground truth. Also justify the choice to truncate transcripts to the first 50 words, since that window may not reflect the coherence of the full dialogue.
  3. [Section II-B, Tables I and II] The naturalism claim is weakened by the post-processing step that inserts silence tokens to cap overlaps, and the asserted similarity to ground truth is not quantitatively tested. SLIDE-2 has 15.8 overlaps per minute and 7.0 seconds of overlap per minute versus 8.2 and 4.0 seconds for ground truth, roughly double the ground-truth rate. Please report how often the post-processing triggers, present results without it, and provide significance tests or effect sizes for the turn-taking statistics rather than relying only on visual inspection of box plots.
  4. [Section III-C3, Table III] The subjective M-MOS improvement over dGSLM (4.08 versus 1.52, described as a 270.0% relative improvement) is reported without a significance test, and the same content-confounding applies because raters hear audio generated from LLM-conditioned text. Please report the number of rated samples, the number of raters per sample, inter-rater agreement, and a paired significance test. This is load-bearing for the claim that the proposed method 'significantly enhances the meaningfulness' of generated dialogues.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B heading] The heading 'Written Phoneme Sequence Duartion Prediction' contains a typo; it should read 'Duration'.
  2. [Section III-A heading] The heading 'Implemention Details' contains a typo; it should read 'Implementation'.
  3. [Section II-B, inference paragraph] The rule 'If the phoneme generated in the current time step differs from the penultimate generated phoneme' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the comparison should be against the immediately previous phoneme or the one before it, and this detail matters for reproducibility.
  4. [Table III] There is a spacing typo in the Ground Truth M-MOS entry ('4 .63' instead of '4.63').
  5. [Section III-B] The sentence 'The generation temperature is always set to 1' is ambiguous because it does not specify which generation stage (LLM, duration predictor, dGSLM, or DialoGPT evaluation) the temperature applies to; please clarify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Semantic-coherence evaluation is partly circular: the measured DialoGPT perplexity scores text that was injected as conditioning, so the 65.8% reduction largely reduces to LLM text quality rather than the SLM's semantic ability.

  1. self definitional [Section II-C and Section III-B/III-C-2 (Table III)]
    "Our proposed method constrains the output speech units of dGSLM with the corresponding phonemes, ensuring that the generated spoken dialogues maintain semantic coherence. ... For semantic evaluation, we employ the Whisper-v3 speech recognition model to transcribe spoken dialogues into text. ... Finally, we use the DialoGPT model [34] to calculate the perplexity of the text transcripts of the audio continuations."

    SLIDE-2 generates audio by conditioning dGSLM on spoken phoneme sequences derived directly from the GPT-4o textual dialogue (Sections II-A and II-B). The evaluation then transcribes that audio with Whisper and computes DialoGPT perplexity on the first 50 words of the transcript. Because the lexical content is fixed before acoustic generation, the reported perplexity mostly measures how predictable the LLM-written text is under DialoGPT, not any semantic capability learned by the speech model. The comparison to dGSLM is not head-to-head: dGSLM must generate both content and prosody from speech units, whereas SLIDE is given the content through conditioning.

full rationale

The system's own derivation is largely self-contained: the duration predictor and the phoneme-conditioned dGSLM are trained on Fisher data with explicit inputs and targets, and the naturalism evaluation uses external turn-taking statistics from ground-truth dialogue, which is an independent benchmark. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The main circularity is confined to the semantic-coherence claim in Table III: the conditioning phoneme sequence is derived from the same LLM text that Whisper transcribes and DialoGPT scores, so the PPL reduction is not an independent measure of the integrated speech model's semantic ability. The missing cascaded baseline and the lack of significance testing reinforce this confound. Because the naturalism claim remains independent and the method itself is not defined in terms of its evaluation metric, the paper is only partially circular rather than wholly reducible to its inputs.

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

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the preservation of naturalism under phoneme conditioning, the accuracy of forced alignment, and the validity of text-based perplexity as a coherence metric. The free parameters are heuristic design choices for overlap control and window sizing that are not ablated.

free parameters (2)
  • overlap post-processing thresholds = 0.6s trigger, 0.3s cap
    Hand-chosen values for inserting silence tokens to limit overlap; no ablation or optimization reported.
  • conditioning window length = 4000 tokens (80 s)
    Fixed length for cropping/padding spoken phoneme sequences during inference; chosen arbitrarily based on training sample length.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Phoneme-conditioned dGSLM retains the naturalistic turn-taking and non-verbal vocalization properties of the original textless dGSLM.
    This is the core assumption that makes the hybrid approach work; if conditioning on phoneme sequences distorts prosody, the naturalism claim fails. Invoked in Sections II-C and III-C.
  • domain assumption Forced alignment (Montreal Forced Aligner) provides sufficiently accurate phoneme boundaries to convert text into spoken phoneme sequences.
    The duration predictor is trained on these alignments; errors propagate to the generated audio. Mentioned in Section II-B.
  • domain assumption DialoGPT perplexity on Whisper transcriptions of the first 50 words is a valid measure of semantic coherence for spoken dialogue.
    The evaluation's semantic metric is text-based and may not capture spoken coherence; no correlation with human judgments is shown. Established in Section III-B.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o-generated textual dialogues are representative of natural spoken dialogue style.
    The LLM is prompted to mimic spoken style, but the output style is not quantitatively verified against Fisher transcriptions. Used in Section II-A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SLIDE: Integrating Speech Language Model with LLM for Spontaneous Spoken Dialogue Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BIFBR7I

