VibeAvatar: Aligning Phonetic Kinematics and Human Aesthetics for High-Fidelity Talking Avatar Synthesis
Authors: Qilin Wang, Mingyu Li, Hao Tang
Organizations: School of Computer Science, Peking University Beijing, China · School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University Beijing, China
Multi-modal talking avatar synthesis aims to generate realistic talking videos from a reference portrait and speech. Despite rapid progress in diffusion-based methods, existing approaches still struggle to jointly achieve accurate lip articulation, human-preferred motion aesthetics, and efficient inference. We observe that phonetic accuracy and motion aesthetics arise from fundamentally different sources and should be addressed at complementary stages rather than learned implicitly by a single generator. Based on this insight, we propose VibeAvatar, which disentangles these two objectives through a Phonetic Kinematics Adapter (PKA) that converts recognition-oriented speech features into phonetic-kinematic conditions at the conditioning stage, and an Aesthetic Motion Policy (AMP) that optimizes a flow-consistent stochastic sampling policy via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) at the post-training stage. With a lightweight flow-based motion generator operating in a compact 1D warp-based latent motion space, VibeAvatar achieves state-of-the-art results in articulation, aesthetics, and efficiency on both objective metrics and user studies, while generating a 10-second 512px video in under 10 seconds with only ∼3GB VRAM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. VibeAvatar synthesizes high-fidelity talking avatars with accurate lip articulation, human-preferred motion aesthetics, and efficient inference. It preserves stable identity and natural facial dynamics across speech and singing scenarios.
Figure 2. Comparison of recent talking avatar methods on ASE ( Wu et al., 2023a ) and Sync-C ( Chung and Zisserman, 2016 ) . Existing methods still struggle to jointly improve aesthetic quality and lip synchronization.
Figure 3. Overview of VibeAvatar. (a) The framework integrates a lightweight flow-based motion generator, a Phonetic Kinematics Adapter (PKA), and an Aesthetic Motion Policy (AMP) to improve lip articulation, motion aesthetics, and inference efficiency. (b) PKA transforms generic speech features into phonetic-kinematic conditions through hierarchical shifted attention, enabling local bidirectional interaction, causal aggregation, and a progressively enlarged receptive field for accurate lip articulation.
Figure 4. Comparison of audio context modeling schemes. (a) Full Attention captures global context but incurs high cost and leaks future information. (b) Causal Attention preserves causality but weakens local bidirectional interaction. (c) Our Hierarchical Shifted Attention supports bidirectional interaction within chunks and causal aggregation across chunks, while progressively enlarging the receptive field.
Figure 5. Lip-articulation comparison on challenging phonemes. VibeAvatar produces more accurate lip shapes.
Method
HDTF
RAVDESS
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CSIM ↑
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
VQA ↑
ASE ↑
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CSIM ↑
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
VQA ↑
ASE ↑
EchoMimic ( Chen et al., 2025b )
40.776
352.494
0.851
6.225
9.169
3.402
1.856
69.339
449.586
0.845
4.297
8.485
3.827
2.257
FantasyTalking ( Wang et al., 2025 )
53.089
506.815
0.556
3.086
12.191
3.314
1.974
21.774
330.826
0.852
4.009
9.322
3.748
2.330
FLOAT ( Ki et al., 2025 )
25.848
220.927
0.842
7.345
8.172
3.616
2.021
18.754
233.079
0.839
5.632
7.771
3.882
2.358
Wan-S2V ( Gao et al., 2025 )
29.035
317.665
0.744
7.669
8.110
3.629
2.102
18.824
233.341
0.828
6.092
8.371
4.016
2.458
Hallo3 ( Cui et al., 2025 )
26.277
253.995
0.729
7.648
8.571
3.497
2.024
24.418
237.575
0.823
5.421
8.046
3.679
2.103
Table 1. Quantitative comparisons. The best and second-best results are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 6. Multi-frame qualitative comparisons.
Figure 7. User study across five perceptual dimensions.
PKA
AMP
HDTF
RAVDESS
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CSIM ↑
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
VQA ↑
ASE ↑
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CSIM ↑
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
VQA ↑
ASE ↑
×
×
26.135
215.733
0.829
7.523
8.232
3.583
2.004
19.480
240.107
0.850
5.890
7.925
3.887
2.379
✓
×
28.236
190.595
0.885
8.615
6.948
3.595
1.921
17.679
251.314
0.829
6.042
7.608
3.892
2.417
✓
✓
22.033
166.913
0.912
8.639
6.910
3.678
2.152
16.282
220.975
0.866
6.134
7.439
4.121
2.577
Table 2. Ablation results on HDTF and RAVDESS. The best and second-best results are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 8. Qualitative ablation on the core components.
Strategy
HDTF
RAVDESS
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
Sync-C ↑
Sync-D ↓
baseline
7.523
8.232
5.890
7.925
causal
8.295
7.525
5.920
7.727
full attention
8.346
7.328
5.991
7.686
fixed chunk
8.428
7.454
6.009
7.648
hierarchical shifted
8.639
6.910
6.134
7.439
Table 3. Ablation on audio context modeling strategies.
Method
Params
Inference Time
VRAM
EchoMimic ( Chen et al., 2025b )
3B
∼ 8 min
∼ 7 GB
FantasyTalking ( Wang et al., 2025 )
14B
∼ 80 min
∼ 51 GB
Wan-S2V ( Gao et al., 2025 )
14B
∼ 25 min
∼ 57 GB
Hallo3 ( Cui et al., 2025 )
10B
∼ 50 min
∼ 70 GB
FLOAT ( Ki et al., 2025 )
0.6B
< 10 s
∼ 7 GB
VibeAvatar (Ours)
0.7B
< 10 s
∼ 3 GB
Table 4. Efficiency comparison on a 10-second 512px video.