Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 36 references

Auto-Regressive vs Flow-Matching: a Comparative Study of Modeling Paradigms for Text-to-Music Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read With data, training, and backbone all matched, autoregressive decoding gives slightly better music quality and control, while flow-matching wins on speed and editing.

desk verdict A genuinely useful controlled AR-vs-FM comparison in text-to-music, but the FM model's U-Net skip connections keep the headline 'paradigm-only' claim from being fully earned. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08570 v3 pith:JLZVCZET submitted 2025-06-10 cs.SD cs.AIcs.LGeess.AS

Or Tal , Felix Kreuk , Yossi Adi This is my paper
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.LGeess.AS
keywords auto-regressivedecodingflowmatchingtext-to-musicgenerationcontrolledcomparisontemporally-alignedconditioningmusicinpaintinginferenceefficiencymodelingparadigm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the modeling paradigm itself—autoregressive (AR) decoding versus conditional flow-matching (FM)—changes text-to-music generation when every other ingredient is held fixed. The authors train both kinds of models from scratch on the same proprietary dataset, the same EnCodec latent representation, and the same 400M-parameter transformer backbone, then compare quality, control adherence, inpainting, inference speed, and sensitivity to training configuration. They find consistent differences: AR yields slightly higher perceptual quality and follows temporally-aligned controls (chords, melody, drums) more faithfully, while FM is faster to sample in most regimes and produces the smoothest supervised edits. The value of the study is that it isolates the paradigm variable in a field where most published systems differ in data, architecture, and codec at once, so the resulting trade-offs are actionable for choosing a generation approach.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by an explicitly controlled experimental protocol rather than a single formula. Every model is trained from scratch on the same 20k-hour proprietary dataset using the same EnCodec latent representation—discrete RVQ codebook indices for the AR decoder and the pre-quantizer continuous vectors for FM—and the same 400M-parameter, 24-layer MusicGen-style transformer decoder with T5 text cross-attention. The generative mechanisms under comparison are the delay-pattern causal prediction of four codebook streams (AR) and the regression of a conditional vector field along a linear interpolant path with τ-dependent loss scaling, sampled by Euler or Dopri5 ODE integration (FM). The one deliberate asymmetry is the addition of U-Net-like skip connections (~7M parameters) to the FM backbone, kept because they notably improved FM in preliminary experiments; the paper therefore treats the backbones as similar but not perfectly identical.

What would settle it

Train AR and FM with architecturally identical backbones—remove the FM skip connections or add equivalent skip connections to AR so parameter counts match—and re-run the quality, control-adherence, and inpainting evaluations of Tables 2–4; if the gaps persist, the paradigm attribution holds, and if they shrink or flip, the backbone asymmetry is the real cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, under identical data, identical training configurations, and a similar transformer backbone, the modeling paradigm alone produces a consistent fingerprint of differences. Auto-regressive decoding reaches slightly better perceptual quality—best FAD, production complexity, and content enjoyment at every tested latent frame rate (e.g., FAD 0.40 vs 0.42 at 25 Hz)—and tracks temporally-aligned controls much more faithfully than flow-matching, e.g., chord IoU 0.57 vs 0.33 and melody similarity 0.41 vs 0.32 with all controls active. Flow-matching counters with better flexibility: supervised FM produces the smoothest and most coherent inpaintings by human judgment (transition smoothness 8.11 vs 7.57 for AR), and FM inference is faster on a single A100 in most cases, with AR only overtaking it at batch sizes of 64+ for sequences up to 20 seconds. FM also reaches near-topline FAD with smaller training batches when the update budget is fixed, but it needs 50+ Euler steps or the adaptive Dopri5 solver to close the quality gap with AR. The conclusion is that these trade-offs are properties of how tokens are predicted, not byproducts of data scale or architecture choices.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the measured differences stem from the modeling paradigm assumes the AR and FM backbones are effectively matched, but the FM model carries about seven million extra parameters in U-Net-like skip connections that were kept because they notably improved FM results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A practitioner choosing AR can expect slightly better audio quality and tighter chord and melody control, at the cost of slower inference unless the service runs large batches.
  • FM is the better default for low-latency or single-sample generation, and a supervised FM model gives the smoothest, most coherent audio inpainting.
  • Latent frame rate affects quality more than raw sequence length, so the audio codec and the generation paradigm should be designed jointly rather than separately.
  • With a capped training budget (500k updates), FM reaches near-topline FAD with batch size 32+, while AR needs a larger token budget per update to match, making FM the more budget-friendly choice.
  • A text-to-music FM model can perform zero-shot inpainting by latent inversion, but the results are unstable across samples and require per-sample hyperparameter search.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's attribution of the differences to the modeling paradigm is cleaved by its own design choice: the FM backbone carries about 7M extra parameters in U-Net-like skip connections that were added because they helped. A matched re-run with skip connections removed from FM (or added to AR) would show how much of the FM result is architectural rather than paradigmatic.
  • AR's sharper control adherence hints that causal structure suits temporally-aligned conditioning; a testable extension is to give FM an explicit alignment mask or cross-attention over control tokens, which could close the chord-IoU gap without changing the paradigm.
  • The paper's entropy analysis points to a conditional-AR failure mode: obeying a control can push sampling onto low-probability paths that degrade realism. Multi-source classifier-free guidance, which the paper names as future work, is the direct test.
  • The complementary strengths—AR for structure and control, FM for speed and editing—invite a hybrid or cascaded pipeline, and the matched setup in this paper supplies the benchmark for measuring whether such a combination beats either pure paradigm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents a controlled empirical comparison of auto-regressive (AR) decoding and conditional flow matching (FM) for text-to-music generation. All models are trained from scratch on the same proprietary dataset, using the same EnCodec latent representation, similar transformer backbones, and matched training configurations. The authors evaluate generation quality, temporally aligned control adherence, music inpainting, inference efficiency, and sensitivity to training configuration, concluding that AR yields slightly higher perceptual quality and better control adherence, while FM provides faster inference in most cases and superior supervised inpainting. A human study for inpainting and a public sample page support the reported results.

