Results: add OmniVoice (4 systems)

#5
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +29 -24
README.md CHANGED
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ breaks either direction fails CI.
104
  ### Does it actually work?
105
 
106
  The `vietnamese` subset is the control: no digits, acronyms or English, so there
107
- is nothing for the reference expansion to do. Measured across three systems, the
108
  three reference policies are **identical to four decimal places** on that
109
  subset — while `challenging` moves a lot. The expansion is targeted, not a
110
  blanket loosening.
@@ -277,36 +277,41 @@ that, the column is not reproducible between runs.
277
 
278
  ## Results
279
 
280
- ZeroTTS vs. the two public Vietnamese XTTS-v2 finetunes. 137/137 items, scored
281
- by `zerobench_eval` at every policy:
282
 
283
- | Model | WER strict | WER norm | **WER robust** | SSIM | UTMOS | Excess silence |
284
- |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
285
- | **[ZeroTTS](https://huggingface.co/zeroweight-ai/ZeroTTS)** | **5.26%** | **2.96%** | **1.03%** | 0.936 | **2.91** | **0.029 s** |
286
- | [XTTS-v2-vietnamse](https://huggingface.co/thivux/XTTS-v2-vietnamse) | 18.83% | 17.82% | 16.42% | **0.940** | 2.43 | 0.532 s |
287
- | [viXTTS](https://huggingface.co/capleaf/viXTTS) | 20.22% | 19.47% | 18.40% | 0.935 | 2.35 | 0.233 s |
 
288
 
289
- The two baselines barely move between policies (18.83% 16.42%) while ZeroTTS
290
- drops 5.1×. That asymmetry is informative: the baselines' errors are hallucinated
291
- and garbled speech, which no reference policy can excuse, whereas most of
292
- ZeroTTS's residual was formatting.
293
 
294
- **With a perfect text-normalization frontend.** Feeding every model the
295
- spoken-out `text_normalized` instead of raw orthography — an ablation, not a
296
- benchmark score — separates grapheme-to-spoken-form errors from acoustic ones:
297
 
298
- | Model | raw text | pre-normalized text |
299
- |---|:-:|:-:|
300
- | **ZeroTTS** | **1.03%** | **0.56%** |
301
- | XTTS-v2-vietnamse | 16.42% | 7.27% |
302
- | viXTTS | 18.40% | 8.61% |
 
303
 
304
- The baselines gain the most (their tokenizers have no Vietnamese number
305
- expansion) and still lose by 13–15×. Useful if you are deciding whether to
306
- invest in a text frontend or a better acoustic model.
 
 
 
 
 
 
307
 
308
  Full per-subset tables, per-item audits and reproduction commands live in the
309
- [ZeroTTS repository](https://github.com/zeroweight-ai/ZeroTTS/blob/main/evaluation/RESULTS.md).
310
 
311
  **Submitting a result:** open a discussion on this dataset with your
312
  `summary.json` and a note on how the wavs were produced.
 
104
  ### Does it actually work?
105
 
106
  The `vietnamese` subset is the control: no digits, acronyms or English, so there
107
+ is nothing for the reference expansion to do. Measured across four systems, the
108
  three reference policies are **identical to four decimal places** on that
109
  subset — while `challenging` moves a lot. The expansion is targeted, not a
110
  blanket loosening.
 
277
 
278
  ## Results
279
 
280
+ Four systems, 137/137 items each, scored by `zerobench_eval`:
 
281
 
282
+ | Model | WER (raw text) | WER (normalized) | SSIM | UTMOS | Excess silence |
283
+ |---|---|---|---|---|---|
284
+ | **[ZeroTTS](https://huggingface.co/zeroweight-ai/ZeroTTS)** | **1.03 %** | **0.56 %** | 0.936 | **2.91** | **0.029 s** |
285
+ | [OmniVoice](https://huggingface.co/k2-fsa/OmniVoice) | 4.13 % | 2.12 % | **0.950** | 2.76 | 0.340 s |
286
+ | [XTTS-v2-vietnamse](https://huggingface.co/thivux/XTTS-v2-vietnamse) | 16.42 % | 7.27 % | 0.940 | 2.43 | 0.532 s |
287
+ | [viXTTS](https://huggingface.co/capleaf/viXTTS) | 18.40 % | 8.61 % | 0.935 | 2.35 | 0.233 s |
288
 
289
+ **raw text** = the model reads `31/12/2025` and `ChatGPT` as written, the
290
+ benchmark task. **normalized** = every model is handed the spoken-out form
291
+ instead, simulating a perfect Vietnamese text frontend. Scoring references are
292
+ identical in both, so the columns are comparable.
293
 
294
+ Per subset, raw text:
 
 
295
 
296
+ | Subset | ZeroTTS | OmniVoice | XTTS-v2-vietnamse | viXTTS |
297
+ |---|---|---|---|---|
298
+ | `vietnamese` | **0.16 %** | 0.50 % | 7.92 % | 9.56 % |
299
+ | `code_switch` | 0.97 % | **0.46 %** | 10.94 % | 9.25 % |
300
+ | `cross_lingual` | **1.42 %** | 17.71 % | 21.37 % | 27.27 % |
301
+ | `challenging` | **1.75 %** | 4.46 % | 27.86 % | 31.85 % |
302
 
303
+ Worth reading the subsets, not just the total. OmniVoice leads on
304
+ `code_switch` and on speaker similarity, and its overall figure is dominated by
305
+ `cross_lingual` foreign voice prompt, Vietnamese text where it degrades by
306
+ reference language (German 0.00 %, Korean 0.13 %, Japanese 0.41 %). The two
307
+ XTTS finetunes gain the most from normalization because their tokenizers have
308
+ no Vietnamese number expansion at all.
309
+
310
+ OmniVoice was given its optional `language="vi"` hint, which its model card
311
+ recommends; without it, it scores 5.15 % / 3.87 % instead.
312
 
313
  Full per-subset tables, per-item audits and reproduction commands live in the
314
+ [ZeroTTS repository](https://github.com/zeroweight-ai/ZeroTTS/blob/main/docs/BENCHMARKS.md).
315
 
316
  **Submitting a result:** open a discussion on this dataset with your
317
  `summary.json` and a note on how the wavs were produced.