Recent advancements in generative models are pushing video generation toward unbounded streaming audio-video generation for real-time interactive worlds. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate completed sequences and struggle to capture streaming properties. To bridge this gap, we introduce StreamAV-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark tailored for streaming audio-video generation. StreamAV-Bench establishes a unified evaluation framework, including the progressive track for instruction adherence and long-horizon stability, and the interactive track for interactive response and state retention and reuse. With expert-verified evaluation cases across 32 fine-grained dimensions, we conduct an extensive evaluation of 13 representative systems. Our analysis reveals that current models suffer from temporal drift in progressive generation and responsiveness bottlenecks during interactive control. Based on a comprehensive failure analysis, we share insights to advance the development of native joint audio-video streaming models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We present StreamAV-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for streaming audio-video generation. (a) The benchmark includes a progressive track to assess instruction adherence and long-horizon stability, and an interactive track to measure interactive response alongside state retention and reuse. (b) The benchmark covers content complexity in both tracks and update complexity in the interactive track, with 320 expert-verified scenarios that span 8 scene domains, 5 audio domains, 5 subject categories, and 4 visual styles. (c) The evaluation is driven by a unified framework of 32 fine-grained dimensions, computed with expert models, MLLMs, and corresponding checklists.
Figure 2: Overview of the data construction pipeline for StreamAV-Bench. (a) Domain experts define scene and audio domains, subject categories, and visual styles, and allocate cases for the two tracks, ensuring complexity balance. (b) Annotators script each case with annotations: the progressive track defines the entire sequence, while the interactive track specifies an interval sequence for dynamic state updates. (c) GPT-5.4 converts these annotations into a single global prompt per case for the progressive track, and an initial prompt followed by five runtime updates for the interactive track. (d) These prompts are used to derive verifiable checklists, evaluating case-level instruction adherence and stability, and interval-level interactive response, state retention, and reuse. (e) Two experts independently review the prompts and checklists, with disagreements adjudicated by a third expert, producing 320 curated scenarios.
Figure 3: Detailed data statistics and the evaluation framework of StreamAV-Bench. (a)–(d) Distributions across 8 scene domains, 5 audio domains, 5 subject categories, and 4 visual styles. (e)–(f) Content and update complexity factors, respectively. (g) Overview of the evaluation framework, categorizing 32 fine-grained evaluation dimensions.
Method
Quality and Alignment
Streaming Continuity and Efficiency
VA ↑
VQ ↑
PQ ↑
AQ ↑
AVAlign ↑
AVSync ↓
NBC ↑
FPS ↑
TTFC ↓
Native joint streaming audio-video models
PixVerse R1
0.529
2.428
6.348
2.810
0.234
0.855
–
–
–
HappyOyster
0.529
2.785
6.817
3.157
0.206
1.044
–
–
–
OmniForcing
0.554
2.374
6.351
2.528
0.119
1.423
98.808
12.799
3.998
Cascaded streaming audio-video pipelines
Table 2: Evaluation results on StreamAV-Bench. Metrics for quality, alignment, streaming continuity, and efficiency are evaluated on both tracks. Instruction adherence and long-horizon stability are evaluated on the progressive track, while interactive response and state retention and reuse are evaluated on the interactive track. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined . Dashes (–) denote unavailable results.
Figure 4: Temporal evolution of progressive-track quality and audio-video alignment over 180 seconds. Thin curves show individual systems, while thick curves show the mean across 13 systems. Higher is better for VA, VQ, PQ, AQ, and AVAlign, whereas lower is better for AVSync.
Figure 5: Qualitative failure cases. Common failure modes in representative streaming generation models.
Metric
VQ
AQ
VIF
AIF
VID
AID
VUF
AUF
PVC
PAC
PVUAR
PAUAR
PVRL
PARL
VSR
ASR
HDF
Spearman ρ
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.87
0.83
0.84
0.89
0.91
0.94
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.77
0.81
0.86
0.89
0.80
Table 3: Human alignment of selected evaluation metrics. We report Spearman rank correlations between per-model human win rates and the corresponding direction-adjusted benchmark scores.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dimension
Distribution
Scene domain
Daily Life 48; Work & Creation 44; Social 44; Performance 40; Sports 40; Transportation 36; Nature 36; Fictional 32
Table A1: Semantic distribution over the 320 scenarios.