@misc{pith2026250100805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SLIDE: Integrating Speech Language Model with LLM for Spontaneous Spoken Dialogue Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BIFBR7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00805}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, ``textless" speech language models (SLMs) based on speech units have made huge progress in generating naturalistic speech, including non-verbal vocalizations. However, the generated speech samples often lack semantic coherence. In this paper, we propose SLM and LLM Integration for spontaneous spoken Dialogue gEneration (SLIDE). Specifically, we first utilize an LLM to generate the textual content of spoken dialogue. Next, we convert the textual dialogues into phoneme sequences and use a two-tower transformer-based duration predictor to predict the duration of each phoneme. Finally, an SLM conditioned on the spoken phoneme sequences is used to vocalize the textual dialogue. Experimental results on the Fisher dataset demonstrate that our system can generate naturalistic spoken dialogue while maintaining high semantic coherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inference diagram of the proposed SLIDE model for spoken dialogue generation, with black representing elements from Channel A and brown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The temporal distribution of turn-taking events. The green triangles denote the mean values, and the solid lines within the boxes represent the median. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Breaking the Barriers of Text-Hungry and Audio-Deficient AI

    cs.SD 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A proposed audio-native translation framework called MAST with fractional diffusion is described, but no evidence is given that it produces working translations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Generative spoken dialogue language modeling,

    T. A. Nguyen, E. Kharitonov, J. Copet, Y . Adi, W.-N. Hsu, A. Elkahky, P. Tomasello, R. Algayres, B. Sagot, A. Mohamed et al. , “Generative spoken dialogue language modeling,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , vol. 11, pp. 250–266, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Audi- olm: a language modeling approach to audio generation,

    Z. Borsos, R. Marinier, D. Vincent, E. Kharitonov, O. Pietquin, M. Shar- ifi, D. Roblek, O. Teboul, D. Grangier, M. Tagliasacchi et al. , “Audi- olm: a language modeling approach to audio generation,” IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 31, pp. 2523–2533, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Audiopalm: A large language model that can speak and listen,

    P. K. Rubenstein, C. Asawaroengchai, D. D. Nguyen, A. Bapna, Z. Bor- sos, F. d. C. Quitry, P. Chen, D. E. Badawy, W. Han, E. Kharitonovet al., “Audiopalm: A large language model that can speak and listen,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Recent advances in deep learning based dialogue systems: A systematic survey,

    J. Ni, T. Young, V . Pandelea, F. Xue, and E. Cambria, “Recent advances in deep learning based dialogue systems: A systematic survey,” Artificial intelligence review, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 3055–3155, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    On temporal aspects of turn taking in conversational dialogues,

    L. Ten Bosch, N. Oostdijk, and L. Boves, “On temporal aspects of turn taking in conversational dialogues,” Speech Communication, vol. 47, no. 1-2, pp. 80–86, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations,

    M. Heldner and J. Edlund, “Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations,” Journal of Phonetics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 555–568, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Conversational short-phrase speaker diarization via self-adjusting speech segmentation and embedding ex- traction,

    H. Lu, G. Cheng, and Y . Yan, “Conversational short-phrase speaker diarization via self-adjusting speech segmentation and embedding ex- traction,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 31, pp. 2340–2344, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Improving spoken question answering using contex- tualized word representation,

    D. Su and P. Fung, “Improving spoken question answering using contex- tualized word representation,” in ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 8004–8008

    work page 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Towards Machine Comprehension of Spoken Content: Initial TOEFL Listening Compre- hension Test by Machine,

    B.-H. Tseng, S. syun Shen, H.-Y . Lee, and L.-S. Lee, “Towards Machine Comprehension of Spoken Content: Initial TOEFL Listening Compre- hension Test by Machine,” in Proc. Interspeech 2016 , 2016, pp. 2731– 2735

    2016

  2. [10]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation on end-to-end multi-talker overlapped speech recognition,

    L. Zheng, H. Zhu, S. Tian, Q. Zhao, and T. Li, “Unsupervised domain adaptation on end-to-end multi-talker overlapped speech recognition,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 31, pp. 3119–3123, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Ada and grace: Direct interaction with museum visitors,

    D. Traum, P. Aggarwal, R. Artstein, S. Foutz, J. Gerten, A. Katsama- nis, A. Leuski, D. Noren, and W. Swartout, “Ada and grace: Direct interaction with museum visitors,” in Intelligent Virtual Agents: 12th International Conference. Springer, 2012, pp. 245–251

    2012

  4. [12]

    Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: A review,

    G. Skantze, “Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: A review,” Computer Speech & Language , vol. 67, p. 101178, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S088523082030111X

    2021

  5. [13]

    Can a robot laugh with you?: Shared laughter generation for empathetic spoken dialogue,

    K. Inoue, D. Lala, and T. Kawahara, “Can a robot laugh with you?: Shared laughter generation for empathetic spoken dialogue,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 9, p. 933261, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    On gener- ative spoken language modeling from raw audio,

    K. Lakhotia, E. Kharitonov, W.-N. Hsu, Y . Adi, A. Polyak, B. Bolte, T.-A. Nguyen, J. Copet, A. Baevski, A. Mohamed et al. , “On gener- ative spoken language modeling from raw audio,” Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 9, pp. 1336–1354, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Covomix: Advancing zero-shot speech generation for human-like multi-talker conversations,

    L. Zhang, Y . Qian, L. Zhou, S. Liu, D. Wang, X. Wang, M. Yousefi, Y . Qian, J. Li, L. He et al. , “Covomix: Advancing zero-shot speech generation for human-like multi-talker conversations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06690, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Towards human-like spoken dialogue generation between ai agents from written dialogue,

    K. Mitsui, Y . Hono, and K. Sawada, “Towards human-like spoken dialogue generation between ai agents from written dialogue,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01088, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,

    W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhutdinov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,” IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech, and language processing , vol. 29, pp. 3451–3460, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449– 12 460, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Asq: An ultra-low bit rate asr-oriented speech quantization method,

    L. Ye, C. Gao, G. Cheng, L. Luo, and Q. Zhao, “Asq: An ultra-low bit rate asr-oriented speech quantization method,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 31, pp. 221–225, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Self-supervised pre- training for attention-based encoder-decoder asr model,

    C. Gao, G. Cheng, T. Li, P. Zhang, and Y . Yan, “Self-supervised pre- training for attention-based encoder-decoder asr model,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 30, pp. 1763–1774, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Speech Resynthesis from Discrete Disentangled Self-Supervised Representations,

    A. Polyak, Y . Adi, J. Copet, E. Kharitonov, K. Lakhotia, W.-N. Hsu, A. Mohamed, and E. Dupoux, “Speech Resynthesis from Discrete Disentangled Self-Supervised Representations,” in Proc. Interspeech 2021, 2021, pp. 3615–3619

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis,

    J. Kong, J. Kim, and J. Bae, “Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 17 022–17 033, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Audioldm 2: Learning holistic audio generation with self-supervised pretraining,

    H. Liu, Y . Yuan, X. Liu, X. Mei, Q. Kong, Q. Tian, Y . Wang, W. Wang, Y . Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Audioldm 2: Learning holistic audio generation with self-supervised pretraining,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 32, pp. 2871–2883, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Exploring speech recognition, translation, and understanding with discrete speech units: A compar- ative study,

    X. Chang, B. Yan, K. Choi, J.-W. Jung, Y . Lu, S. Maiti, R. Sharma, J. Shi, J. Tian, S. Watanabe et al. , “Exploring speech recognition, translation, and understanding with discrete speech units: A compar- ative study,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acou...

    2024

  18. [26]

    The fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text

    C. Cieri, D. Miller, and K. Walker, “The fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text.” in LREC, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 69–71

    2004

  19. [27]

    Torchaudio 2.1: Advancing speech recognition, self-supervised learning, and audio processing components for pytorch,

    J. Hwang, M. Hira, C. Chen, X. Zhang, Z. Ni, G. Sun, P. Ma, R. Huang, V . Pratap, Y . Zhanget al., “Torchaudio 2.1: Advancing speech recognition, self-supervised learning, and audio processing components for pytorch,” in 2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Under- standi...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

    2023

  21. [29]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Park and J

    K. Park and J. Kim, “g2pe,” https://github.com/Kyubyong/g2p, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using kaldi

    M. McAuliffe, M. Socolof, S. Mihuc, M. Wagner, and M. Sonderegger, “Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using kaldi.” in Proc. Interspeech 2017 , vol. 2017, 2017, pp. 498–502

    2017

  24. [32]

    Powerset multi-class cross entropy loss for neural speaker diarization,

    A. Plaquet and H. Bredin, “Powerset multi-class cross entropy loss for neural speaker diarization,” in Proc. Interspeech 2023, 2023, pp. 3222– 3226

    2023

  25. [33]

    pyannote.audio 2.1 speaker diarization pipeline: principle, benchmark, and recipe,

    H. Bredin, “pyannote.audio 2.1 speaker diarization pipeline: principle, benchmark, and recipe,” in Proc. Interspeech 2023 , 2023, pp. 1983– 1987

    2023

  26. [34]

    Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation,

    Y . Zhang, S. Sun, M. Galley, Y .-C. Chen, C. Brockett, X. Gao, J. Gao, J. Liu, and B. Dolan, “Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation,” in ACL, system demonstration , 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.