Universal Semantic Disentangled Privacy-preserving Speech Representation Learning

Antonio Bonafonte; Aravind Varier; Ariya Rastrow; Biel Tura Vecino; Constantinos Papayiannis; Grant Strimel; Ivan Valles; Leif R\"adel; Michael Owen; Roberto Barra Chicote

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Universal Semantic Disentangled Privacy-preserving Speech Representation Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper introduces the Universal Speech Codec (USC), a neural codec that splits speech into a privacy-preserving semantic token stream and a residual speaker stream, and reports that the semantic stream preserves content, prosody, and…

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution with a genuinely useful new evaluation protocol, but the local differential privacy claim does not survive contact with the inference-time release of tokens. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13085 v2 pith:BTUKWIDZ submitted 2025-05-19 eess.AS cs.LG

Biel Tura Vecino , Subhadeep Maji , Aravind Varier , Antonio Bonafonte , Ivan Valles , Michael Owen , Leif Rädel , Grant Strimel

show 6 more authors

Seyi Feyisetan Roberto Barra Chicote Ariya Rastrow Constantinos Papayiannis Volker Leutnant Trevor Wood

This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.LG

keywords speechdisentanglementprivacy-preservingrepresentationneuralaudiocodecresidualvectorquantizationlocaldifferentialprivacyspeakeranonymizationk-anonymitysemantictokens

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

The paper introduces the Universal Speech Codec (USC), a neural encoder–decoder that splits speech into two token streams: a first codebook trained to carry content, prosody, and sentiment while suppressing speaker-identifiable traits, and residual codebooks that carry enough acoustic detail to reconstruct the original voice. The central claim is that these semantic tokens make speech usable for training generative speech models without exposing who originally spoke, while the full codec still reconstructs the waveform at a lower bit-rate than comparable disentangled codecs: 0.35 kbps for semantics alone and 1.6 kbps for full reconstruction. On the paper's own evaluations, USC's semantic codebook retains more paralinguistic information per bit than the baselines it is compared against, at the cost of some content metrics such as word error rate. The paper also proposes a k-anonymity based privacy test measuring linkability and singling out over nearly eight thousand speakers, and reports human-listener ratings consistent with that objective test.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the residual vector quantizer (RVQ), an ordered stack of vector quantizers in which each codebook quantizes the error left by the previous one, combined with biases applied only to the first codebook C0. Speaker gradient reversal trains a classifier to identify the speaker from C0 and then flips the gradient to remove speaker-related information; semantic distillation pulls C0 toward layer 9 of a HuBERT teacher; quantizer dropout forces the decoder to resynthesize from C0 alone; and a Laplace noise block, applied during training under a local differential privacy budget, further disperses speaker information. The full RVQ stack then serves as a low-bit-rate high-fidelity codec, while C0 alone serves as the privacy-preserving semantic token stream.

What would settle it

Train a speaker classifier on USC C0 tokens from the inference-time noise-free pipeline for a subset of a large speaker pool, then measure its accuracy on held-out speakers. Near-chance accuracy would confirm the empirical anonymization claim; accuracy clearly above chance, or a k-anonymity factor much lower than the random-guessing bound of 3987.50 median, would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

USC's first residual-vector-quantizer codebook, C0, is the load-bearing discovery. Trained with speaker gradient reversal, HuBERT semantic distillation, quantizer dropout, and Laplace-noise local differential privacy, C0 is claimed to encode speech content, intonation, emphasis, and sentiment without encoding enough speaker-specific detail for a state-of-the-art speaker-verification model to link or single out the speaker. Compared with SpeechTokenizer, whose C0 removes paralinguistics almost entirely, USC's semantic reconstruction closes much of the gap on sentiment (CCC) and pitch correlation (F0 SCC) while still reporting strong anonymization. Adding the residual codebooks gives high-fidelity reconstruction at 1.6 kbps, below the bit-rates of EnCodec, DAC, SpeechTokenizer, and FaCodec in the comparison. The paper further defines a k-anonymity based privacy test for speech and reports that the final USC variant with LDP gives a linkability k-anonymity factor of about 160 speakers at the first percentile and a singling-out factor of about 69.

Load-bearing premise

The privacy guarantee assumes that adding Laplace noise during training is enough to protect the semantic tokens actually released at inference, even though those released tokens are computed without any noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Speech-aware language models could be trained on USC C0 tokens with a reduced risk of regenerating a particular speaker's voice, since identity information is suppressed in that stream.
The voice-conversion experiment, where an autoregressive model is teacher-forced with source C0 tokens and predicts only speaker-specific residual tokens from a reference, suggests that semantic tokens alone suffice for content and prosody transfer.
The k-anonymity evaluation provides a repeatable way to compare anonymization across codecs, and the human A/B/X result gives evidence that the objective rank test tracks listener judgments.
Because USC's semantic stream runs at 0.35 kbps, it is cheap enough to be a practical tokenizer for large-scale speech-model training.
The reported trade-off between paralinguistic retention and speaker identifiability implies that future privacy-preserving speech models will need to control that tension explicitly rather than assume it disappears.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to apply the same C0 recipe to non-speech audio or to other attributes such as emotion or language, since the gradient-reversal and quantizer-dropout biases are not inherently speech-specific.
The LDP guarantee as written attaches to the noisy training-time quantizer output; extending it to the released deterministic tokens would require an explicit mechanism, and that extension is not derived in the paper.
One could use the k-anonymity protocol as a monitoring metric during training: if the linkability percentile improves while sentiment correlation stays flat, that pattern would indicate genuine disentanglement rather than blanket signal destruction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know: this paper is a competent engineering contribution. It combines DAC's architecture with SpeechTokenizer-style semantic distillation, FACodec-style gradient reversal, and quantizer dropout, and adds a new k-anonymity based evaluation protocol for speech anonymization. That protocol is the most interesting part. It defines linkability and singling out metrics, validates them with human A/B/X tests, and the results look plausible. The bit-rate numbers are real: 0.35 kbps for the semantic code, 1.6 kbps full reconstruction, which is genuinely low.

The soft spot is the LDP claim. Section 3.5 says Laplace noise is added during training and then omitted at inference. That means the released codes are deterministic functions of the input, so no epsilon-LDP guarantee applies to what is actually deployed. The authors cite Chouchane et al. for the omit-at-inference trick, but that does not rescue the formalism. What remains is an empirical claim that training with noise, GRL, and distillation produces codes with lower speaker linkability under their TitaNet-based test. That may be true and useful, but it is not differential privacy. The abstract and conclusion also say state-of-the-art reconstruction, but Table 1 shows DAC beats USC on PESQ, ViSQOL, STOI, and SIM. USC's advantage is bit-rate, not quality. Both overclaims are fixable with edits, but they are not cosmetic; they change the contribution's shape.

There is a deeper tension the authors openly acknowledge: the more paralinguistic information preserved, the more speaker identity leaks. Their k-anonymity results are decent but far from the random-guessing ceiling. For a privacy paper that is okay if framed honestly. The evaluation uses 7,974 speakers, 100 tests, and a different speaker model than the training classifier, so the main result is not self-referential. The hyperparameters, epsilon and HuBERT layer nine, are chosen from prior work or subjective trade-off, not tuned to the privacy metric, which is fine.

Who benefits: anyone building speech-LLM training pipelines and needing a low-bitrate semantic tokenization with some privacy evaluation. The appendix voice conversion via partial teacher forcing is a nice bonus. It deserves a serious referee, but the authors should be told to remove or heavily qualify the LDP formalism and correct the SOTA claim before publication. Would cite? Probably, for the k-anonymity evaluation method, not for the privacy guarantee.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but flag these two issues prominently.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Universal Speech Codec (USC), a DAC-derived neural audio codec whose first RVQ codebook is trained with speaker-classifier gradient reversal, HuBERT layer-9 distillation, quantizer dropout, and Laplace noise injection (labeled LDP). The authors claim that this semantic codebook preserves content, prosody, and sentiment while suppressing speaker identity, and that the residual codebooks, together with a 24 kHz decoder, enable high-fidelity reconstruction at 1.6 kbps. The paper evaluates USC against EnCodec, DAC, SpeechTokenizer, and FaCodec on content, prosody, sentiment, and quality metrics, and introduces a k-anonymity-based linkability/singling-out evaluation with a human perceptual validation plus a voice-conversion demonstration.

Significance. The empirical body of the paper is valuable. USC achieves a very low semantic bit-rate (0.35 kbps) while retaining nontrivial content and paralinguistic information, and the proposed k-anonymity protocol with its human validation is a useful evaluation template for speaker-anonymization research. The architecture and training description are detailed, and the comparison against four baselines is systematic. However, the formal privacy contribution and the reconstruction-quality headline need substantial correction: the inference-time release does not satisfy the claimed local differential privacy guarantee, and the 'state-of-the-art reconstruction' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 1. Once those claims are reframed as empirical, the anonymization results and the codec comparison remain of interest.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.5] The claimed Local Differential Privacy guarantee does not hold for the released representations. LDP is a property of the randomized algorithm that produces the output; here the text states that Laplace noise is added during training and that 'during inference we simply omit the noise block.' The C0 tokens used in Table 2 and Appendix A are therefore deterministic functions of the input, so for two adjacent inputs that map to different codewords the privacy-loss ratio is unbounded and no finite epsilon can satisfy the LDP condition. Consequently, the statement that the mechanism 'provides strong theoretical guarantees on anonymization' is unsupported. What remains is an empirical regularization technique. The authors should either apply a valid privacy mechanism at inference or explicitly downgrade the claim to an empirical anonymization method.
[Abstract / Conclusion / Table 1] The abstract and conclusion state that USC achieves 'state-of-the-art speech reconstruction.' Table 1 shows that DAC obtains higher PESQ (3.311 vs. 2.991), ViSQOL (3.975 vs. 3.706), STOI (0.975 vs. 0.958), SIM (0.910 vs. 0.884), CCC (0.969 vs. 0.957), and SCC (0.962 vs. 0.959) in high-fidelity reconstruction; USC's advantage is bit-rate, not reconstruction quality. The claim should be qualified, e.g., 'state-of-the-art at this bit-rate' or 'competitive reconstruction at substantially lower bit-rate.'
[Contribution 1 / Table 1, semantic reconstruction] Contribution 1 claims USC 'surpass[es] all available baselines in jointly encoding content and paralinguistic information.' In the semantic-reconstruction rows of Table 1, FaCodec reports lower WER (0.067 vs. 0.091), higher STOI (0.714 vs. 0.685), higher CCC (0.629 vs. 0.526), and higher SCC (0.815 vs. 0.526) than USC, albeit at 2.4 kbps instead of 0.35 kbps, and SpeechTokenizer achieves much lower SIM. The claim is only defensible if the bit-rate trade-off is explicitly part of the comparison, and the text should say so.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction and Section 3.5] The acronym LDP is defined inconsistently: Section 1 says 'Local Differentiable Privacy,' while Section 3.5 says 'Local Differential Speaker Privacy.' This should be unified to 'Local Differential Privacy.'
[Appendix B] The text says there are four downsampling blocks in the encoder, but then lists five strides (2, 2, 4, 5, 8); the decoder similarly has '4 upsampling blocks' followed by a list of five rates. This should be corrected.
[Section 4.3 vs. Appendix H] The number of speakers is given as N = 7974 in Section 4.3 and N = 7947 in Appendix H. These numbers should be consistent.
[Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'commitement' in Section 3.6, 'Spearsman' in Appendix G, 'V oicePrivacy' in Section 4.2, and 'mel-Sepctrogram' in Figure 5. These should be cleaned up.
[Table 1] The column header 'SIM↑∥↓' is ambiguous: higher SIM is reported as better for the Recording and High-Fidelity rows, but lower SIM is better for privacy in the Semantic Reconstruction rows. A note explaining the direction per block would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the privacy and utility claims are tested against external models and perceptual judgments, not against the training objectives.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The semantic representation is trained with a HuBERT distillation loss (Eq. 3), AMSoftmax speaker reversal (Eq. 2), quantizer dropout, and Laplace noise during training, but the headline privacy results are measured with TitaNet, a pre-trained speaker verification model not used in training, under a k-anonymity rank protocol with N=7974 speakers and L=100 tests, plus a human A/B/X singling-out test. The content, prosody, and sentiment results are measured with Whisper, STOI, F0 correlation, and a sentiment extractor, all external to the training losses. The bit-rate figures are direct computations from Eq. 10 with the stated strides, codebook sizes, and sample rates, so they are architectural properties rather than fitted predictions. Self-citations exist (e.g., the speaker classifier design from Martín-Cortinas et al. (2024), whose author list overlaps with the present paper, and the BASE TTS dataset from Łajszczak et al. (2024)), but they are used as component designs and data sources, not as load-bearing justifications for the claimed privacy or quality outcomes; the empirical evaluation does not reduce to those citations. The main substantive weakness is the LDP claim in Section 3.5: the paper adds Laplace noise during training and then omits it at inference, so the formal epsilon-LDP guarantee for the Laplace mechanism does not apply to the deterministic codes actually released and evaluated. That is a correctness gap in the privacy argument, not a circular derivation; it does not make the empirical anonymization results (k-anonymity ranks, human test) self-referential. For the same reason, the 'state-of-the-art reconstruction' wording conflicts with Table 1, where DAC has higher PESQ, ViSQOL, STOI, and SIM; that is an internal-consistency or overclaim issue, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's load-bearing free parameters are the LDP budget, the clipping value, and the semantic distillation layer. The key unstated or unsupported assumption is that training-time Laplace noise transfers to inference without noise. No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