System
Generation paradigm
Access
PixVerse R1
Native joint
Web
HappyOyster
Native joint
Web
OmniForcing
Native joint
Open
Odyssey-2
Cascaded
Web
Self-Forcing
Cascaded
Open
LongLive
Cascaded
Open
Appendix
Table A2: Evaluated systems. “Native joint” denotes native joint streaming audio-video generation, and “Cascaded” denotes a cascaded streaming audio-video pipeline.
System
Initial VIF ↑
Initial AIF ↑
Native joint streaming audio-video models
PixVerse R1
2.954
2.467
HappyOyster
3.364
2.492
OmniForcing
2.527
2.299
Cascaded streaming audio-video pipelines
Odyssey-2
3.084
2.643
Appendix
Table A3: Initial-world alignment results on the interactive track. Initial VIF and Initial AIF reuse the VIF/AIF 1–5 scale. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined .
System
PVUAR ↑
PVRL ↓
PAUAR ↑
PARL ↓
HappyOyster
0.518
14.484
0.488
13.621
SWIFT
0.246
10.340
0.276
12.094
OmniForcing
0.053
13.295
0.316
7.925
Appendix
Table A4: Prompt-based visual and audio update achievement rates and response latencies for three representative systems. PVRL and PARL are media-time latencies measured on generated content over achieved targets.
System
Source Establishment
Conditional HDF
Adj. ↑
Long ↑
Adj. ↑
Long ↑
PixVerse R1
0.610
0.653
2.508
2.435
HappyOyster
0.741
0.715
2.885
2.718
OmniForcing
0.323
0.358
2.641
2.231
Odyssey-2
0.459
0.453
2.631
2.489
Self-Forcing
0.568
0.606
2.445
2.126
Appendix
Table A5: History-dependency source-state establishment rates and conditional HDF scores. Establishment rates are reported on [0,1] , while HDF-A and HDF-L scores use the original 1–5 scale over established sources. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined .
System
SA-PVRL ↓
SA-PARL ↓
CA-HDF-A ↑
CA-HDF-L ↑
PixVerse R1
24.011
20.855
0.232
0.234
HappyOyster
21.991
21.861
0.354
0.306
OmniForcing
29.128
23.046
0.136
0.109
Odyssey-2
26.838
25.611
0.196
0.168
Self-Forcing
27.081
24.156
0.206
0.169
LongLive
25.575
25.490
0.186
0.187
Appendix
Table A6: Sensitivity diagnostics on the interactive track. SA-PVRL and SA-PARL are measured in seconds and assign the 30-second observation-window cap to unachieved targets. CA-HDF metrics combine source-state establishment with normalized conditional HDF quality. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined .
Progressive track
Interactive track
Metric
60 s
120 s
180 s
Metric
60 s
120 s
180 s
VA-D ↓
0.025
0.036
0.042
VUF ↑
2.347
2.327
2.347
VQ-D ↓
0.313
0.347
0.361
AUF ↑
2.481
2.340
2.332
PQ-D ↓
0.295
0.356
0.382
PVUAR ↑
0.233
0.231
0.243
AQ-D ↓
0.449
0.460
0.495
PAUAR ↑
0.361
0.333
0.331
AVAlign-D ↓
0.059
0.067
0.065
PVRL ↓
12.283
13.268
13.534
Appendix
Table A7: Generation-length analysis at 60, 120, and 180 seconds, averaged uniformly across the 13 systems. Progressive values report prefix endpoint drift, while interactive values aggregate all runtime updates completed by each horizon. PVRL and PARL are media-time latencies measured in seconds on the generated content timeline.
Metric
VQ
AQ
VIF
AIF
VID
AID
VUF
AUF
PVC
PAC
PVUAR
PAUAR
PVRL
PARL
VSR
ASR
HDF
Spearman ρ
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.87
0.83
0.84
0.89
0.91
0.94
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.77
0.81
0.86
0.89
0.80
Appendix
Table A8: Human alignment of selected evaluation metrics. We report Spearman rank correlations between per-model human win rates and the corresponding direction-adjusted benchmark scores.
Time
Prompt
0–180 s
A photorealistic compact sailing yacht crosses a breezy open bay beneath broken afternoon clouds, with taut white sails, a weathered deck, rolling blue water, and a distant low coastline; aboard, a windbreaker-clad adult sailor continuously steers at the helm, monitors the wind, and trims the working lines as the yacht heels and rises over the chop, while a distinct, alert black-and-white border collie in a red flotation vest remains settled in the cockpit and passively rides with the yacht’s motion. The ratcheting winch and creaking rigging remain prominent over the simultaneous sounds of rushing wind, snapping canvas, and water striking the hull.
