pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20532 · v1 · pith:VRWVXDFRnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.AI

How Do Instructions Shape Speech? Cross-Attention Attribution for Style-Captioned Text-to-Speech

Nityanand Mathur , Hamees Sayed , Wasim Madha , Apoorv Singh , Sameer Khurana , Akshat Mandloi , Sudarshan Kamath This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords text-to-speechdiffusion modelscross-attentionstyle controlattribution methodsspeech synthesisnatural language conditioning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cross-attention maps show style caption tokens shape TTS output globally by peaking in early diffusion steps and deep layers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper adapts an image-domain attribution technique to track how each word in a natural-language style caption affects the waveform produced by a text-to-speech diffusion model. It processes 3,600 caption-transcript pairs and extracts per-token influence across every layer and denoising step. The resulting maps indicate that style words exert a uniform, low-variance effect over the entire utterance, in contrast to content words, and that this effect aligns with measured pitch and loudness contours. The influence concentrates in the first few denoising steps and the deepest layers, with the network becoming most selective at layer 17. These patterns supply a concrete account of where and when language instructions steer acoustic style.

Core claim

By applying adapted DAAM cross-attention attribution to CapSpeech-TTS, the work extracts token-level heatmaps over 25 layers and 24 ODE steps and finds that style tokens display lower temporal variance than content or function tokens, confirming global conditioning; style attention correlates with F0 and energy; style conditioning is strongest in early steps and deep layers; and attention entropy reaches its minimum at layer 17, coinciding with the style-importance peak.

What carries the argument

Cross-attention attribution maps that assign per-token influence on acoustic features by adapting the DAAM framework to speech diffusion models.

If this is right

  • Style tokens exert global rather than localized control over the generated speech.
  • Style attention directly tracks changes in fundamental frequency and energy.
  • Conditioning strength is highest during the earliest diffusion steps and in the deepest layers.
  • Network selectivity for style information is greatest at layer 17.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Interventions aimed at improving style control could focus on early denoising steps or deep-layer attention.
  • The observed correlation with prosodic features suggests style captions act partly by modulating pitch and energy trajectories.
  • The same attribution approach could be tested on other conditional diffusion tasks such as music or image generation.
  • Running token-ablation experiments would provide a direct test of whether the maps capture causal effects.

Load-bearing premise

The adapted attribution maps accurately reflect the causal influence of individual caption tokens on the generated acoustic features.

What would settle it

Ablating the highest-attributed style tokens and checking whether the measured drops in F0, energy, and perceived style match the magnitude and timing predicted by the maps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20532 by Akshat Mandloi, Apoorv Singh, Hamees Sayed, Nityanand Mathur, Sameer Khurana, Sudarshan Kamath, Wasim Madha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: illustrates the CapSpeech pipeline and our DAAM at￾tribution mechanism. The model comprises four components working in sequence to transform a style caption and text tran￾script into a waveform. The pipeline begins with a T5 caption encoder [11], which maps the style caption c = (c1, . . . , cTc ) to contextual embeddings Ec ∈ R Tc×d ; T5’s pre-trained en￾coder provides rich semantic representations that c… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Global vs Local Conditioning Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Correlation with Acoustic Features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Layer and step dynamics. (A) I (l) C by layer. (B) I (s) C by ODE step. (C) Entropy vs. layer (solid) and step (dashed) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Style-captioned text-to-speech systems use natural language to control voice characteristics, but how individual words influence acoustic output remains unclear. Understanding this is critical for diagnosing failure modes and improving controllability in expressive TTS. We propose cross-attention attribution for speech diffusion models, adapting the DAAM framework to the speech domain for the first time, and apply it to CapSpeech-TTS. Our method extracts per-token heatmaps across 25 layers and 24 ODE steps. We analyze 3,600 (style caption, text transcript) combinations comprising 120 style captions conditioning the generation of 30 text transcripts each, revealing how caption tokens shape waveforms. Results show: (1) style tokens have lower temporal variance than content/function tokens, confirming global conditioning; (2) style attention correlates with F0 and energy; (3) style conditioning peaks in early steps and deep layers; (4) attention entropy reaches its minimum at layer 17, co-occurring with the style importance peak, indicating maximal network selectivity at the most style-critical stage. This is the first study of how natural language influences cross-attention in speech diffusion models

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper adapts the DAAM attribution framework to speech diffusion models for the first time and applies it to CapSpeech-TTS. It extracts per-token cross-attention heatmaps across 25 layers and 24 ODE steps from 3,600 (style caption, text transcript) pairs and reports four observations: style tokens exhibit lower temporal variance than content/function tokens; style attention correlates with F0 and energy; style conditioning peaks in early diffusion steps and deep layers; and attention entropy is minimized at layer 17, coinciding with the style-importance peak.

Significance. If the adapted attribution maps are shown to reflect causal influence, the work would provide the first systematic view of how natural-language style instructions modulate cross-attention inside a speech diffusion model, offering diagnostic value for controllability failures and a quantitative basis for future architectural interventions. The scale of the analysis (3,600 combinations) and the layer/step-specific findings are strengths that would be strengthened by validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method): All four reported results rest on the claim that the adapted DAAM heatmaps faithfully capture per-token causal influence on acoustic features. No token-ablation, intervention, or comparison to alternative attribution methods is described to establish this fidelity for the novel speech-domain application, where the attention-to-waveform mapping is indirect.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback. We agree that establishing the fidelity of the adapted DAAM heatmaps for causal influence is important, particularly given the indirect attention-to-waveform mapping in diffusion models. We will revise the manuscript to better contextualize the method's assumptions and provide additional supporting analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method): All four reported results rest on the claim that the adapted DAAM heatmaps faithfully capture per-token causal influence on acoustic features. No token-ablation, intervention, or comparison to alternative attribution methods is described to establish this fidelity for the novel speech-domain application, where the attention-to-waveform mapping is indirect.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include explicit causal validation such as token ablations, interventions, or comparisons to alternative attribution methods. The original DAAM framework in vision similarly relies on the established conditioning role of cross-attention, with demonstrations that are largely correlational and qualitative. Our observations are presented as patterns extracted from the attribution maps, supported by correlations between style attention and acoustic features (F0 and energy). We agree, however, that the novel application to speech diffusion models warrants explicit discussion of these assumptions. In the revised manuscript we will expand §3 to state the method's assumptions, add a dedicated limitations paragraph addressing the indirect mapping, and include a small-scale intervention experiment on a subset of tokens (approximately 5% of the data) to provide initial evidence of relevance. Full-scale validation across all 3,600 pairs remains outside the current scope due to computational cost but can be noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational analysis with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper adapts an existing attribution method (DAAM) to speech diffusion and performs empirical analysis of attention patterns across layers, ODE steps, and token types on generated samples. No equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations are present that could reduce to fitted parameters or inputs by construction. Results (temporal variance, F0/energy correlations, layer/step peaks, entropy minimum) are direct observations from the extracted heatmaps. No self-citation chains or uniqueness claims are load-bearing for the central findings. The work is self-contained as an observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract describes an adaptation of an existing framework with no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5763 in / 1077 out tokens · 21761 ms · 2026-06-26T17:26:41.833512+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    a calm, deep voice speak- ing slowly

    Introduction Modern text-to-speech (TTS) systems have moved beyond fixed speaker embeddings [1] toward natural language conditioning, where free-form captions such as “a calm, deep voice speak- ing slowly” control the style of generated speech [2, 3, 4]. This paradigm, building on advances in generative spoken language modeling [5], offers powerful expres...

  2. [2]

    How Do Instructions Shape Speech? Cross-Attention Attribution for Style-Captioned Text-to-Speech

    Related Work Style-conditioned TTS.Recent TTS systems accept natural language descriptions to control voice style. CapSpeech [2] conditions a flow-matching transformer on T5-encoded cap- tions, while V oiceBox [3] and NaturalSpeech 3 [4] explore similar paradigms. Earlier autoregressive approaches like Tacotron [12], Tacotron 2 [13], and FastSpeech [14] e...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    calm”, “bright

    Method 3.1. CapSpeech architecture overview Figure 1 illustrates the CapSpeech pipeline and our DAAM at- tribution mechanism. The model comprises four components working in sequence to transform a style caption and text tran- script into a waveform. The pipeline begins with aT5 caption encoder[11], which maps the style captionc= (c 1, . . . , cTc) to cont...

  4. [4]

    cheerful

    Analysis and Results 4.1. Experiment 1: Global vs. local conditioning We compute temporal variance, PMR, and entropy for each to- ken’s aggregated heatmap and group by category. To quantify effect magnitude beyondp-values, we report Cohen’sd[30] (standardized mean difference) alongside Mann–WhitneyUp- values [31]: the former provides interpretable effect ...

  5. [5]

    loud”, “nasal

    Discussion and Conclusion Our three experiments converge on a unified picture: style- captioned TTS implements cross-attention as ahierarchical global conditioning channel. Style tokens distribute attention uniformly across time (9.2×lower variance than function to- kens,d=−1.16), correlate with acoustic features in seman- tically coherent patterns (“loud...

  6. [6]

    All research contributions, including the methodology, experimen- tal design, results, and scientific claims, are the authors’ own

    Use of Generative AI Disclosure In preparing this manuscript, the authors used generative AI tools for language refinement (rephrasing and improving the clarity of author-written text) and as a coding assistant (help- ing write and debug software for experiments and analysis). All research contributions, including the methodology, experimen- tal design, r...

  7. [7]

    Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification,

    N. Dehak, P. J. Kenny, R. Dehak, P. Dumouchel, and P. Ouellet, “Front-end factor analysis for speaker verification,”IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 788–798, 2011

    2011

  8. [8]

    Cap- Speech: Enabling downstream applications in style-captioned text-to-speech,

    H. Wang, J. Hai, D. Chong, K. Song, and D. Yang, “Cap- Speech: Enabling downstream applications in style-captioned text-to-speech,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02391, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual universal speech gen- eration at scale,

    M. Le, A. Vyas, B. Shi, B. Karrer, L. Sari, R. Moritz, M. Williamson, V . Manohar, Y . Adi, J. Mahadeokar, and W.-N. Hsu, “V oicebox: Text-guided multilingual universal speech gen- eration at scale,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    NaturalSpeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with a factorized codec and diffusion models,

    X. Tan, J. Chen, H. Liu, J. Cong, C. Zhang, Y . Liu, X. Wang, Y . Leng, Y . Yi, L. He, F. Soong, T. Qin, S. Zhao, and T.-Y . Liu, “NaturalSpeech 3: Zero-shot speech synthesis with a factorized codec and diffusion models,”Proc. ICML, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    On generative 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, and E. Dupoux, “On generative spoken language modeling from raw audio,” inTrans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, vol. 9, 2021, pp. 1336–1354

    2021

  12. [12]

    What the DAAM: Interpreting stable diffusion using cross attention,

    R. Tang, L. Liu, A. Pandey, Z. Jiang, G. Yang, K. Kumar, P. Stene- torp, J. Lin, and F. Ture, “What the DAAM: Interpreting stable diffusion using cross attention,” inProc. ACL, 2023, pp. 5644– 5659

    2023

  13. [13]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inProc. CVPR, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

  14. [14]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross- attention control,

    A. Hertz, R. Mokady, J. Tenenbaum, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross- attention control,” inProc. ICLR, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Generic attention-model explain- ability for interpreting bi-modal and encoder-decoder transform- ers,

    H. Chefer, S. Gur, and L. Wolf, “Generic attention-model explain- ability for interpreting bi-modal and encoder-decoder transform- ers,” inProc. ICCV, 2021, pp. 397–406

    2021

  16. [16]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

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

    2023

  17. [17]

    Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer,

    C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y . Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu, “Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer,”J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 21, no. 140, pp. 1–67, 2020

    2020

  18. [18]

    Tacotron: Towards end-to-end speech synthesis,

    Y . Wang, R. Skerry-Ryan, D. Stanton, Y . Wu, R. J. Weiss, N. Jaitly, Z. Yang, Y . Xiao, Z. Chen, S. Bengio, Q. Le, Y . Agiomyrgiannakis, R. Clark, and R. A. Saurous, “Tacotron: Towards end-to-end speech synthesis,” inProc. Interspeech, 2017, pp. 4006–4010

