Selective Classifier-free Guidance for Zero-shot Text-to-speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In zero-shot text-to-speech, achieving a balance between fidelity to the target speaker and adherence to text content remains a challenge. While classifier-free guidance (CFG) strategies have shown promising results in image generation, their application to speech synthesis are underexplored. Separating the conditions used for CFG enables trade-offs between different desired characteristics in speech synthesis. In this paper, we evaluate the adaptability of CFG strategies originally developed for image generation to speech synthesis and extend separated-condition CFG approaches for this domain. Our results show that CFG strategies effective in image generation generally fail to improve speech synthesis. We also find that we can improve speaker similarity while limiting degradation of text adherence by applying standard CFG during early timesteps and switching to selective CFG only in later timesteps. Surprisingly, we observe that the effectiveness of a selective CFG strategy is highly text-representation dependent, as differences between the two languages of English and Mandarin can lead to different results even with the same model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".