Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Accent Normalization Using Self-Supervised Discrete Tokens with Non-Parallel Data

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Discrete speech tokens can normalize foreign accents without parallel training data.

desk verdict A token-based accent normalization pipeline with a sensible design, but the evaluation leaks sentence content because L2-ARCTIC shares prompts across speakers; the central comparison needs a stricter split. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17735 v1 pith:BJGXIN65 submitted 2025-07-23 eess.AS cs.SD

Qibing Bai , Sho Inoue , Shuai Wang , Zhongjie Jiang , Yannan Wang , Haizhou Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords accentnormalizationconversionself-superviseddiscretetokensHuBERTnon-paralleldataflowmatchingdurationcontrolvoice
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

This paper claims that foreign-accented English can be normalized to native-like speech by working entirely with discrete self-supervised speech tokens, without any parallel corpus. The proposed pipeline extracts HuBERT tokens from accented input, runs an autoregressive token-to-token conversion model that maps accented token sequences onto native token sequences, and synthesizes the final waveform with a flow-matching token-to-Mel system. Training the conversion model on deduplicated tokens, where consecutive identical tokens are merged, lets it learn phonetic accent mappings while ignoring the duration and prosody of synthetic TTS targets, which the authors argue avoids the error accumulation of frame-to-frame baselines. Evaluations across six L2 accents and American English report better naturalness, lower perceived accentedness, higher speaker similarity, and lower word error rates than a frame-to-frame TTS-guided baseline. The paper also contributes two methods for preserving the original utterance duration, targeting dubbing applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the HuBERT discrete token sequence with its k-means codebook of 1000 units, used after deduplication of consecutive identical tokens. Deduplication strips duration and most prosodic information while preserving phonetic identity, so the autoregressive conversion model trained with CTC phone supervision and accent-conditioned embeddings learns accent-to-accent token mappings without being distracted by synthetic target duration. The second stage is a non-autoregressive flow-matching synthesizer with a duration predictor, speaker embeddings from Resemblyzer, classifier-free guidance, and BigVGAN vocoding, which maps normalized tokens back to Mel-spectrograms and ultimately to speech.

What would settle it

Take test sentences that exist in both accented and native recordings, run the pipeline, and score the converted output against the real native audio rather than the TTS-generated targets; if the accent-normalization claim is correct, peak-aligned measures such as phonetic posteriorgram distance, frame distortion, and F0 correlation should improve against real native speech too. A second check is to train with synthetic targets from several different TTS voices and see whether converted token distributions stay consistent; large swings would indicate the token converter is memorizing TTS artifacts rather than genuine native pronunciations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that discrete self-supervised tokens, quantized with HuBERT and k-means clustering, carry enough phonetic content to support accent conversion, and that converting tokens to tokens rather than frames to frames is what makes non-parallel training viable. Deduplication removes duration information, so the conversion model learns a pure phonetic mapping from accented to native pronunciations, while a separately trained non-autoregressive synthesizer recovers duration and timbre from speaker embeddings. On subjective and objective measures across Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, Vietnamese, and American English, the system outperforms a frame-to-frame diffusion baseline in naturalness, accentedness reduction, intelligibility, and speaker similarity. Phoneme-level token distribution analysis shows converted Chinese-accented speech moving closer to native token distributions on known mispronunciation patterns. The authors also report that duration-aware flow-matching prediction keeps total duration within about 1.6 percent of the source, while direct scaling is preferred subjectively.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that native TTS plus voice cloning produces target HuBERT token sequences that are phonetically correct, and that deduplicating consecutive identical tokens removes duration and prosody without discarding accent-relevant phonetic detail; if either fails, the conversion model learns a distorted accent mapping and the objective accentedness scores, which are computed against those same synthetic targets, overstate the improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accent conversion can be trained without paired parallel speech, using only a TTS system to generate synthetic targets and a separate native dataset for the synthesizer.
  • Because conversion happens in token space, the quality of synthetic TTS targets matters less than in frame-to-frame methods, mitigating error accumulation from voice cloning and duration modeling.
  • The reported gains on naturalness, accentedness, and speaker similarity over the frame-to-frame baseline hold across all six tested L2 accents, with the largest intelligibility gains for Chinese and Vietnamese.
  • Duration preservation via direct scaling or a total-duration-aware flow-matching predictor makes the pipeline usable in dubbing, at a small cost in naturalness relative to free duration.
  • The authors note a limitation: converted speech still has higher word error rates than source speech, so practical use awaits more robust tokenizers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If deduplicated tokens really separate phonetics from duration and prosody, the same two-stage recipe should transfer to other paralinguistic traits, such as emotion, dialect, or speaking style, provided a synthesizer can re-inject those traits.
  • A direct test of the synthetic-target bias would be to score converted speech not only against TTS targets but against real native recordings of the same sentences; the paper's objective accentedness metrics inherit whatever phonetic errors the TTS voice introduces.
  • The Hindi accent underperformed in intelligibility, which the authors attribute to retroflex consonants not captured by the 1000-unit token inventory; a larger or linguistically informed codebook is a testable extension.
  • Because WER remains elevated after conversion, a practical system might combine token-level accent normalization with a spelling or pronunciation-guiding secondary task, something the paper does not explore.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper introduces TokAN, an accent-normalization pipeline built on self-supervised discrete tokens. Source speech is encoded into HuBERT tokens, deduplicated, converted by an autoregressive token-to-token model, and synthesized via a flow-matching token-to-Mel module followed by a vocoder. The conversion model is pre-trained with a BART-style denoising objective, conditioned on accent embeddings, and trained with CTC phone supervision; targets are HuBERT tokens extracted from TTS-synthesized native speech with voice cloning. The authors evaluate on six L2 accents (Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, Vietnamese) plus native American English, comparing against a frame-to-frame TTS-guided baseline. They report improvements in naturalness, accentedness, and speaker similarity, and propose two total-duration-preservation methods. They also present a token-level phoneme distribution analysis and ablations.

