What Do Audio-Language Judges of Generated Music Listen For? Four Probes with Controls from Expert Ratings
cs.SD, cs.CL, eess.AS
Submitted: 2026-10-09
Updated: 2026-10-09
Comments: 10 pages, 1 figure, 15 tables
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Open audio-language models are used as judges of generated music: given a clip and its text prompt, the model rates the clip, and the judge is validated by how well its ratings correlate with expert
Abstract
Open audio-language models are used as judges of generated music: given a clip and its text prompt, the model rates the clip, and the judge is validated by how well its ratings correlate with expert ratings. The correlation does not show what the judge responds to: the music, the text prompt, or the way the question is asked. We propose four probes that test each of these, three of them read against a control computed from the human ratings: removing the audio, replacing the clip with another model's clip for the same prompt, swapping the order of two clips in pairwise judging, and rewording the instruction. We apply them to five open judges on all 2,748 clips of MusicEval, and the last two to the SongEval songs. Without audio, no judge exceeds what the prompt alone predicts from the human ratings, and for prompt alignment every judge falls below it. With audio, every judge follows the clip it hears when rating prompt alignment, two do when rating musical quality, and the strongest judge's quality score tracks the experts' alignment rating more than their quality rating. The pairwise verdicts of the four smaller judges follow the position of a clip in the pair (its slot) rather than its quality on both rating sets. For musical quality, rewording the instruction moves the correlation of most judges as much as changing the judge. MusicEval's prompt assignment bounds any prompt-only judge at the model level. We recommend reporting the four probes with every music judge.
Sources
- All That Glitters Is Not Audio: Rethinking Text Priors and Audio Reliance in Audio-Language Evaluation
- Aligning Text-to-Music Evaluation with Human Preferences
- TuneJury: An Open Metric for Improving Music Generation Preference Alignment
- MusicEval: A Generative Music Dataset with Expert Ratings for Automatic Text-to-Music Evaluation
- CMI-RewardBench: Evaluating Music Reward Models with Compositional Multimodal Instruction
- AudioJudge: Understanding What Works in Large Audio Model Based Speech Evaluation
- Auditing Protocol-Level Shortcuts in Large Audio Language Model Judges for Speech Evaluation
- Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting
- Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators
- Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluation
- SongEval: A Benchmark Dataset for Song Aesthetics Evaluation
- Are you really listening? Boosting Perceptual Awareness in Music-QA Benchmarks
- JASTIN: Aligning LLMs for Zero-Shot Audio and Speech Evaluation via Natural Language Instructions
- Genre Bias or Aesthetic Perception? Identifying and Mitigating Shortcut Learning in Music Evaluation
- MuQ-Eval: An Open-Source Per-Sample Quality Metric for AI Music Generation Evaluation
Related papers
- Few-Shot Open-Set Audio Classification via Transductive Prototype Refinement and Class Logit Enhancement
- Spectral Masking and Interpolation Attack (SMIA): A Black-box Adversarial Attack against Voice Authentication and Anti-Spoofing Systems
- Remix the Timbre: Diffusion-Based Style Transfer Across Polyphonic Stems
- AVMeme Exam: A Multimodal Multilingual Multicultural Benchmark for LLMs' Contextual and Cultural Knowledge and Thinking
- SoundWeaver: Compositional Warm-Starting for Text-to-Audio Diffusion Serving
- WASIL: In-the-Wild Arabic Spoken Interactions with LLMs