A full-duplex spoken dialogue model must yield when the user cuts in and hold when the user merely backchannels. Sequence-level RL with a timing reward (GRPO) is the usual recipe; we test its whole-rollout form on four open models and find two failures. A binary window reward gives zero advantage on exactly the windows that most need learning (a zero-gradient trap), and the one score per rollout is spread over listening-state decisions the reward is not written in terms of (credit leakage), so the model talks into silence or stops answering. Both come from sampling a reward that is a known function of a few binary control decisions. We propose window likelihood (\WL): sample a continuation per window, but integrate in closed form over the stop decisions it visits and maximise the log-probability of acting correctly---a noisy-OR for yielding, a survival product for holding. On HumDial-FDBench, \WL\ gives the best yield/hold F1 on all six structurally different open models we post-train, exceeds Kyutai's released GRPO checkpoints (trained on different data), and adds no re-opening of the floor on any model.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: One event window, two ways to learn from it. Top: the user interjects while the model is speaking; inside the 2-s window the model makes a few binary stop decisions p1,…,pK , and the window reward is a known function of them. Left (GRPO): 16 sampled rollouts, one score each, spread over every decision in the rollout. Right (window likelihood): one sampled continuation; the expected reward is computed from its pk in closed form and maximised as a likelihood.
Figure 2: Learning signal on one window against its stop probability S under the current policy. Top: probability that a GRPO group of G rollouts is informative. Middle: WL gradient magnitude ∑k∣∂L/∂zk∣ over K=5 equal-probability decisions, for the interruption term (want S→1 ) and the backchannel term (want S→0 ). Bottom: distribution of S over training windows under the base policies.
Model
Configuration
I (%) ↑
n
B (%) ↓
n
F1 ↑
100-s silence: re-open / s
Lychee-FD (zh)
Base
85.3 ± 1.9
1369
50.5 ± 5.9
273
62.6 ± 4.8
2.5% / 0.4 s
GRPO G16
61.3 ± 2.3
1500
0.3
300
75.9 ± 1.8
100% / 45.8 s
GRPO speaking-only
73.1 ± 2.1
1499
0.7
300
84.2 ± 1.4
0% / 0 s
WL (ours)
95.9 ± 1.0
1475
12.8 ± 3.9
298
91.4 ± 2.1
0% / 0 s
MiniCPM-o 4.5 (zh)
Base
16.5 ± 1.9
1447
10.0 ± 3.3
299
27.9 ± 2.7
0% / 0 s
GRPO G16
92.1 ± 1.4
1440
34.7 ± 5.4
297
76.4 ± 3.8
0% / 0 s
Table 1: HumDial-FDBench full test set, one 2-s window for all models. n = valid items; ± = 95% bootstrap CI half-width over test items (omitted at or near 0/100%). Silence: re-open rate / seconds of speech in the 100-s window over dialogues whose first answer ended (Appendix B ); ‡ 12 of 40 first answers do not end. † Authors’ released checkpoints ( Ohashi et al., 2026 ) , different data and reward. Bold: best per column within a model.
Figure 3: Two failures of whole-rollout GRPO, measured. (a) Fraction of training windows (one per step) with zero advantage, i.e. all 16 rollouts identical, over training; the overall fraction is in parentheses; per window the zero-advantage probability averages 0.656 on Lychee-FD against 0.141 from the mean S , the Jensen gap of Nie et al. (2026) . (b) Where the whole-rollout credit lands: share of decisions, by dialogue state, that receive the advantage (base-policy rollouts cut at injection + 2.5 s); only the dark segment is inside the event window.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Lang.
