AP-GRPO: Anchor-Gated Phonetic Alignment with Policy Optimization for Pathological Speech Reconstruction

LLM-based ASR adapted to regulated domains such as banking is bottlenecked by privacy: real speech is costly and legally constrained to collect, making synthetic text-to-speech (TTS) an attractive substitute. Yet synthetic speech stays acoustically mismatched with real recordings, and work on this gap has stayed within supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We instead turn to reinforcement learning, and show that Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) extracts far more from the same synthetic speech than SFT. Synthetic-only adaptation of the model with GRPO, a critic-free method rewarding low-WER hypotheses, reduces WER by 40% relative to SFT (36.71%$\to$22.09%), and an SFT-then-GRPO combination pushes this further to 45%. We trace the gain to behavior rather than representation: GRPO reduces insertion errors by improving stopping calibration and speech-to-text alignment by better anchoring attention to audio, leaving early-layer representations intact. When synthetic speech is the main resource, reinforcement learning should be preferred over supervised fine-tuning.

Codec-based text-to-speech (TTS) models make language-model post-training applicable to speech generation, but it remains unclear when learned perceptual predictors can serve as reinforcement learning rewards without losing alignment with human listeners. We study this question with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using learned rewards for anime-like speaking style, naturalness, likability, and arousal. To prevent perceptual rewards from being optimized through transcript drift, we introduce a character error rate (CER) zone constraint and compare policy optimization with Best-of-$N$ reranking under the same reward gate. Across single-reward runs, each reward primarily improves its own target metric, showing that subjective predictors are not interchangeable quality surrogates. Multi-rater A/B tests further show uneven human transfer, while a reward-gap analysis separates average transfer from within-axis calibration: signed reward gaps significantly predict listener choices in the pooled analysis, whereas residual CER gaps do not, but per-axis calibration remains heterogeneous. Best-of-8 is a strong human-level baseline and is not clearly worse than GRPO perceptually, suggesting that GRPO should be viewed as amortizing reward-selected behavior into the policy rather than uniformly outperforming reranking. These results support analyzing subjective speech rewards as predictor-axis-base tuples and provide practical diagnostics for selecting rewards before multi-reward speech post-training.

Speech-to-text alignment means finding the temporal boundaries of each word in the audio. Some models provide such an alignment directly and others do not. Connectionist temporal classification (CTC) and transducer models have an alignment by construction, whereas attention-based encoder-decoders (AED) and speech large language models (LLMs) do not, and their word timings are usually read off the attention weights instead. All of these signals live on the encoder frame grid, which bounds their temporal precision. We study a generic gradient-based alignment that applies to any differentiable ASR model. We take the gradient of each teacher-forced token log probability with respect to the input, reduce it to a per-frame saliency, and decode the resulting matrix into word boundaries with a single dynamic-programming pass. The method needs no training, no model modification and no alignment heads, works across all model families including the speech LLMs, and aligns on the input grid rather than on the coarser encoder grid. We evaluate it on sixteen models from four families, on read (TIMIT) and spontaneous (Buckeye) speech, each against the model's own native or attention-based alignment. We find that the gradient yields a usable alignment for every model, that it is usually somewhat behind a strong native aligner but better where the native alignment is weak, as for the streaming models, and that its main disadvantage is the cost of one backward pass per token.