Current bias evaluations in Instruction Text-to-Speech (ITTS) often rely on univariate testing, overlooking the compositional structure of social cues. In this work, we investigate gender bias by modeling prompts as combinations of Social Status, Career stereotypes, and Persona descriptors. Analyzing open-source ITTS models, we uncover systematic interaction effects where social dimensions modulate one another, creating complex bias patterns missed by univariate baselines. Crucially, our findings indicate that these biases extend beyond surface-level artifacts, demonstrating strong associations with the semantic priors of pre-trained text encoders and the skewed distributions inherent in training data. We further demonstrate that generic diversity prompting is insufficient to override these entrenched patterns, underscoring the need for compositional analysis to diagnose latent risks in generative speech.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall Framework. Two-stage evaluation demonstrated with PromptTTS++ model. Stage 1 establishes univariate gender priors, where an isolated descriptor like nurse triggers a strong female bias ( P(x)=0.99 ). In Stage 2 , recombining tokens with attributes like high-status and reckless creates a binding effect to the original female-leaning nurse , shifting the perceived gender toward male ( P(x)=0.17 ).
Model
Backbone
Text Encoder
Par. (Total/Text)
Vox (VoxInstruct)
LLaMA (AR + NAR)
mT5-base
∼ 7B / 580M
Pr++ (PromptTTS++)
Diffusion + MDN
BERT
∼ 150M / 110M
Par-M (Parler-Mini)
AudioLM
Flan-T5-large
880M / 780M
Par-L (Parler-Large)
AudioLM
Flan-T5-large
2.3B / 780M
Table 1: Evaluation of ITTS Models. Comparison of generative backbones, text encoders, and parameter scales. Par. denotes the number of parameters.
Axis
Sub. / Trait
n
Vox
Pr++
Par-L
Par-M
Panel A: Axis-Level Summary
Sta.
H. Status
1
0.72
0.00
0.83
0.72
Sta.
L. Status
1
0.37
0.12
0.25
0.75
Car.
F-ln.
10
0.73±0.06
1.00±0.01
0.99±0.01
0.96±0.02
Car.
Mix.
6
0.71±0.04
0.45±0.20
0.98±0.02
0.88±0.06
Car.
M-ln.
11
0.70±0.06
0.03±0.06
0.77±0.21
0.63±0.15
Table 2: Univariate Main Effect. Panel A summarizes axis-level marginal female probabilities ( P(xuni) ) as Mean ± SD. Panel B highlights exemplar traits. Abbreviations: Sta. (Status), H. (High), L. (Low), Car. (Career), F/M-ln. (Female/Male-leaning), Mix. (Mixed Prior), and Per. (Persona).
Int. Cond.
Vox
Pr++
Par-L
Par-M
Sta. × Car.
H. Sta.
+ F-ln. Car.
0.86
0.40
0.91
0.95
+ M-ln. Car.
0.78
0.20
0.74
0.80
L. Sta.
+ F-ln. Car.
0.73
0.69
0.62
0.89
+ M-ln. Car.
0.68
0.39
0.29
0.54
Sta. × Per.
Table 3: Bi-dimensional Interaction Analysis ( P(xbi) ). See Table 2 for abbreviations.
Int. Cond.
Vox
Pr++
Par-L
Par-M
Sta.
Car.
Per.
High
F-ln. Car.
F-ln. Per.
0.90
1.00
0.95
0.85
M-ln. Per.
0.85
0.17
0.91
0.88
M-ln. Car.
F-ln. Per.
0.79
0.59
0.79
0.76
M-ln. Per.
0.80
0.00
0.79
0.62
Low
F-ln. Car.
F-ln. Per.
0.78
1.00
0.66
0.78
Table 4: Tri-dimensional Interaction Dynamics ( P(xmulti) ). See Table 2 for abbreviations.
Int. Cond.
Vox
Pr++
Par-L
Par-M
Bi-dimensional Interactions ( xbi )
Sta. × Car.
H. Sta. + F-ln. Car.
−0.52
−0.41
−3.88
−2.60
H. Sta. + M-ln. Car.
−0.12
+7.81
+0.78
+1.35
L. Sta. + F-ln. Car.
+0.14
−1.81
−3.01
−3.61
L. Sta. + M-ln. Car.
+0.83
+6.14
+1.54
−0.04
Table 5: Interaction Terms ( I ). Log-odds deviation from additive baseline. Color intensity marks significance (Sec. 3.3 ). See Table 2 for abbreviations.