Stop decision
Trained part
GRPO comparison
Event rollouts
Lychee-FD ( 2026 )
zh
control branch, one state per 0.4 s
control head
controlled
8,864
MiniCPM-o 4.5 ( 2026 )
zh
listen / eos tokens (text vocabulary)
LoRA (attention)
controlled
1,200
BayLing-Duplex ( 2026 )
en
[EPAD] / assistant tokens (text channel)
LoRA (attention)
controlled
2,400
Freeze-Omni ( 2025 )
zh
VAD gate + state head
state head
controlled
2,400
PersonaPlex ( 2026 )
en
none: silence = a run of PAD frames
2 projection rows
Kyutai GRPO
400 + 400
Moshika ( 2024 )
en
none: silence = a run of PAD frames
2 projection rows
Kyutai GRPO
1,600 + 1,680
Appendix
Table 2: The six models and the training budget. The first four expose an explicit stop decision and support a controlled GRPO comparison with the same number of event-window rollouts (the turn-taking term on Lychee-FD adds two windows per step); the last two are compared with the authors’ released GRPO checkpoints ( Ohashi et al., 2026 ) . “Event rollouts”: sampled continuations on event windows; “ a+b ”: event-window stage + post-turn stage.
Category
zh example
en example
ask
那怎么判断蛋白是否打发到位了呢?
How often should these video check-ins ideally be scheduled?
deny
不,这方法太老套了。
That’s not what I had in mind.
repeat
稍等一下,刚才没听全,能重新说一下吗?
Sorry, could you repeat that part about …?
shift
先不说这个了,我想问问…
Actually, I’d like to change the subject.
wait
外面有声音先别讲
I’m busy, talk later.
backchannel
嗯嗯 / 好的 / 是呀
uh-huh / right
Appendix
Table 3: HumDial-FDBench interjection categories with examples. Each language has 300 interruptions per category and 300 backchannels.
Figure 4: Lychee-FD on three test situations (one test item each; rows are the base model and three post-trained variants). Grey: user speech; coloured: model speech; black tick: the model’s stop decision; shaded band: the 2-s window in which a stop counts. (a) The user asks a follow-up question: the base and WL stop within the window, GRPO never stops, the speaking-only ablation stops at the edge. (b) The user says “哎是呀” (“oh yes”): the base stops (a false stop), the others keep talking. (c) 100 s of silence after the model’s first answer: GRPO re-opens the floor nine times; the others stay quiet.
Figure 5: Operating points of every configuration (Table 1 ): backchannel false-stop rate B against interruption stop rate I , with 95% CIs; grey curves are F1 iso-lines (25, 50, 75, 90); the ideal is the top-left corner. Lines connect each configuration to its base; the F1 of each configuration is listed in a corner of its panel. GRPO moves along the seesaw (up-right or down-left). WL moves toward the corner on the four controlled models and on Moshika; on PersonaPlex it trades stop rate for far fewer false stops.
Figure 6: The 100-s silence test, one row per dialogue that entered the test, speech drawn as filled bars; an ideal panel is empty. Our whole-rollout GRPO runs fill the window, and so do both released Kyutai checkpoints, whose re-opening we do not attribute to GRPO as such; WL is quiet. Freeze-Omni (VAD-gated) and MiniCPM-o (no configuration re-opens) are omitted.
Configuration
ask
deny
repeat
shift
wait
Lychee-FD
Base
88.4
79.5
85.1
91.0
82.4
GRPO G16
78.0
45.3
66.0
81.0
36.3
GRPO speaking-only
92.3
58.0
79.7
88.7
46.8
WL
100.0
89.1
99.0
99.7
91.9
MiniCPM-o 4.5
Appendix
Table 4: Interruption stop rate (%) by category on the full test set.
Figure 7: Window likelihood on the Moshi family. (a) A stop is a run of ten wordless frames; only the PAD and end-of-text PAD rows of the text output projection are trained. (b) The event rows are active only while a yield/hold decision is defined, the post-turn rows only in the silence after an answer; elsewhere the frozen rows make the model identical to its base. (c) Share of dialogues that re-open the floor in the 100-s silence test.
