Benchmark Almanac

InstructTTSEval

Only in system cards

Text-to-speech models follow natural-language style instructions in English and Chinese across acoustic parameter, descriptive style and role-play tasks. Gemini judges each clip.

The set has 6,000 test cases, 1,000 per task and language, each with reference audio.

In the authors’ words

In modern speech synthesis, paralinguistic information–such as a speaker's vocal timbre, emotional state, and dynamic prosody–plays a critical role in conveying nuance beyond mere semantics. Traditional Text-to-Speech (TTS) systems rely on fixed style labels or inserting a speech prompt to control these cues, which severely limits flexibility. Recent attempts seek to employ natural-language instructions to modulate paralinguistic features, substantially improving the generalization of instruction-driven TTS models. Although many TTS systems now support customized synthesis via textual description, their actual ability to interpret and execute complex instructions remains largely unexplored. In addition, there is still a shortage of high-quality benchmarks and automated evaluation metrics specifically designed for instruction-based TTS, which hinders accurate assessment and iterative optimization of these models. To address these limitations, we introduce InstructTTSEval, a benchmark for measuring the capability of complex natural-language style control. We introduce three tasks, namely Acoustic-Parameter Specification, Descriptive-Style Directive, and Role-Play, including English and Chinese subsets, each with 1k test cases (6k in total) paired with reference audio. We leverage Gemini as an automatic judge to assess their instruction-following abilities. Our evaluation of accessible instruction-following TTS systems highlights substantial room for further improvement. We anticipate that InstructTTSEval will drive progress toward more powerful, flexible, and accurate instruction-following TTS.

Abstract of InstructTTSEval: Benchmarking Complex Natural-Language Instruction Following in Text-to-Speech Systems (arXiv:2506.16381, CC0)
Made by Fudan University (Kexin Huang, Xipeng Qiu and others) Released Jun 2025 Speech recognition and translation All tasks public Last in a system card Sep 2025 Last model added Sep 2025
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for InstructTTSEval yet.

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
18 Sep 2025 MiMo-Audio-7B-Instruct technical report InstructTTSEval-EN Overall 72.59 (APS 80.60, DSD 77.63, RP 59.54), InstructTTSEval-ZH Overall 70.52 (APS 75.74, DSD 74.3, RP 61.54), no combined score (Table 9) Capabilities

More in Audio and video

All 168 in Audio and video
  • Video-MMMU In use 300 expert-level lecture videos with questions testing perception, comprehension and adaptation of knowledge. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 88.7%
  • LVBench In use Hours-long video understanding with multiple-choice questions on reasoning, grounding and summarization. Gemini 4 Argon 91.7%
  • MMVU In use 3,000 expert-annotated questions on videos across 27 disciplines. Multiple-choice and open-ended accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 82.4%
  • MLVU In use Multi-task long video understanding (minutes to hours) with multiple-choice and generation tasks. Accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 90.8%
  • VoiceBench In use Spoken instructions with speaker, environment and content variation. Voice assistant responses scored by GPT judge or rules. Qwen3.5-Omni-Plus 93.1%
  • TVBench In use Models answer multiple-choice questions on 10 temporal video tasks, such as action counting and ordering, that static frames cannot solve. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 81.9%