Significance. The proposed method is relevant to accent conversion and speech synthesis: operating on discrete tokens rather than frame-level features is a sensible way to reduce sensitivity to synthetic-target acoustic quality, and the modular design allows separate training of the converter and synthesizer on different corpora. The release of code and demo samples, the multi-accent comparison, the ablation study, and the interpretable token-distribution analysis are concrete strengths. That said, the evaluation as presented has a content-leakage problem in the data split and a circularity in the objective accentedness metrics; these issues affect the central claim and must be resolved before the reported superiority can be regarded as established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 (data splits)] The split is speaker-disjoint but not sentence-disjoint: because L2-ARCTIC uses the same prompt sentences across speakers, the 80 test sentences also occur in the training utterances of the remaining speakers for each accent. Under the training pipeline of Sec. 3.3, the conversion model is trained on token pairs for those exact sentences (source L2 tokens and TTS-synthesized native tokens). An autoregressive token converter can therefore memorize sentence-specific target token sequences rather than learn a general accent mapping. Since the WER, objective accentedness, and MUSHRA/BWS evaluations in Sec. 5 are all performed on these 80 prompts, the reported gains may substantially overstate performance on unseen text. Please re-run the evaluation with a sentence-disjoint split (excluding the test prompts from training for all speakers) and report whether the conclusions survive.
  2. [Sec. 4.4 (objective accentedness metrics)] The objective accentedness metrics (ΔPPG, FD, F0 corr.) are computed as distances to "the synthetic targets" produced by Matcha-TTS with voice cloning, and those same TTS-synthesized targets are the training targets for the conversion model (Sec. 3.3). The metrics therefore measure how closely the output matches the very distribution the model was optimized to produce, which is circular and can inflate apparent accent-reduction gains even if the synthetic targets are imperfectly native. Please evaluate accentedness against real native references (e.g., native ARCTIC recordings) or independent human accentedness ratings, and discuss the discrepancy, if any.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and throughout] The method is called "non-parallel," but the conversion training pairs each L2 utterance with a TTS-synthesized target of the same sentence, so the pairs are content-parallel even if not acoustically parallel. Please clarify the terminology.
  2. [Table 4] Removing pre-training improves FD (from 35.24 to 30.83) while worsening WER (from 16.25 to 27.59). The text discusses only the WER degradation; please explain the FD behavior or discuss why FD is not trustworthy in this comparison.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The text reports the absolute duration difference for "ours w/ dur. control" (0.064 s, 1.64%) but does not report the corresponding number for "ours w/ dur. scaling"; since scaling forces total duration to match by construction, please state this explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] With only one held-out speaker per accent, the accent-wise results in Tables 2 and 3 may be strongly speaker-dependent; consider reporting per-speaker results or using multiple test speakers.
  5. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 4.3] The proprietary 300-hour Chinese-accented ASR dataset is not described; please provide corpus details or state its availability.
  6. [Figure 3 caption] "Comarison" should be "Comparison."
  7. [Sec. 4.4] The MUSHRA and BWS ratings are reported with confidence intervals but no significance tests; please clarify which pairwise differences are statistically significant.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Objective accentedness metrics are computed against the same TTS-synthesized targets used to train the conversion model, and the test split reuses training sentences; subjective scores provide partial independent support.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (Training Pipeline) and Section 4.4 (Evaluation Metrics)]
    "The conversion model is trained on non-parallel data with synthetic targets: ... Generate TTS-synthesized targets for L2-accented data ... Train the conversion model on these token pairs. ... For accentedness reduction, we compute metrics against the synthetic targets."