Axes ( Ak )
mT5-base
BERT-base
Flan-T5-large
Asta (H / L)
-0.02 / -1.41
-5.06 / -0.60
0.77 / 0.47
Acar (F-ln. / Mix. / M-ln.)
0.58 / -0.90 / 0.36
1.67 / -0.48 / -1.71
1.65 / 0.45 / 4.16
Aper (O / C / E)
2.23 / 3.76 / 1.74
-1.15 / -1.60 / -0.50
1.17 / 0.36 / 1.49
(A / N)
2.06 / 2.98
-0.89 / -2.09
1.78 / 3.21
Table 6: Evaluated Text Encoders. Standardized bias scores and effect sizes (Cohen’s d ).
Text-to-speech converts written language into spoken audio, improving intelligibility, naturalness, voice control, multilingual coverage, and efficiency.
Instruction text-to-speech (ITTS) systems systematically encode acoustic gender skews from descriptive style prompts, such as occupations or personas, even when demographic attributes are left unspecified. Calibrating the implicit gender distribution of the synthesized voices, across heterogeneous architectures and without model retraining or overriding explicit user prompts, is an open problem. In this work, we propose model-adaptive steering, a training-free bias calibration method that steers post-encoder conditioning representations using a group deviation vector paired with a coarse-to-fine strength search on a development set. A deterministic lexical gate bypasses intervention whenever explicit gender keywords are detected, preserving intended prompt semantics. Evaluated on a 12,800-prompt held-out benchmark across four ITTS models (three architectures), the proposed method reduces aggregate calibration error from 11.5--28.1 to 0.8--5.9 percentage points (e.g., shifting Parler-TTS Mini from 78.1% and PromptTTS++ from 27.3% female to 50.8--52.4%). Output rates stay within 0.9 pp across anchor set sizes at fixed operating points, while UTMOS decreases by at most 0.08 and WER degrades by at most 3.3 pp.
Kuan-Yu Chen, Yi-Cheng Lin, Jeng-Lin Li +1
AI Research Center, Inventec Corporation, Taiwan · Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Speech-to-speech (S2S) models now run inside dubbing, translation, and voice agents. Unlike text models, they hear the speaker's voice, which carries the speaker's gender. A faithful system should treat a speaker as who they sound like, not as whoever usually says what they said. Testing this is harder than it looks, since most S2S models answer in a single, fixed output voice, hard-coded so it cannot drift toward a stereotype. Checking the output voice comes back clean even when the model is biased. We therefore ask two questions. When a model re-speaks the input, does the stereotype in the words shift the perceived gender of the output voice (voice rendering)? And when the model states the speaker's gender, does it follow the voice or the content (gender attribution)? We answer both with one controlled experiment crossing male and female voices with masculine-, neutral-, and feminine-stereotyped passages, on five open- and closed-source models in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. The rendered voice shows no stereotype drift. But every model decides the speaker's gender from the content, not the voice. Making the content one step more feminine (masculine -> neutral -> feminine) multiplies the odds of a "female" judgment by 1.7-24. When the content clashes with the voice, the worst model misgenders the speaker in 90% of cases. When they agree, it misgenders in only 2%. The bias thus hides in gender attribution, where fixed-voice evaluation cannot see, and where audits must look as S2S systems increasingly speak for real people.
Speech Large Language Models (SpeechLLMs) process spoken input directly, retaining cues such as accent and perceived gender that were previously removed in cascaded pipelines. This introduces speaker identity dependent variation in responses. We present a large-scale intersectional evaluation of accent and gender bias in three SpeechLLMs using 2,880 controlled interactions across six English accents and two gender presentations, keeping linguistic content constant through voice cloning. Using pointwise LLM-judge ratings, pairwise comparisons, and Best-Worst Scaling with human validation, we detect recurring directional disparities. Eastern European-accented speech receives lower helpfulness scores, particularly for female-presenting voices. Responses remain polite but differ in helpfulness. While LLM judges capture the directional trend of these biases, human evaluators exhibit significantly higher sensitivity, showing stronger accent-level contrasts.
Shree Harsha Bokkahalli Satish, Christoph Minixhofer, Maria Teleki +5
Department of Speech, Music and Hearing, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden · Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh, UK · Texas A&M University, USA