    2017

  19. [19]

    Natural TTS synthesis by conditioning WaveNet on mel spectrogram predictions,

    J. Shen, R. Pang, R. J. Weiss, M. Schuster, N. Jaitly, Z. Yang, Z. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Wang, R. Skerry-Ryan, R. A. Saurous, Y . Agiomyrgiannakis, and Y . Wu, “Natural TTS synthesis by conditioning WaveNet on mel spectrogram predictions,” inProc. ICASSP, 2018, pp. 4779–4783

    2018

  20. [20]

    FastSpeech: Fast, robust and controllable text to speech,

    Y . Ren, Y . Ruan, X. Tan, T. Qin, S. Zhao, Z. Zhao, and T.-Y . Liu, “FastSpeech: Fast, robust and controllable text to speech,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    YourTTS: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker TTS and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,

    E. Casanova, J. Weber, C. Shulby, A. C. Junior, E. G ¨olge, and M. A. Ponti, “YourTTS: Towards zero-shot multi-speaker TTS and zero-shot voice conversion for everyone,” inProc. ICML, 2022, pp. 2709–2720

    2022

  22. [22]

    NaturalSpeech 2: Latent diffusion models are natural and zero- shot speech and singing synthesizers,

    K. Yuan, X. Tan, D. Yang, Y . Yi, C. Zhang, J. Cong, and S. Zhao, “NaturalSpeech 2: Latent diffusion models are natural and zero- shot speech and singing synthesizers,” inProc. ICLR, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    FastSpeech 2: Fast and high-quality end-to-end text to speech,

    Y . Ren, C. Hu, X. Tan, T. Qin, S. Zhao, Z. Zhao, and T.-Y . Liu, “FastSpeech 2: Fast and high-quality end-to-end text to speech,” inProc. ICLR, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  25. [25]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochas- tic differential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, “Score-based generative modeling through stochas- tic differential equations,”Proc. ICLR, 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Grad-TTS: A diffusion probabilistic model for text-to-speech,

    V . Popov, I. V ovk, V . Gogoryan, T. Sadekova, and M. Kudinov, “Grad-TTS: A diffusion probabilistic model for text-to-speech,” inProc. ICML, 2021, pp. 8599–8608

    2021

  27. [27]

    Glow-TTS: A generative flow for text-to-speech via monotonic alignment search,

    J. Kim, S. Kim, J. Kong, and S. Yoon, “Glow-TTS: A generative flow for text-to-speech via monotonic alignment search,” inAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 8067–8077

    2020

  28. [28]

    F5-TTS: A fairytaler that fakes fluent and faithful speech with flow matching,

    Y . Chen, Z. Niu, Z. Ma, K. Deng, C. Wang, J. Zhao, K. Yu, and X. Chen, “F5-TTS: A fairytaler that fakes fluent and faithful speech with flow matching,” inProc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers,

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

    2023

  30. [30]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,

    Y . Wu, K. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Hui, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dubnov, “Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  32. [32]

    HiFi-GAN: Generative adversar- ial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis,

    J. Kong, J. Kim, and J. Bae, “HiFi-GAN: Generative adversar- ial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 17 022–17 033, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    Communication in the presence of noise,

    C. E. Shannon, “Communication in the presence of noise,”Proc. IRE, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 10–21, 1949

    1949

  34. [34]

    pYIN: A fundamental frequency estimator using probabilistic threshold distributions,

    M. Mauch and S. Dixon, “pYIN: A fundamental frequency estimator using probabilistic threshold distributions,” inProc. ICASSP, 2014, pp. 659–663

    2014

  35. [35]

    librosa: Audio and music signal analysis in Python,

    B. McFee, C. Raffel, D. Liang, D. P. W. Ellis, M. McVicar, E. Bat- tenberg, and O. Nieto, “librosa: Audio and music signal analysis in Python,”Proc. SciPy, pp. 18–24, 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences,

    J. Cohen, “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences,” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988

    1988

  37. [37]

    On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other,

    H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney, “On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other,”Ann. Math. Stat., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 1947

    1947

  38. [38]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”Proc. ICLR, 2021

    2021