PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Towards human-like spoken dialogue generation between AI agents from written dialogue

Kentaro Mitsui, Yukiya Hono, Kei Sawada

representation learningspoken dialogue modelingtext-to-speech synthesisbackchannel generationturn-taking
32.90100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
41.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
26.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Building a system that generates spoken dialogues with natural backchannels and enables smooth turn-taking from written dialogues.

Abstract

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has made it possible to generate natural written dialogues between two agents. However, generating human-like spoken dialogues from these written dialogues remains challenging. Spoken dialogues have several unique characteristics: they frequently include backchannels and laughter, and the smoothness of turn-taking significantly influences the fluidity of conversation. This study proposes CHATS ― CHatty Agents Text-to-Speech ― a discrete token-based system designed to generate spoken dialogues based on written dialogues. Our system can generate speech for both the speaker side and the listener side simultaneously, using only the transcription from the speaker side, which eliminates the need for transcriptions of backchannels or laughter. Moreover, CHATS facilitates natural turn-taking; it determines the appropriate duration of silence after each utterance in the absence of overlap, and it initiates the generation of overlapping speech based on the phoneme sequence of the next utterance in case of overlap. Experimental evaluations indicate that CHATS outperforms the text-to-speech baseline, producing spoken dialogues that are more interactive and fluid while retaining clarity and intelligibility.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 42% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)