    The conversion model's supervision signal is the token sequence extracted from Matcha-TTS synthetic native targets, and the objective accentedness metrics (ΔPPG, FD, F0 corr.) are distances to those same synthetic targets. Therefore the reported 'accentedness reduction' numbers partly measure how faithfully the model reproduces its own training target distribution, rather than independently certifying closeness to a native norm. The subjective ACT ratings and WER provide independent evidence, so this circularity is partial rather than total.

  2. other [Section 4.1 (Datasets)]
    "Since L2-ARCTIC uses the same prompt sentences across speakers, we construct the data splits: 50 sentences for validation and 80 for testing, holding out one unseen speaker per accent."

    The split holds out speakers but not sentences: the 80 test prompts also occur in training utterances from the other speakers, and the synthetic target tokens for those exact sentences are part of the conversion model's training pairs. Reported WER, objective accentedness metrics, and MUSHRA/BWS scores therefore evaluate content that the model has already seen during training, undermining the evaluation as a test of accent normalization on new text.

full rationale

The pipeline's trainable components are mostly trained on independent data: the synthesizer on LibriTTS-R and the conversion model on L2-ARCTIC with synthetic targets. The subjective MUSHRA and BWS evaluations are human judgments, not constructed from training targets, and WER uses a native-only ASR model, so these provide independent evidence for the naturalness, speaker-similarity, and intelligibility claims. However, the objective accentedness comparisons are not independent: the conversion model is trained to reproduce token sequences extracted from Matcha-TTS synthetic targets, and the ΔPPG, FD, and F0-corr metrics are computed against those same synthetic targets. This makes part of the reported accent-normalization gain a self-comparison against the model's own training target distribution. In addition, the L2-ARCTIC split reuses the same prompt sentences in training and test, so content-level memorization can inflate all metrics. These issues are partial: the objective accentedness metric is not directly the training loss, and the subjective ACT results corroborate accent reduction. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found; the baseline [19] is a prior-work comparison rather than a circularity source.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method does not introduce new physical or symbolic entities. It relies on established components (HuBERT, flow matching, BigVGAN) plus several hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions about what the token representation contains and what the synthetic targets can teach. The load-bearing assumptions are that HuBERT tokens capture accent-relevant phonetics without speaker identity and that TTS-synthetic token targets are trustworthy enough to serve as learning targets.

free parameters (5)
  • HuBERT layer index = 17
    The 17th layer features are selected for token extraction (Sec 4.2) with no reported sensitivity analysis. This choice affects which phonetic and paralinguistic information is preserved.
  • K-means cluster count = 1000
    HuBERT features are quantized into 1000 discrete tokens (Sec 4.2). The inventory size shapes the conversion model's capacity and the granularity of accent detail, with no ablation reported.
  • CTC loss weight = 1.0
    The auxiliary phone-prediction loss weight is set to 1.0 (Sec 4.3); the ablation only removes the supervision entirely, not vary the weight.
  • Token noise probabilities for BART pre-training = mask 0.2, insert 0.1, replace 0.1
    These pre-training corruption probabilities (Sec 4.3) are hand-chosen and are not swept in the paper, yet they influence the robustness the method claims.
  • CFG strengths = 2.0 (Mel decoder), 0.5 (duration predictor)
    Classifier-free guidance strengths are set during inference (Sec 4.3) and are acknowledged to affect speaker similarity and naturalness; no tuning analysis is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HuBERT discrete tokens encode phonetic content and accent-specific variation at the granularity needed for conversion.
    Invoked in Sec 3.1 and Sec 4.2, relying on [21,22]. If tokens at layer 17 discard accent information or mix in speaker identity, the conversion and speaker-preservation claims weaken.
  • domain assumption Native TTS with voice cloning produces target token sequences that are valid proxies for native pronunciations.
    The conversion model is trained on TTS-synthesized targets (Sec 3.3). The paper argues tokenization reduces the need for high-quality synthetic audio, but the phonetic correctness of the token sequences is assumed, not verified.
  • domain assumption Deduplication of consecutive identical tokens removes duration and paralinguistic information while preserving the phonetic content.
    Stated in the final paragraph of Sec 3. If deduplication also removes phonetically meaningful gemination or boundary cues, the conversion model loses necessary information.
  • domain assumption The flow-matching token-to-Mel synthesizer, trained on LibriTTS-R, can render source speaker identity from a speaker embedding alone.
    The synthesizer is trained only on native speech (Sec 3.3) and conditions on Resemblyzer embeddings. Whether this generalizes to non-native source voices without timbre leakage is assumed.
  • domain assumption Objective distance metrics against synthetic TTS targets are valid measures of accent reduction.
    Sec 4.4 computes dPPG, FD, and F0 corr. against the synthetic targets. Because these targets are also the training labels, the metric encodes the training distribution as ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accent Normalization Using Self-Supervised Discrete Tokens with Non-Parallel Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJGXIN65

@misc{pith2026250717735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accent Normalization Using Self-Supervised Discrete Tokens with Non-Parallel Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJGXIN65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17735}
}
read the original abstract

Accent normalization converts foreign-accented speech into native-like speech while preserving speaker identity. We propose a novel pipeline using self-supervised discrete tokens and non-parallel training data. The system extracts tokens from source speech, converts them through a dedicated model, and synthesizes the output using flow matching. Our method demonstrates superior performance over a frame-to-frame baseline in naturalness, accentedness reduction, and timbre preservation across multiple English accents. Through token-level phonetic analysis, we validate the effectiveness of our token-based approach. We also develop two duration preservation methods, suitable for applications such as dubbing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17735 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of accent normalization. Trainable modules include the conversion model and synthesizer, while gray trapezoids indicate pre-trained modules. The conversion model can generate auxiliary phone outputs. The synthesizer, with a flow matching duration predictor, enables total duration control. Their discrete nature enables the application of textual tech￾niques to speech processing, such as spoken language model… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comarison of two total-duration controlling methods: “ours w/ dur. scaling” (left) and “ours w/ dur. control” (right). jective SIM ratings favor the scaling approach. This preference likely stems from their different handling of source disfluencies: scaling preserves the slower speaking rate, while the control method produces a more acted speaking style that may affect perceived speaker identity. 5.4. Ablation Study… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Token-based phoneme divergence from native tar￾gets. Left: source Chinese-accented speech. Right: converted speech. 5.3. Total-Duration Preservation As detailed in Sec. 3.2, we compare two duration control meth￾ods: direct scaling of predicted durations (“ours w/ dur. scal￾ing”) and a flow matching duration predictor with total-duration awareness (“ours w/ dur. control”). Without scaling, our base model (“ours”) sho… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We study the way to convert the non-native (L2) accented speech into a native (L1) accented one

    Introduction Accent conversion (AC) seeks to alter speech from one accent to another while preserving the speaker characteristics. We study the way to convert the non-native (L2) accented speech into a native (L1) accented one. Such accent normalization (AN) 2 technology offers a wide range of practical applications, such as improving pronunciation for la...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Related Work 2.1. Self-Supervised Discrete Tokens in Speech Generation Discrete tokens from self-supervised learning (SSL) [21] ex- hibit a strong correlation with phonetic content [22], mak- ing them effective representations for speech synthesis. These tokens serve as a proxy in various generation tasks, includ- ing text-to-speech (TTS) [23] and voice c...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    ours w/ dur. scaling

    Methodology Figure 1 illustrates our accent normalization pipeline. The system first converts input speech into discrete HuBERT to- kens through feature extraction, quantization, and deduplica- tion. An autoregressive conversion model then transforms these source tokens into target tokens with normalized phonetic pat- terns, removing the source accent. A ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental Setup 4.1. Datasets We evaluate our method on seven English accents: six from L2- ARCTIC [37] (Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese) and native American English from ARCTIC [38]. Each accent consists of four speakers. We conduct evaluations on this extended L2-ARCTIC dataset. For training, we utilize multiple data sources: ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    ours w/ dur. scal- ing

    Results 5.1. Comparison with Baseline Naturalness and speaker similarity. Table 1 presents both subjective and objective evaluation results. The proposed sys- tem outperforms the frame-to-frame baseline in naturalness and speaker similarity, both subjectively and objectively. This might be attributed to i) the error accumulation during the baseline traini...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Sub- jective evaluations on multiple English accents show signifi- cant improvements in speech naturalness, speaker similarity, and accentedness reduction

    Conclusion, Limitation, & Future Work In this paper, we introduce an accent normalization method us- ing self-supervised discrete tokens and non-parallel data. Sub- jective evaluations on multiple English accents show signifi- cant improvements in speech naturalness, speaker similarity, and accentedness reduction. We also investigate two methods for contr...

    work page

  7. [7]

    62401377), Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Shenzhen Key Laboratory, Grant No

    Acknowledgements This work was supported by National Natural Science Founda- tion of China (Grant No. 62401377), Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Shenzhen Key Laboratory, Grant No. ZDSYS20230626091302006), Shenzhen Science and Technol- ogy Research Fund (Fundamental Research Key Project, Grant No. JCYJ20220818103001002), Program for Guangdong In- ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Vevo: Controllable zero-shot voice imitation with self-supervised disentanglement,

    X. Zhang, X. Zhang et al., “Vevo: Controllable zero-shot voice imitation with self-supervised disentanglement,” in ICLR, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Foreign accent conversion in computer assisted pronunciation training,

    D. Felps, H. Bortfeld, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Foreign accent conversion in computer assisted pronunciation training,” Speech communication, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 920–932, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Subband based voice conversion

    O. T ¨urk and L. M. Arslan, “Subband based voice conversion.” in Proc. Interspeech, 2002, pp. 289–292

    2002

  3. [11]

    Personalized, cross-lingual tts using phonetic posteriorgrams

    L. Sun, H. Wang, S. Kang, K. Li, and H. M. Meng, “Personalized, cross-lingual tts using phonetic posteriorgrams.” in Proc. Inter- speech, 2016, pp. 322–326

    2016

  4. [12]

    Accent conversion using phonetic posteriorgrams,

    Z. Guanlong, S. Sinem, L. John, C.-H. Evgeny, and G.-O. Ri- cardo, “Accent conversion using phonetic posteriorgrams,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2018, pp. 5314–5318

    2018

  5. [13]

    Foreign accent con- version by synthesizing speech from phonetic posteriorgrams

    G. Zhao, S. Ding, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Foreign accent con- version by synthesizing speech from phonetic posteriorgrams.” in Proc. Interspeech, 2019, pp. 2843–2847

    2019

  6. [14]

    Improving accent conversion with ref- erence encoder and end-to-end text-to-speech,

    W. Li, B. Tang et al. , “Improving accent conversion with ref- erence encoder and end-to-end text-to-speech,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.09271, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Accentron: Foreign accent conversion to arbitrary non-native speakers using zero-shot learning,

    S. Ding, G. Zhao, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Accentron: Foreign accent conversion to arbitrary non-native speakers using zero-shot learning,” Computer Speech & Language , vol. 72, p. 101302, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Tts-guided train- ing for accent conversion without parallel data,

    Y . Zhou, Z. Wu, M. Zhang, X. Tian, and H. Li, “Tts-guided train- ing for accent conversion without parallel data,” Signal Process- ing Letters, vol. 30, pp. 533–537, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Converting foreign accent speech without a reference,

    G. Zhao, S. Ding, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Converting foreign accent speech without a reference,” TASLP, vol. 29, pp. 2367– 2381, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Accent conversion using pre-trained model and synthesized data from voice conver- sion

    T.-N. Nguyen, N.-Q. Pham, and A. Waibel, “Accent conversion using pre-trained model and synthesized data from voice conver- sion.” in Proc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 2583–2587

    2022

  11. [19]

    Zero-shot foreign accent conversion without a native reference,

    W. Quamer, A. Das, J. Levis, E. Chukharev-Hudilainen, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “Zero-shot foreign accent conversion without a native reference,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2022, pp. 4920–4924

    2022

  12. [20]

    Evaluating methods for ground-truth- free foreign accent conversion,

    W.-C. Huang and T. Toda, “Evaluating methods for ground-truth- free foreign accent conversion,” inAPSIPA ASC, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Convert and speak: Zero- shot accent conversion with minimum supervision,

    Z. jia, H. Xue, X. Peng, and Y . Lu, “Convert and speak: Zero- shot accent conversion with minimum supervision,” in Multime- dia, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    End-to-end accent conversion without using native utterances,

    S. Liu, D. Wang et al. , “End-to-end accent conversion without using native utterances,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2020, pp. 6289–6293

    2020

  15. [23]

    V oice-preserving zero-shot multiple accent conversion,

    M. Jin, P. Serai, J. Wu, A. Tjandra, V . Manohar, and Q. He, “V oice-preserving zero-shot multiple accent conversion,” inProc. ICASSP, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  16. [24]

    Any-to-one sequence- to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations,

    W.-C. Huang, Y .-C. Wu, and T. Hayashi, “Any-to-one sequence- to-sequence voice conversion using self-supervised discrete speech representations,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2021, pp. 5944–5948

    2021

  17. [25]

    Zero-shot accent conversion using pseudo siamese dis- entanglement network,

    D. Jia, Q. Tian, K. Peng, J. Li, Y . Chen, M. Ma, Y . Wang, and Y . Wang, “Zero-shot accent conversion using pseudo siamese dis- entanglement network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05751, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Transfer the linguis- tic representations from tts to accent conversion with non-parallel data,

    X. Chen, J. Pei, L. Xue, and M. Zhang, “Transfer the linguis- tic representations from tts to accent conversion with non-parallel data,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2024, pp. 12 501–12 505

    2024

  19. [27]

    Diffusion-based method with tts guidance for foreign accent con- version,

    Q. Bai, S. Wang, Z. Liu, M. Zhang, W. Rao, Y . Wang, and H. Li, “Diffusion-based method with tts guidance for foreign accent con- version,” in Proc. ISCSLP, 2024, pp. 284–288

    2024

  20. [28]

    Improving pronunciation and accent conversion through knowledge distilla- tion and synthetic ground-truth from native tts,

    T. N. Nguyen, S. Akti, N. Q. Pham, and A. Waibel, “Improving pronunciation and accent conversion through knowledge distilla- tion and synthetic ground-truth from native tts,” inICASSP, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

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

    W.-N. Hsu, B. Bolte, Y .-H. H. Tsai, K. Lakhotia, R. Salakhut- dinov, and A. Mohamed, “Hubert: Self-supervised speech repre- sentation learning by masked prediction of hidden units,” TASLP, vol. 29, pp. 3451–3460, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Self-supervised speech representations are more phonetic than semantic,

    K. Choi, A. Pasad, T. Nakamura, S. Fukayama, K. Livescu, and S. Watanabe, “Self-supervised speech representations are more phonetic than semantic,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Speak, read and prompt: High- fidelity text-to-speech with minimal supervision,

