Organizations: Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China · Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Movie dubbing aims to synthesize speech that preserves the vocal identity of a reference audio while synchronizing with the lip movements in a target video. Existing methods fail to achieve precise lip-sync and lack naturalness due to explicit alignment at the duration level. While implicit alignment solutions have emerged, they remain susceptible to interference from the reference audio, triggering timbre and pronunciation degradation in in-the-wild scenarios. In this paper, we propose a novel flow matching-based movie dubbing framework driven by the Cognitive Synchronous Diffusion Transformer (CoSync-DiT), inspired by the cognitive process of professional actors. This architecture progressively guides the noise-to-speech generative trajectory by executing acoustic style adapting, fine-grained visual calibrating, and time-aware context aligning. Furthermore, we design the Joint Semantic and Alignment Regularization (JSAR) mechanism to simultaneously constrain frame-level temporal consistency on the contextual outputs and semantic consistency on the flow hidden states, ensuring robust alignment. Extensive experiments on both standard benchmarks and challenging in-the-wild dubbing benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves the state-of-the-art performance across multiple metrics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Illustration of Visual Voice Cloning (V2C) task. (b) Explicit alignment manner requires an external forced tool to compute the ground-truth duration of each phoneme in advance. (c) Implicit alignment eliminates the dependency on external forced tools. (d) We propose a movie dubbing architecture built upon CoSync-DiT, which is structured around a cognitively inspired listen–watch–articulate paradigm to progressively guide the denoising trajectory in flow matching.
Figure 2: The overview of architecture
Dataset
Speaker
Main Scenes
Experiment Setting
CelebV-Dub [ 38 ]
Multi-Speakers
Vlogs, Dramas
Setting 1 & 2
Chem [ 17 ]
Single-Speaker
Teaching Video
Setting 1 & 2
CinePile-Dub [ 35 ]
Multi-Speakers
Live Action Movies
Zero-shot Setting
Table 1: Overview of evaluation configurations across three experimental settings in various dubbing benchmarks.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
GT
100.00
3.85
100.00
0.00
3.86
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
57.05
17.52
78.80
0.477
3.34
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
61.87
10.62
80.95
0.440
3.39
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
75.60
11.86
85.10
0.420
3.70
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
75.37
11.51
83.47
0.417
3.66
HD-Dubber [ 24 ] (TPAMI’25)
64.78
14.23
79.59
0.410
3.60
Table 2: Compared with SOTA methods on the Chem benchmark under Setting 1.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
GT
73.01
3.85
100.00
0.00
3.86
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
44.67
18.48
77.49
0.458
3.33
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
50.00
11.98
79.09
0.426
3.34
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
67.53
12.01
79.41
0.427
3.71
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
60.61
15.24
78.95
0.411
3.66
HD-Dubber [ 24 ] (TPAMI’25)
52.70
14.80
77.77
0.430
3.59
Table 3: Compared with SOTA methods on the Chem benchmark under Setting 2.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
GT
100.00
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
17.26
21.99
73.01
0.441
2.47
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
26.39
10.79
79.38
0.415
2.65
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
22.08
13.44
76.59
0.407
3.26
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
22.24
13.95
76.76
0.423
3.27
Produbber [ 52 ] (CVPR’25)
26.97
5.18
73.49
0.421
3.12
Table 4: Compared with SOTA Dubbing methods on the CelebV-Dub dataset under Setting 1. Unlike single dubbing scenario ( e.g . , Chem), CelebV-Dub includes diverse video content (vlogs and dramas) with highly expressive speech.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
GT
66.13
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
12.52
23.64
69.25
0.447
2.47
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
19.42
7.03
74.87
0.405
2.63
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
18.78
16.37
76.30
0.422
3.30
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
19.32
14.94
74.18
0.420
3.31
Produbber [ 52 ] (CVPR’25)
23.13
6.41
71.38
0.432
3.14
Table 5: Compared with SOTA methods on the CelebV-Dub dataset under Setting 2.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
GT
100.00
2.56
100.00
0.00
3.15
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
42.72
99.20
61.22
0.391
3.23
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
41.65
74.96
63.88
0.362
2.89
HD-Dubber [ 24 ] ](TPAMI’25)
5.84
42.75
56.32
0.337
2.58
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
23.10
49.57
70.08
0.337
3.05
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
22.68
54.41
67.39
0.354
3.04
Table 6: Zero-shot main experiment results on CinePile-Dub dataset (Out-of-Domain). All models are trained on the training set of the basic dubbing dataset CelebV-Dub.
Figure 3: Performance comparison between the proposed method and the SOTA baseline under the different Number of Function Evaluations (NFE) steps.