LDP privacy budget epsilon = 15
Chosen as the best subjective privacy-utility trade-off (Section 4.1); directly controls the scale of Laplace noise and the strength of the claimed privacy guarantee.
LDP clipping value C = estimated from training batches (average L1 norm)
Data-dependent normalization used to bound the L1 sensitivity of the projection output (Section 3.5). Affects the noise scale and the validity of the sensitivity bound.
Semantic distillation layer l = 9
Selected as the HuBERT layer that contains rich semantic information without speaker-identifiable traits, based on Chen et al. 2022 (Section 3.3). This choice directly controls the content versus privacy balance in C0.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption HuBERT layer 9 embeddings are a reliable semantic teacher that encodes content and paralinguistics but not speaker identity.
Section 3.3 uses this layer as the distillation target. If layer 9 leaks speaker identity, then USC's C0 tokens inherit that leakage despite the gradient reversal and LDP components.
domain assumption TitaNet cosine similarity is a valid proxy for human speaker identification in the k-anonymity test.
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 rely on TitaNet embeddings to compute ranks and k-anonymity. If the embedding model is fooled by codec artifacts, the privacy metrics may overestimate true anonymization.
ad hoc to paper Adding Laplace noise during training and removing it at inference still preserves a meaningful privacy guarantee.
Section 3.5 states the noise block is omitted at inference, but formal local differential privacy requires the noise to be present in the released output. This assumption is not standard and is not justified by the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Semantic Disentangled Privacy-preserving Speech Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTUKWIDZ

@misc{pith2026250513085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Semantic Disentangled Privacy-preserving Speech Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTUKWIDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13085}
}

