We tackle the task of conditional music generation.

We tackle the task of conditional music generation.

We tackle the task of conditional music generation.

We tackle the task of conditional music generation.

In this paper we investigate cross-lingual Text-To-Speech (TTS) synthesis through the lens of adapters, in the context of lightweight TTS systems. In particular, we compare the tasks of unseen speaker and language adaptation with the goal of synthesising a target voice in a target language, in which the target voice has no recordings therein. Results from objective evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of adapters in learning language-specific and speaker-specific information, allowing pre-trained models to learn unseen speaker identities or languages, while avoiding catastrophic forgetting of the original model's speaker or language information. Additionally, to measure how native the generated voices are in terms of accent, we propose and validate an objective metric inspired by mispronunciation detection techniques in second-language (L2) learners. The paper also provides insights into the impact of adapter placement, configuration and the number of speakers used.

When developing text classification models for real world applications, one major challenge is the difficulty to collect sufficient data for all text classes. In this work, we address this challenge by utilizing large language models (LLMs) to generate synthetic data and using such data to improve the performance of the models without waiting for more real data to be collected and labelled. As an LLM generates different synthetic data in response to different input examples, we formulate an automated workflow, which searches for input examples that lead to more ``effective'' synthetic data for improving the model concerned. We study three search strategies with an extensive set of experiments, and use experiment results to inform an ensemble algorithm that selects a search strategy according to the characteristics of a class. Our further experiments demonstrate that this ensemble approach is more effective than each individual strategy in our automated workflow for improving classification models using LLMs.

Evaluation of Text to Speech (TTS) systems is challenging and resource-intensive. Subjective metrics such as Mean Opinion Score (MOS) are not easily comparable between works. Objective metrics are frequently used, but rarely validated against subjective ones. Both kinds of metrics are challenged by recent TTS systems capable of producing synthetic speech indistinguishable from real speech. In this work, we introduce Text to Speech Distribution Score 2 (TTSDS2), a more robust and improved version of TTSDS. Across a range of domains and languages, it is the only one out of 16 compared metrics to correlate with a Spearman correlation above 0.50 for every domain and subjective score evaluated. We also release a range of resources for evaluating synthetic speech close to real speech: A dataset with over 11,000 subjective opinion score ratings; a pipeline for continually recreating a multilingual test dataset to avoid data leakage; and a continually updated benchmark for TTS in 14 languages.

--Recent advancements have brought generated music closer to human-created compositions, yet evaluating these models remains challenging. While human preference is the gold standard for assessing quality, translating these subjective judgments into objective metrics, particularly for text-audio alignment and music quality, has proven difficult. In this work, we generate 6k songs using 12 state-of-the-art models and conduct a survey of 15k pairwise audio comparisons with 2.5k human participants to evaluate the correlation between human preferences and widely used metrics. T o the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to rank current state-of-the-art music generation models and metrics based on human preference. T o further the field of subjective metric evaluation, we provide open access to our dataset of generated music and human evaluations.

Despite the growing interest in collaborative AI, designing systems that seamlessly integrate human input remains a major challenge. In this study, we developed a task to systematically examine human preferences for collaborative agents. We created and evaluated five collaborative AI agents with strategies that differ in the manner and degree they adapt to human actions. Participants interacted with a subset of these agents, evaluated their perceived traits, and selected their preferred agent. We used a Bayesian model to understand how agents' strategies influence the Human-AI team performance, AI's perceived traits, and the factors shaping human-preferences in pairwise agent comparisons. Our results show that agents who are more considerate of human actions are preferred over purely performance-maximizing agents. Moreover, we show that such human-centric design can improve the likability of AI collaborators without reducing performance. We find evidence for inequality-aversion effects being a driver of human choices, suggesting that people prefer collaborative agents which allow them to meaningfully contribute to the team. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how collaboration with AI can benefit from development efforts which include both subjective and objective metrics.

EXplainable machine learning (XML) has recently emerged to address the mystery mechanisms of machine learning (ML) systems by interpreting their 'black box' results. Despite the development of various explanation methods, determining the most suitable XML method for specific ML contexts remains unclear, highlighting the need for effective evaluation of explanations. The evaluating capabilities of the Transformer-based large language model (LLM) present an opportunity to adopt LLM-as-a-Judge for assessing explanations. In this paper, we propose a workflow that integrates both LLM-based and human judges for evaluating explanations. We examine how LLM-based judges evaluate the quality of various explanation methods and compare their evaluation capabilities to those of human judges within an iris classification scenario, employing both subjective and objective metrics. We conclude that while LLM-based judges effectively assess the quality of explanations using subjective metrics, they are not yet sufficiently developed to replace human judges in this role.