Methods
SPKSIM (%) ↑
WER (%) ↓
EMOSIM (%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
w/o Style Adapting
19.64
6.84
77.24
0.385
3.38
w/o Visual Calibrating
53.25
6.40
80.17
0.419
3.45
w/o Context Aligning
52.75
7.39
80.04
0.446
3.44
w/o JSAR
51.30
8.72
80.14
0.431
3.39
w/o Semantic Consistency
52.34
8.39
80.19
0.392
3.42
w/o Temporal Consistency
51.37
6.58
80.24
0.425
3.44
Table 7: Results of ablation study on CelebV-Dub dataset under Setting 2.
Figure 4: Visual comparison of the generated mel-spectrograms. The blue arrows highlight specific regions requiring attention for audio-visual synchronization.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
100.00
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
100.00
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
17.26
21.99
73.01
0.441
2.47
47.49
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
26.39
10.79
79.38
0.415
2.65
21.38
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
22.08
13.44
76.59
0.407
3.26
32.94
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
22.24
13.95
76.76
0.423
3.27
33.40
Produbber [ 52 ] (CVPR’25)
26.97
5.18
73.49
0.421
3.12
15.96
Table 8: Compared with SOTA Dubbing methods on the CelebV-Dub dataset under Setting 1. Unlike single dubbing scenario ( e.g . , Chem), CelebV-Dub includes diverse video content (vlogs and dramas) with highly expressive speech.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
66.13
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
100.00
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
12.52
23.64
69.25
0.447
2.47
42.67
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
19.42
7.03
74.87
0.405
2.63
20.75
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
18.78
16.37
76.30
0.422
3.30
32.14
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
19.32
14.94
74.18
0.420
3.31
32.37
Produbber [ 52 ] (CVPR’25)
23.13
6.41
71.38
0.432
3.14
14.92
Table 9: Compared with SOTA methods on the CelebV-Dub dataset under Setting 2.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
100.00
2.56
100.00
0.00
3.15
100.00
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
42.72
99.20
61.22
0.391
3.23
17.00
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
41.65
74.96
63.88
0.362
2.89
22.56
HD-Dubber [ 24 ] ](TPAMI’25)
5.84
42.75
56.32
0.337
2.58
19.33
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
23.10
49.57
70.08
0.337
3.05
13.75
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
22.68
54.41
67.39
0.354
3.04
13.58
Table 10: Zero-shot results on CinePile-Dub dataset (Out-of-Domain Movie). All models are trained on the training set of the basic dubbing dataset CelebV-Dub.
Table
Reference audio Setting
Zero-shot Setting (OOD Movie)
Tab. 8
Setting 1
×
Tab. 9
Setting 2
×
Tab. 10
Setting 1
✓
Tab. 12
Setting 2
✓
Tab. 13
Setting 1
✓
Tab. 14
Setting 2
✓
Table 11: Summary of the experiment configurations in the supplementary materials. Note that Setting 1 and Setting 2 define the reference audio selection strategy. Setting 1 uses the target speech as the reference audio, while Setting 2 uses an unaligned utterance from the same speaker. The Zero-shot condition indicates whether the target domain data is excluded during the training phase.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
60.58
2.56
100.00
0.00
3.15
100.00
HPMDubbing [ 11 ] (CVPR’23)
30.75
93.86
52.93
0.382
3.24
13.87
StyleDubber [ 13 ] (ACL’24)
28.67
77.61
57.15
0.372
2.88
16.48
HD-Dubber [ 24 ] ](TPAMI’25)
7.04
64.12
47.66
0.330
2.58
18.86
EmoDubber [ 12 ] (CVPR’25)
19.43
57.73
62.46
0.347
3.05
13.00
FlowDubber [ 10 ] (MM’25)
19.86
55.93
63.86
0.346
3.05
13.05
Table 12: Zero-shot results on the CinePile-Dub dataset (Out-of-Domain Movie) under Setting 2. All models are trained on the training set of the basic dubbing dataset CelebV-Dub. The reference audio is from different segments of the same speaker.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
100.00
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
100.00
AlignDiT* [ 6 ]
61.51
18.35
76.33
0.338
3.25
24.03
AlignDiT [ 6 ]
58.90
20.98
77.39
0.342
3.36
31.77
Ours
60.04
5.59
77.41
0.332
3.40
45.24
Table 13: Zero-shot evaluation results on the CinePile-Dub dataset (Out-of-domain Movie) under Setting 1. The asterisk (*) denotes the official AlignDiT checkpoint pre-trained on the large-scale LRS3 dataset. All evaluated models face completely unseen target domains.
Methods
SPKSIM(%) ↑
WER(%) ↓
EMOSIM(%) ↑
Sync-KL ↓
DNSMOS ↑
AVSync(%) ↑
GT
100.00
4.15
100.00
0.000
3.38
100.00
AlignDiT* [ 6 ]
44.01
35.90
68.80
0.359
3.23
18.72
AlignDiT [ 6 ]
38.58
34.52
66.74
0.358
3.37
22.50
Ours
47.24
7.53
70.12
0.319
3.39
31.79
Table 14: Zero-shot evaluation results on the CinePile-Dub dataset (Out-of-domain Movie) under Setting 2. All evaluated models face completely unseen target domains and non-target reference audio. The asterisk (*) denotes the official AlignDiT checkpoint pre-trained on the large-scale LRS3 dataset.