    E. Kharitonov, D. Vincent et al., “Speak, read and prompt: High- fidelity text-to-speech with minimal supervision,” Trans. ACL, vol. 11, pp. 1703–1718, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Total-duration-aware duration modeling for text-to-speech systems,

    S. E. Eskimez, X. Wang et al. , “Total-duration-aware duration modeling for text-to-speech systems,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio,

    K. Lakhotia, E. Kharitonov et al., “On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio,” Trans. ACL, vol. 9, pp. 1336–1354, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units,

    A. Lee, P.-J. Chen et al., “Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units,” in Proc. ACL, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Llama- omni: Seamless speech interaction with large language models,

    Q. Fang, S. Guo, Y . Zhou, Z. Ma, S. Zhang, and Y . Feng, “Llama- omni: Seamless speech interaction with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06666, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,” inICLR, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Matcha-tts: A fast tts architecture with conditional flow match- ing,

    S. Mehta, R. Tu, J. Beskow, ´E. Sz ´ekely, and G. E. Henter, “Matcha-tts: A fast tts architecture with conditional flow match- ing,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2024, pp. 11 341–11 345

    2024

  30. [38]

    V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual uni- versal speech generation at scale,

    M. Le, A. Vyas et al., “V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual uni- versal speech generation at scale,” inAdvances in NeurIPS, 2023, pp. 14 005–14 034

    2023

  31. [39]

    Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech syn- thesis with factorized codec and diffusion models,

    Z. Ju, Y . Wang et al., “Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech syn- thesis with factorized codec and diffusion models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03100, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    BigVGAN: A universal neural vocoder with large-scale train- ing,

    S. gil Lee, W. Ping, B. Ginsburg, B. Catanzaro, and S. Yoon, “BigVGAN: A universal neural vocoder with large-scale train- ing,” in ICLR, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Con- nectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,

    A. Graves, S. Fern ´andez, F. Gomez, and J. Schmidhuber, “Con- nectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented se- quence data with recurrent neural networks,” in ICML, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers,

    W. Peebles and S. Xie, “Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers,” in Proc. ICCV, 2023, pp. 4195–4205

    2023

  35. [43]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

    J. Ho and T. Salimans, “Classifier-free diffusion guidance,” in NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Down- stream Applications, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension,

    M. Lewis, “Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L2-ARCTIC: A Non-native English Speech Corpus,

    G. Zhao, S. Sonsaat, A. Silpachai, I. Lucic, E. Chukharev- Hudilainen, J. Levis, and R. Gutierrez-Osuna, “L2-ARCTIC: A Non-native English Speech Corpus,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    The cmu arctic speech databases,

    J. Kominek and A. W. Black, “The cmu arctic speech databases,” in Fifth ISCA workshop on speech synthesis, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    LibriTTS-R: A Restored Multi- Speaker Text-to-Speech Corpus,

    Y . Koizumi, H. Zen et al. , “LibriTTS-R: A Restored Multi- Speaker Text-to-Speech Corpus,” inProc. Interspeech, 2023

    2023

  40. [49]

    A comparison of best-worst scaling and rat- ing scale for timbre characterisation,

    A. M. V . Ravillion, “A comparison of best-worst scaling and rat- ing scale for timbre characterisation,” 2020

    2020

  41. [50]

    Accented text- to-speech synthesis with limited data,

    X. Zhou, M. Zhang, Y . Zhou, Z. Wu, and H. Li, “Accented text- to-speech synthesis with limited data,” TASLP, vol. 32, pp. 1699– 1711, 2024

    2024

  42. [51]

    High-fidelity neural phonetic posteriorgrams,

    C. Churchwell, M. Morrison, and B. Pardo, “High-fidelity neural phonetic posteriorgrams,” in ICASSP 2024 Workshop on Explain- able Machine Learning for Speech and Audio, 2024

    2024

  43. [1024]

    For synthesis, we use flow matching [28] with Resemblyzer 5 speaker embeddings and BigVGAN [40] vocoding

    with accent information from a pretrained classifier 4. For synthesis, we use flow matching [28] with Resemblyzer 5 speaker embeddings and BigVGAN [40] vocoding. Baseline. We implement a frame-to-frame conversion approach following [19]. The model consists of three training st...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.