Streaming TTS that receives streaming text is essential for interactive systems, yet this scheme faces two major challenges: unnatural prosody due to missing lookahead and long-form collapse due to unbounded context. We propose a prosodic-boundary-aware post-training strategy, adapting a pretrained LLM-based TTS model using weakly time-aligned data. Specifically, the model is adapted to learn early stopping at specified content boundaries when provided with limited future text. During inference, a sliding-window prompt carries forward previous text and speech tokens, ensuring bounded context and seamless concatenation. Evaluations show our method outperforms CosyVoice-Style interleaved baseline in both short and long-form scenarios. In long-text synthesis, especially, it achieves a 66.2% absolute reduction in word error rate (from 71.0% to 4.8%) and increases speaker and emotion similarity by 16.1% and 1.5% relatively, offering a robust solution for streaming TTS with incremental text.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The proposed fine-tuning and inferencing pipeline for prosodic boundary-aware streaming LLM-based TTS generation.
System
RTF ↓
TTFA (ms) ↓
Interleaved
0.843
1414
Sliding-Window
0.718
2588
Boundary-Aware
0.782
1296
Table 1: Evaluation on streaming efficiency. Chunk size k=5 words; lookahead f=2 words for our proposed method.
System
WER (%) ↓
SPK-SIM ↑
EMO-SIM ↑
Standard
Long-form
Standard
Long-form
Standard
Long-form
Interleaved
7.48
70.97
0.53
0.56
0.899
0.899
Sliding-Window
6.03
7.83
0.57
0.22
0.912
0.857
Boundary-Aware (Ours)
4.03
4.77
0.64
0.65
0.918
0.912
Table 2: Objective quality evaluation on Seed-TTS-Eval. Chunk size k=5 words; lookahead f=2 words for our proposed method.
System
MOS ↑
SMOS ↑
EMOS ↑
Standard
Long-form
Standard
Long-form
Standard
Long-form
Interleaved
3.99 ± 0.16
3.18 ± 0.23
4.05 ± 0.15
3.24 ± 0.22
4.03 ± 0.15
3.21 ± 0.18
Sliding-Window
3.43 ± 0.20
1.60 ± 0.18
3.18 ± 0.20
1.68 ± 0.18
3.25 ± 0.18
1.67 ± 0.17
Boundary-Aware (Ours)
4.28 ± 0.14
4.13 ± 0.13
4.25 ± 0.13
4.24 ± 0.13
4.38 ± 0.12
4.19 ± 0.13
Table 3: Subjective MOS evaluation on Seed-TTS-Eval. Higher scores indicate better perceptual quality.
Figure 2: Ablation study on quality evaluation with different combinations of chunk size k and lookahead context f.