Text-to-audio (TTA) generation, synthesizing audio from natural language, has been widely studied for its ability to capture precise user intent. To effectively advance TTA models, it is essential to reliably evaluate generated audio without relying on costly human subjective ratings, motivating the development of automatic evaluation metrics that correlate well with human judgments. While recent CLAP-based metrics provide practical reference-free solutions, their coarse-grained text-audio similarity matching often correlates poorly with human ratings. To address this, we propose ELSA, a reference-free evaluation metric for fine-grained text-audio alignment. ELSA decomposes generated audio guided by distinct acoustic events derived from the text query and assesses event-level alignment. Experiments across four TTA benchmarks show that ELSA reveals a higher correlation with human subjective ratings than prior metrics, highlighting its effectiveness for reliable TTA evaluation.
Text-to-audio (TTA) generation has recently achieved remarkable progress in synthesizing realistic audio from natural language descriptions. However, determining whether generated audio faithfully satisfies complex textual instructions remains challenging. Existing benchmarks mainly rely on global similarity metrics, providing limited insight into fine-grained semantic failures. To address this limitation, we introduce \textbf{AudioScape-TTA}, a structured and complexity-aware benchmark for fine-grained TTA evaluation. AudioScape-TTA represents realistic soundscapes through modality-aware semantic structures and characterizes generation complexity using event density and structural complexity. Based on these annotations, we propose a rubric-based audio-grounded evaluation framework that verifies event realization, acoustic attributes, and speech content through fine-grained semantic criteria. The benchmark contains 2,258 audio-text pairs with 25,707 binary QA rubrics, enabling scalable and interpretable analysis of TTA systems. Experiments on 13 representative open-source TTA models reveal persistent limitations in fine-grained attribute control, speech-content preservation, and compositional soundscape generation. Human validation further demonstrates that our rubric-based evaluation achieves stronger alignment with human semantic judgments than conventional global similarity metrics.
Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive. We deconstruct "naturalness" into a linguistically grounded annotation schema spanning 10 distinct perceptual dimensions, and use it to construct the first dimension-level meta-evaluation benchmark for TTS, comprising 860 utterances annotated by trained linguist raters. Results from benchmarking four MOS predictors and four Audio-LLM judges reveal that MOS predictors collapse onto acoustic signal quality, while Audio-LLM judges show selective, prompt-dependent detection that does not generalise across all dimensions. Neither class reliably captures a breadth of linguistically structured speech errors. Our dataset, annotation schema, and evaluation code are publicly released to support more targeted and interpretable TTS evaluation.
Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are primarily optimized for written text, often producing outputs that are grammatically correct and helpful yet poorly suited for spoken delivery via Text-to-Speech (TTS). In this work, we study how to make LLMs natively generate TTS-friendly text, which we frame as a preference alignment problem: instead of relying on downstream rewriting modules, we directly align LLMs to generate text optimized for spoken delivery. We introduce two preference datasets spanning different target domains, CORA and Recipe, which contain paired TTS-friendly and TTS-unfriendly responses. We further propose an evaluation suite combining a pattern-based heuristic metric, a TTS→ASR evaluation pipeline, and a MUSHRA listening study with human judges. Our experiments compare the recently proposed Feature-aware Sampling and Tuning (FaST) framework -- leveraging interpretable features instead of a black-box reward model -- against an array of alignment baselines on the TTS-friendly generation task. Notably, we found that FaST achieves the best overall tradeoff between TTS-friendliness and helpfulness across various settings. We also identified a strong correlation between our different metrics, highlighting the ability to reliably assess TTS-friendliness via an efficient heuristic.