read the original abstract

The use of audio recordings of human speech to train LLMs poses privacy concerns due to these models' potential to generate outputs that closely resemble artifacts in the training data. In this study, we propose a speaker privacy-preserving representation learning method through the Universal Speech Codec (USC), a computationally efficient encoder-decoder model that disentangles speech into: (i) privacy-preserving semantically rich representations, capturing content and speech paralinguistics, and (ii) residual acoustic and speaker representations that enables high-fidelity reconstruction. Extensive evaluations presented show that USC's semantic representation preserves content, prosody, and sentiment, while removing potentially identifiable speaker attributes. Combining both representations, USC achieves state-of-the-art speech reconstruction. Additionally, we introduce an evaluation methodology for measuring privacy-preserving properties, aligning with perceptual tests. We compare USC against other codecs in the literature and demonstrate its effectiveness on privacy-preserving representation learning, illustrating the trade-offs of speaker anonymization, paralinguistics retention and content preservation in the learned semantic representations. Audio samples are shared in https://www.amazon.science/usc-samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13085 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** USC architecture. Red dashed lines denote training objectives while black continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Spectrogram visualization of semantic C0 reconstruction of a speech sample from all the compared baselines, with a zoomed in view of the pitch harmonics. More examples in Appendix I. WER and lower STOI metric, thus falling behind SpeechTokenizer and FaCodec in content preservation. Preserving paralinguistic features effectively leads to increased speaker similarity, as certain prosodic characteristics facilitate sp… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Voice Conversion pipeline for a LLM-based TTS model trained to predict USC represen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Mel-Sepctrogram visualization of VC capabilities through semantic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: General RVQ architecture diagram for an arbitrary number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of log-F0 contour for high-fidelity and semantic waveform reconstruction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: 5 semantic reconstruction mel-spectrograms of different speakers from the evaluation set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Random test-case screenshot from the subjective privacy-preserving evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]

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

Universal Speech Content Factorization
eess.AS 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A universal least-squares speech-to-content map plus few-second speaker transforms yields open-set, low-rank, timbre-suppressed features competitive for zero-shot VC and TTS.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

GPT-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

arXiv
[6]

Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with factor- ized codec and diffusion models

Zeqian Ju, Yuancheng Wang, Kai Shen, Xu Tan, Detai Xin, Dongchao Yang, Yanqing Liu, Yichong Leng, Kaitao Song, Siliang Tang, et al. Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with factor- ized codec and diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03100,

arXiv
[7]

BASE TTS: Lessons from building a billion-parameter text-to-speech model on 100k hours of data

Mateusz Łajszczak, Guillermo Cámbara, Yang Li, Fatih Beyhan, Arent van Korlaar, Fan Yang, Arnaud Joly, Álvaro Martín-Cortinas, Ammar Abbas, Adam Michalski, et al. BASE TTS: Lessons from building a billion-parameter text-to-speech model on 100k hours of data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08093,

arXiv
[11]

Npu-ntu system for voice privacy 2024 challenge

Jixun Yao, Nikita Kuzmin, Qing Wang, Pengcheng Guo, Ziqian Ning, Dake Guo, Kong Aik Lee, Eng-Siong Chng, and Lei Xie. Npu-ntu system for voice privacy 2024 challenge. IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP),

work page 2024
[14]

and ˆz0 q = z0 q (by RVQ design) into Equation 7, we obtain: zn q = zn−1 q + VQ(n)(ze− z0 q− (z1 q− z0 q)− (z2 q− z1 q)···− (zn−2 q − zn−3 q )− (zn−1 q − zn−2 q )) And simplifying the resulting expression by canceling out terms that sum to zero: zn q = zn−1 q + VQ(n)(ze− z0 q− z1 q + z0 q− z2 q + z1 q···− zn−2 q + zn−3 q − zn−1 q + zn−2 q ) =⇒ =⇒ zn q = z...

work page 2023
[29]

Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymi- sation Techniques (WP216),

work page 2014
[1024]

For each resolution discriminator, we set n_fft = (2048, 1024,

For MB-MRSD, we use 3 identical resolution discriminators for different STFT parameters. For each resolution discriminator, we set n_fft = (2048, 1024,

work page
[2001]

AudiopaLM: A large language model that can speak and listen.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925,

Paul K Rubenstein, Chulayuth Asawaroengchai, Duc Dung Nguyen, Ankur Bapna, Zalán Borsos, Félix de Chaumont Quitry, Peter Chen, Dalia El Badawy, Wei Han, Eugene Kharitonov, et al. AudiopaLM: A large language model that can speak and listen.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925,

arXiv

Show all 14 references

[2010]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models

Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The Llama 3 Herd of Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

arXiv
[2014]