PersonaPlex variant
I
B
F1
silence
Base
95.7
54.0
62.1
10% / 1.4 s
Kyutai GRPO (released)
98.4
63.9
52.8
100% / 40.9 s
WL, ungated readout
96.2
49.1
66.5
97% / 21.3 s
WL, energy-gated
88.1
18.0
84.9
13.5% / 1.8 s
WL, event-gated
80.2
17.5
81.3
10% / 1.4 s
WL, event-gated + post-turn
80.2
17.5
81.3
0% / 0 s
Appendix
Table 5: Gating ablation on PersonaPlex (development subset: ask + deny interruptions and all backchannels; the ordering is identical on the full set, where the last row scores 77.2). The side effect follows the gate, not the objective.
Full-duplex spoken dialogue systems let voice agents listen and respond simultaneously, managing timing, overlap, interruptions, and conversational content.
As human--AI interactions become more conversational, full-duplex speech language models capable of natural real-time dialogue are growing in importance. Beyond generating appropriate responses, these models must coordinate turn-taking, backchanneling, and floor management in real time. Reinforcement learning (RL) provides a way to refine these behaviors through direct feedback on interaction outcomes. However, existing RL methods either apply timing feedback to a token policy or optimize semantic content, leaving the joint improvement of timing and content unresolved. We introduce HiPLEX, an RL framework that factorizes a pretrained full-duplex text policy into a control policy that decides when to emit content and a conditional content policy that decides what to emit. The first factor selects among 'pad', 'epad', and 'con'. The second selects a token only when 'con' is chosen. This hierarchy describes conditional actions within each frame and uses the model's existing text head. We route timing advantages to the token-group factor through event-causal masks derived from generated speech episodes, and route an LLM-judge semantic advantage to the conditional content factor. Across three Moshi seeds on Full-Duplex-Bench v1, HiPLEX reduces takeover rates during natural user pauses and backchannel opportunities, and shortens post-interruption response latency relative to GRPO, while maintaining comparable judged interruption-response quality. On Moshi and PersonaPlex, HiPLEX better matches pooled human turn-timing and backchannel-rate marginals than GRPO.
Backchannels, brief acknowledgements like "uh-huh" produced while the other party may still be talking, are central to natural conversation, but full-duplex spoken dialogue models rarely model them explicitly. We introduce a lightweight backchannel head that predicts, from a full-duplex model's own hidden states, when a backchannel should begin. Once this probability crosses a tunable threshold, a backchannel is force-decoded. Attached to both a 7B (PersonaPlex) and a 1B (F-Actor) model, it generalizes across scale. Probing confirms the hidden states anticipate real human timing, and generation evaluation shows more frequent, better-timed backchannels. Human raters judge the resulting backchannels on par with real ones.
Maike Züfle, Peter Polák, Sefik Emre Eskimez +3
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany · AppTek, Germany · Charles University, Czech Republic +2
Full-duplex speech models listen and speak at the same time, which makes them promising for natural, open-ended conversation. But can they sustain a coherent conversation for tens of minutes? Because they generate a token every frame, even while listening, they exhaust their context windows within minutes. Yet existing benchmarks evaluate only single turns or a few conversational rounds, too short to expose the long-horizon problem. We introduce the Full-Duplex Long-Horizon Benchmark (FD-LHB), which tests five recent full-duplex models on long replayed conversations and in live conversation with an LLM partner. Every evaluated model eventually either degrades or exhausts its context. Models that keep the full history often degrade before their context runs out, while sliding-window models still fall into repetition, silence, and gibberish. For sliding-window models, we identify two contributing mechanisms. Gibberish and silence are linked to Initialization-Anchor Eviction, where the sliding window discards the first KV entry. Repetition is also reinforced by the model's own recent outputs. Guided by this diagnosis, we apply two simple fixes: Initialization-Anchor Pinning (IAP) keeps that first entry, and Duplex Repetition Penalty (DRP) discourages echoing while guarding against prolonged silence. Together, they support the diagnosis and, without retraining, substantially reduce conversational collapse in replays of up to an hour while running in real time.
Yeonju Kim, Bella Godiva, Se Jin Park +1
Integrated Vision and Language Lab, KAIST, South Korea · Kyung Hee University, South Korea