Significance. If the attribution to the modeling paradigm were fully supported, this would be a valuable reference for practitioners choosing between AR and FM for music generation, an area where controlled comparisons are rare. The study is carefully designed in many respects: it fixes data, model size, and latent representation; covers multiple frame rates; and evaluates a broad range of metrics, including a human listening study. However, the central attribution is weakened by an acknowledged architectural asymmetry (FM's U-Net-like skip connections) and by the absence of uncertainty estimates for close objective differences. These issues are fixable with additional experiments or more careful framing, so the paper represents a useful contribution conditional on that revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Tables 3–5] The matched-backbone premise is violated by the U-Net-like skip connections added to the FM model. The text states that these connections "had a notable impact on performance during preliminary experimentation" and add ~7M parameters, while the AR model receives no equivalent modification. Because the central claim is that the modeling paradigm is the primary cause of the observed differences, FM's advantages in Tables 3–5 (especially supervised inpainting) could be driven by these skip connections rather than by flow matching itself. The Section 6 limitation sentence does not resolve this problem: the abstract and Table 1 state paradigm-level conclusions without a matched-backbone ablation. Please provide an ablation (e.g., FM without skip connections, or AR with an analogous local-context path) or substantially reframe the conclusions to attribute the differences to the combined paradigm-plus-architecture choices.
  2. [§5.1, Table 2] The paper reports close objective scores (e.g., FAD 0.40 vs 0.42, CLAP 0.41 vs 0.39 at 25 Hz) without confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple seeds. These differences are small relative to typical FAD variance, so the "slight favor toward AR" may not be robust. This matters because the abstract and Table 1 rely on that qualitative ordering. Please add variance estimates across seeds or repeated evaluations, or explicitly state that the ordering is not statistically tested and should be treated as a trend.
  3. [§5.3, Algorithm 2] The supervised FM inpainting procedure re-injects the unmasked ground-truth latent at every Euler step, whereas the AR fill-in-the-middle model receives the unmasked context only once at the prompt. This algorithmic asymmetry, independent of the modeling paradigm, likely contributes to FM's smoother transitions in Table 5. The paper should either train or execute a more comparable AR baseline (e.g., iteratively re-injecting the context) or explicitly discuss this asymmetry as a limitation on the conclusion that FM is better at inpainting.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§2] "JukeBox" is spelled inconsistently; please use "Jukebox" or "JukeBox" consistently throughout the text and references.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] "apperent" is a typographical error; it should be "apparent".
  3. [§5.4] The sentence "To further expand this observation we we a small ablation study" is missing a verb and has a doubled "we"; it should read "we conducted a small ablation study."
  4. [§5.4] "degrades with for longer sequences" should be "degrades for longer sequences".
  5. [§6] The phrase "acontrollability–fidelitytrade-offundertemporally-alignedconditioning" is missing spaces; it should be "a controllability–fidelity trade-off under temporally-aligned conditioning."
  6. [Appendix E.2] "mean std" is ambiguous; please specify whether it is the mean of per-dimension standard deviations or a global scalar standard deviation, since the normalization formula uses a single scalar.
  7. [References] The mir_eval reference is malformed: it appears to merge two entries and lacks the complete venue and page information; please split or correct it.
  8. [Table 5 caption] Please report the number of unique raters and the number of stimuli per cell, not just the total number of judgments, so that the confidence intervals can be interpreted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AR-vs-FM conclusions are measured empirical outcomes, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparative study rather than a derivation chain. The headline conclusions (AR offers slightly higher perceptual quality and stronger temporally-aligned control adherence, while FM provides faster inference and better supervised inpainting) are supported by objective metrics and human ratings measured on held-out evaluations, not by equations whose outputs are equal to fitted inputs. The self-citations to Tal et al. (2024) are used as prior-art recipes (tau-dependent loss scaling, JASCO temporal-conditioning channels, blurring for drum controls); they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems, and the comparison does not stand or fall on accepting them. The admitted backbone asymmetry (U-Net-like skip connections added to FM because they "had a notable impact on performance during preliminary experimentation") is a genuine threat to the causal attribution that the modeling paradigm alone produces the observed differences, and the paper's Section 6 limitation statement acknowledges that architectural innovations could yield different results. However, this is a validity/confounding concern, not circularity: the FM results are measured outputs, and the skip connections are not fitted parameters later renamed as paradigm predictions. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing claim is established solely by self-citation. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity; the low score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of domain assumptions about the fairness of the comparison (matched representation and backbone) and the reliability of the metrics and eval set. No new objects are postulated; the free parameters are inference and preprocessing choices that could affect the measured differences.