Appendix
Table A9: Complete 180-second prompt example for the progressive track.
Time
Prompt
0 s
In a tidy photorealistic home kitchen, a stainless-steel wall oven steadily bakes a pale loaf on its center rack beside an open, rain-clear window. A soft refrigerator hum fills the pauses between occasional traffic whooshes outside.
30 s
A baker’s hand rotates the oven temperature dial to a higher setting.
60 s
After the dial adjustment, the heat shimmer inside the oven intensifies.
90 s
Rain begins streaking the kitchen window.
120 s
The baker pulls the rain-streaked window shut with a firm click.
150 s
Under the higher oven setting, the loaf’s pale crust turns golden brown.
Appendix
Table A10: Complete 180-second prompt schedule example for the interactive track.
We introduce StreamEval with four key features: (1) First interactive streaming video generation benchmark. (2) Fully open source. Benchmark data, evaluation code, protocols, and scoring rules are publicly available. (3) Comprehensive coverage. Five tasks cover avatar dialogue, avatar performance, world generation, instruction editing, and reference editing, with 300 scripted cases lasting 15 to 300 seconds. Ten metrics assess task execution, state consistency, visual fidelity, and audiovisual coordination. (4) Monthly updates. We will evaluate new and updated models and publish leaderboard results monthly. Results from 37 models show that high visual quality and identity retention do not necessarily coincide with reliable request execution or sustained state consistency. The leaderboard is available at https://streameval.ai.
Audio-video generative models achieve impressive quality but suffer from high latency, making them unsuitable for real-time applications. Although several streaming audio-video generation methods have been proposed, they remain costly and fail to support long-form generation. To address this, we propose Ripple, a real-time joint audio-video generation system with a cross-modal recurrent memory mechanism. To enable efficient streaming inference while preserving long-term context, Ripple combines a fixed-length sliding-window attention with modality-specific memory states that continuously summarize audio and video context. Cross-modal memory interaction is further introduced to enhance audio-visual synchronization. To learn this memory-augmented model effectively, we devise a three-stage training recipe: (1) adapting a bidirectional audio-video teacher to block-wise causal attention with simulated memory, (2) optimizing the memory construction and interaction pipeline through end-to-end distillation, and (3) applying online reinforcement post-training tailored for streaming audio-video generation. As a result, Ripple achieves ~28 FPS at 480P resolution, over faster than the teacher, while capable of coherent long-form generation. Extensive experiments on both short-video and long-video benchmarks demonstrate our superior performance over existing offline and online joint audio-video generation methods.
Yanbo Ding, Zhizhi Guo, Quanyue Song +4
Shenzhen Key Lab of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · China Telecom Artificial Intelligence Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences +2
Rapid advances in audio-video (AV) generation have enabled high-fidelity synthesis with synchronized sound, particularly for human-related scenarios involving speech and interactions. Yet evaluation for AV generation remains at an early stage, with only a few coarse-grained benchmarks for human-related scenarios and relying on limited preset evaluations with generic multimodal LLMs, leading to inaccurate assessments of model capabilities. To address these issues, we introduce AVBench, a fully automated benchmark tailored for human-centric AV generation. AVBench is built on two key designs for comprehensive and accurate evaluation: (i) Human-centric and fine-grained metrics. AVBench integrates ten evaluation dimensions designed for human-centered real-world scenarios, covering visual quality, audio quality, and multi-level consistency across modalities. These practical metrics capture human-related details that existing benchmarks often overlook. (ii) Specialized evaluators via preference learning. To address the lack of specialized training data, we construct large-scale supervision by transforming real-world videos into diverse training pairs with controlled perturbations. After fine-tuning on this high-quality dataset, the evaluators learn to reliably detect subtle cross-modal inconsistencies. Crucially, instead of producing discrete textual judgment, AVBench derives continuous evaluation scores from the model's prediction confidence on binary decisions. This probabilistic scoring mechanism enables a more reliable assessment than traditional VQA-style evaluation and aligns closely with human judgment. Taken together, AVBench offers automated evaluation for AV generation, demonstrates strong potential for data filtering, and serves as a differentiable reward signal for Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF).
Jialiang Yang, Bin Xia, Ruihang Chu +6
Tsinghua University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong