Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This study isolates a fundamental failure mode in neural text-to-speech systems, demonstrating that periodic repetition—not merely long context windows—causes models to loop and lose count. The research proves this vulnerability is architecture-agnostic, persisting across six different models and surviving standard mitigation strategies like repetition penalties. For developers deploying high-fidelity speech synthesis, this finding necessitates architectural changes beyond simple decoding adjustments to handle repetitive content reliably.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Repetition, Not Length: Isolating the Counting Failure in Neural Text-to-Speech

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.36974v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Text-to-speech models loop, truncate and lose count on text that repeats a phrase many times. We show that repetition itself is what breaks them, not the length that comes with it. Every repeated sentence in our test set is paired with a control of matched sentence and word count in which no word ever repeats back-to-back. Six models from three architectures render the controls almost perfectly and fail the repeated twins: 94.3% against 18.2% exactly right at k >= 6. The gap survives greedy decoding, repetition-penalty sweeps, four independent speech recognisers and 420 analysis specifications without once reversing sign; a held-out fourth architecture lands within a point of its predicted gap, and one of two non-autoregressive baselines shows the same failure. Varying the period of the text shows the failure grows smoothly with periodicity, half of it surviving when no word is adjacent to itself.

Abstract:Text-to-speech models loop, truncate and lose count on text that repeats a phrase many times. We show that repetition itself is what breaks them, not the length that comes with it. Every repeated sentence in our test set is paired with a control of matched sentence and word count in which no word ever repeats back-to-back. Six models from three architectures render the controls almost perfectly and fail the repeated twins: 94.3% against 18.2% exactly right at k >= 6. The gap survives greedy decoding, repetition-penalty sweeps, four independent speech recognisers and 420 analysis specifications without once reversing sign; a held-out fourth architecture lands within a point of its predicted gap, and one of two non-autoregressive baselines shows the same failure. Varying the period of the text shows the failure grows smoothly with periodicity, half of it surviving when no word is adjacent to itself.

Submitted to IEEE ICASSP 2027. Code and data: this https URL

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Sound (cs.SD)

arXiv:2609.36974 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.36974v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.36974 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 253 words

Related coverage