free parameters (6)
  • Classifier-free guidance scale = Searched over {1.0, 2.0, ..., 9.0}; best per model
    Used for both AR and FM at inference; affects quality and control adherence (Appendix D).
  • AR sampling temperature = Searched over {1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8}
    Controls diversity in AR decoding; selected per model.
  • AR top-p / top-k = top-p in {0.6, 0.8}; top-k in {250, 500}
    Truncation sampling for AR; selected per model.
  • Number of FM Euler steps = 10, 25, 50, 200; main experiments use 50 or Dopri5
    Determines speed-quality trade-off for FM; 10 steps yields much worse FAD.
  • EnCodec latent normalization statistics = Mean and mean-std computed on 2048 random 10s segments
    Preprocessing for FM continuous latent; data-derived constants (Appendix E.2).
  • FM loss scaling (1+tau) = 1+tau, tau sampled uniformly
    Training objective modification from Tal et al. 2024; chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Flow matching with linear OT path is an appropriate generative model for music latents
    Used in Section 3.3, following Lipman et al. 2022.
  • domain assumption EnCodec discrete and continuous latents provide equivalent information for the generative comparison
    Section 4.2 uses the same EnCodec encoder for both paradigms, assuming the representation space is adequately matched.
  • domain assumption The proprietary evaluation set is more reliable than MusicCaps for detecting subtle differences
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A justify excluding MusicCaps from main evaluation.
  • ad hoc to paper U-Net skip connections in FM do not confound the paradigm comparison
    Section 4.2 adds skip connections to FM backbone, noting they had notable impact on performance.
  • domain assumption Objective metrics (FAD, CLAP, AudioBox Aesthetics) are valid proxies for perceptual quality
    Used throughout Section 5; human study only for inpainting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Auto-Regressive vs Flow-Matching: a Comparative Study of Modeling Paradigms for Text-to-Music Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JLZVCZET

@misc{pith2026250608570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Auto-Regressive vs Flow-Matching: a Comparative Study of Modeling Paradigms for Text-to-Music Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JLZVCZET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08570}
}
read the original abstract

Recent progress in text-to-music generation has enabled models to synthesize high-quality musical segments, full compositions, and even respond to fine-grained control signals, e.g. chord progressions. State-of-the-art (SOTA) systems differ significantly in many dimensions, such as training datasets, modeling paradigms, and architectural choices. This diversity complicates efforts to evaluate models fairly and identify which design choices influence performance the most. While factors like data and architecture are important, in this study we focus exclusively on the modeling paradigm. We conduct a systematic empirical analysis to isolate its effects, offering insights into associated trade-offs and emergent behaviors that can guide future text-to-music generation systems. Specifically, we compare the two arguably most common modeling paradigms: auto-regressive decoding and conditional flow-matching. We conduct a controlled comparison by training all models from scratch using identical datasets, training configurations, and similar backbone architectures. Performance is evaluated across multiple axes, including generation quality, robustness to inference configurations, scalability, adherence to both textual and temporally aligned conditioning, and editing capabilities in the form of audio inpainting. This comparative study sheds light on distinct strengths and limitations of each paradigm, providing actionable insights that can inform future architectural and training decisions in the evolving landscape of text-to-music generation. Audio sampled examples are available at: https://huggingface.co/spaces/ortal1602/ARvsFM