Zach Evans, Julian D Parker, CJ Carr, Zack Zukowski, Josiah Taylor, and Jordi Pons

URL https://ec.europa.eu/justice/ article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/ wp216_en.pdf. Zach Evans, Julian D Parker, CJ Carr, Zack Zukowski, Josiah Taylor, and Jordi Pons. Long-form music generation with latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10301,

2014 arXiv
[2020]

14 A V OICE CONVERSION THROUGH SEMANTIC PARTIAL -TEACHER -FORCING t1 t2 t3 t1 t2 t10 0 0 Auto-regressive Transformer C0 C1 C2 CK-1 t2(K-1) t2K-3 t2K-4 tK-1 tN-1 tN-2 tN-3 tN-K-1 tN tN-1 tN-2 tN-K ... ... ... ...0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... ... ... ... t1 t2 t3 t1 ...

2024
[2023]

Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Jo- han Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

arXiv
[2024]

Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models

Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288,

arXiv
[2025]

The voiceprivacy 2024 challenge evaluation plan

13 Natalia Tomashenko, Xiaoxiao Miao, Pierre Champion, Sarina Meyer, Xin Wang, Emmanuel Vin- cent, Michele Panariello, Nicholas Evans, Junichi Yamagishi, and Massimiliano Todisco. The voiceprivacy 2024 challenge evaluation plan. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02677,

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

GPT-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

arXiv

[2] [6]

Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with factor- ized codec and diffusion models

Zeqian Ju, Yuancheng Wang, Kai Shen, Xu Tan, Detai Xin, Dongchao Yang, Yanqing Liu, Yichong Leng, Kaitao Song, Siliang Tang, et al. Naturalspeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with factor- ized codec and diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03100,

arXiv

[3] [7]

BASE TTS: Lessons from building a billion-parameter text-to-speech model on 100k hours of data

Mateusz Łajszczak, Guillermo Cámbara, Yang Li, Fatih Beyhan, Arent van Korlaar, Fan Yang, Arnaud Joly, Álvaro Martín-Cortinas, Ammar Abbas, Adam Michalski, et al. BASE TTS: Lessons from building a billion-parameter text-to-speech model on 100k hours of data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08093,

arXiv

[4] [11]

Npu-ntu system for voice privacy 2024 challenge

Jixun Yao, Nikita Kuzmin, Qing Wang, Pengcheng Guo, Ziqian Ning, Dake Guo, Kong Aik Lee, Eng-Siong Chng, and Lei Xie. Npu-ntu system for voice privacy 2024 challenge. IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP),

work page 2024

[5] [14]

and ˆz0 q = z0 q (by RVQ design) into Equation 7, we obtain: zn q = zn−1 q + VQ(n)(ze− z0 q− (z1 q− z0 q)− (z2 q− z1 q)···− (zn−2 q − zn−3 q )− (zn−1 q − zn−2 q )) And simplifying the resulting expression by canceling out terms that sum to zero: zn q = zn−1 q + VQ(n)(ze− z0 q− z1 q + z0 q− z2 q + z1 q···− zn−2 q + zn−3 q − zn−1 q + zn−2 q ) =⇒ =⇒ zn q = z...

work page 2023

[6] [29]

Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymi- sation Techniques (WP216),

work page 2014

[7] [1024]

For each resolution discriminator, we set n_fft = (2048, 1024,

For MB-MRSD, we use 3 identical resolution discriminators for different STFT parameters. For each resolution discriminator, we set n_fft = (2048, 1024,

work page

[8] [2001]

AudiopaLM: A large language model that can speak and listen.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925,

Paul K Rubenstein, Chulayuth Asawaroengchai, Duc Dung Nguyen, Ankur Bapna, Zalán Borsos, Félix de Chaumont Quitry, Peter Chen, Dalia El Badawy, Wei Han, Eugene Kharitonov, et al. AudiopaLM: A large language model that can speak and listen.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12925,

arXiv