Figure 5: Visual comparison of the generated mel-spectrograms with ground truth. The blue and white bounding boxes highlight regions where different models exhibit significant differences in duration and spectrogram details. Furthermore, the blue arrows pinpoint specific temporal regions that require critical attention for evaluating audio-visual synchronization.
Figure 6: Visual comparison of the generated mel-spectrograms with ground truth under zero-shot setting (out-of-domain movie scenario). The blue and white bounding boxes highlight regions where different models exhibit significant differences in duration and spectrogram details. Furthermore, the blue arrows pinpoint specific temporal regions that require critical attention for evaluating audio-visual synchronization.
Automatic video dubbing aims to generate high-fidelity speech that is temporally aligned with visual content. However, existing methods still suffer from limited speech naturalness, insufficient audio-visual synchronization, and poor scalability beyond monolingual settings. To address these challenges, we propose SyncVoice, a simple and effective dubbing framework that lightly integrates a Text-Visual Fusion Module into a pretrained text-to-speech (TTS) system. This module aligns visual features with linguistic representations, enabling temporally synchronized speech synthesis without complex architectural redesign. Experiments on the LRS3 dataset show that SyncVoice achieves state-of-the-art performance in zero-shot dubbing. Further training on a large-scale bilingual audio-visual dataset improves vocal fidelity while preserving synchronization, yielding a single unified model for both Chinese and English dubbing.
Kaidi Wang, Yi He, Wenhao Guan +9
School of Informatics, Xiamen University, China · MiLM Plus, Xiaomi Inc., China · School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Xiamen University, China +1
Video dubbing requires content accuracy, expressive prosody, high-quality acoustics, and precise lip synchronization, yet existing approaches struggle on all four fronts. To address these issues, we propose DiFlowDubber, the first video dubbing framework built upon a discrete flow matching backbone with a novel two-stage training strategy. In the first stage, a zero-shot text-to-speech (TTS) system is pre-trained on large-scale corpora, where a deterministic architecture captures linguistic structures, and the Discrete Flow-based Prosody-Acoustic (DFPA) module models expressive prosody and realistic acoustic characteristics. In the second stage, we propose the Content-Consistent Temporal Adaptation (CCTA) to transfer TTS knowledge to the dubbing domain: its Synchronizer enforces cross-modal alignment for lip-synchronized speech. Complementarily, the Face-to-Prosody Mapper (FaPro) conditions prosody on facial expressions, whose outputs are then fused with those of the Synchronizer to construct rich, fine-grained multimodal embeddings that capture prosody-content correlations, guiding the DFPA to generate expressive prosody and acoustic tokens for content-consistent speech. Experiments on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that DiFlowDubber outperforms prior methods across multiple evaluation metrics.
Ngoc-Son Nguyen, Thanh V. T. Tran, Jeongsoo Choi +3
FPT Software AI Center, Vietnam · KAIST, South Korea · Independent researcher, work done in part while author was at the FPT Software AI Center, Vietnam. +1
Automatic video dubbing in the wild remains fundamentally limited by two competing constraints: hierarchical methods depend on brittle, multi-stage preprocessing pipelines that severely restrict data scalability and practical deployment, while holistic approaches operating on uncropped video suffer from weak temporal alignment and speaker-utterance ambiguity in multi-speaker settings. To overcome these limitations, we propose CineDub, a unified diffusion-based model that achieves precise multi-speaker dialogue dubbing directly from uncropped videos, without face cropping or speaker diarization. Central to our approach is the Implicitly-Coupled Holistic Conditioning (ICHC) paradigm, where holistic visual representations and a semantic-bundled transcription format are encoded independently, yet implicitly coupled through cross-modal training to resolve speaker ambiguity and enable precise multi-speaker multi-turn dialogue dubbing. Building on the unified temporal cues captured by holistic visual features, we further extend CineDub to joint speech and audio generation. We introduce an Ambient-to-Linguistic Curriculum Learning (ALC) to mitigate sub-task degradation, and a decoupled textual branch control mechanism to resolve cross-prompt interference during simultaneous generation. We also release two in-the-wild benchmarks, CineDub-Multi for multi-speaker dialogue dubbing and CineDub-SA for video-to-speech-and-audio (V2SA) generation, to enable evaluation under realistic conditions. Experiments show that CineDub achieves state-of-the-art results on established single-speaker dubbing and video-to-audio benchmarks while excelling in multi-speaker dialogue dubbing and acoustically coherent joint generation.
Yusheng Dai, Kangdi Wang, Baolong Gao +4
Monash University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Tsinghua University