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-stream delay pattern modeling. Each row represents a single codebook (CB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal Conditioning Injection. τi denotes the temporal index in the sequence. In the auto￾regressive case we apply a delayed concatenation where the conditions are stacked and concatenated over the channel axis one timestep prior to timestep they correspond to. 4.5 Temporally Aligned Conditioning Following the official release of Jasco (Tal et al., 2024), we explore conditioning using temporally aligned controls, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FM performance as a function of inference steps using Euler’s method. Decreasing the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation results of FM (EnCodec) across varying frame rates (FR) and durations (Dur) - isolating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inference speed versus batch size for 10 sec segments. Left: throughput; right: latency. The "Sample" unit refers to a complete generated 10 sec example. AR gains steadily from KV caching, whereas FM plateaus after batch size 8. Euler’s method using 10 steps is the fas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured latency for fixed batch size and extending sequence duration. Backbone contains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Measured latency for fixed batch size and extending sequence duration. Backbone contains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Objective scores after 500k updates as a function of batch size and segment duration. Both paradigms improve with more tokens per update step, but AR is more sensitive to the change. would explore these axes to more comprehensively assess the strengths and limitations …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average entropy of the AR decoder as a function of sampling step. Conditioning lowers entropy in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Observing the impact of incrementing the number of transformer layers on latency. Column shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text

    Andrea Agostinelli, Timo I Denk, Zalán Borsos, Jesse Engel, Mauro Verzetti, Antoine Caillon, Qingqing Huang, Aren Jansen, Adam Roberts, Marco Tagliasacchi, et al. Musiclm: Generating music from text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    To better isolate the runtime overheads, we discard cross attention layers (that can’t use KV-cache) and replace the AR softmax + top-p sampling with argmax sampling

    K Empirical observation over GPU-Memory utilization To better capture the the model size - AR inference speed tradeoff presented in Section 5.4, we perform a controlled ablation study, considering[2, 4, 8, 16, 24] transformer layers in the backbone models in order to observe the tradoff transitioning trends. To better isolate the runtime overheads, we dis...

    work page 2025

  3. [6]

    High fidelity neural audio compression

    Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Yossi Adi. High fidelity neural audio compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13438,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Juke- box: A generative model for music.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341,

    Prafulla Dhariwal, Heewoo Jun, Christine Payne, Jong Wook Kim, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. Juke- box: A generative model for music.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341,

    arXiv 2005

  5. [10]

    Deep Learning for Music

    Allen Huang and Raymond Wu. Deep learning for music.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04930,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fr\’echet audio distance: A metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08466,

    Kevin Kilgour, Mauricio Zuluaga, Dominik Roblek, and Matthew Sharifi. Fr\’echet audio distance: A metric for evaluating music enhancement algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08466,

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    High fidelity text-guided music editing via single-stage flow matching

    Gael Le Lan, Bowen Shi, Zhaoheng Ni, Sidd Srinivasan, Anurag Kumar, Brian Ellis, David Kant, Varun Nagaraja, Ernie Chang, Wei-Ning Hsu, et al. High fidelity text-guided music editing via single-stage flow matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03648,

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    A survey on cross-modal interaction between music and multimodal data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12796,

    Sifei Li, Mining Tan, Feier Shen, Minyan Luo, Zijiao Yin, Fan Tang, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. A survey on cross-modal interaction between music and multimodal data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12796,

    work page arXiv

Show all 36 references
  1. [17]

    Flowmatchingguideandcode

    YaronLipman, MartonHavasi, PeterHolderrieth, NetaShaul, MattLe, BrianKarrer, RickyTQChen, David Lopez-Paz, HeliBen-Hamu, andItaiGat. Flowmatchingguideandcode. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06264,

    arXiv

  2. [18]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437,

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437,

    arXiv

  3. [21]

    Mir_eval: Atransparentimplementationofcommonmirmetrics

    Colin Raffel, Brian McFee, Eric J Humphrey, Justin Salamon, Oriol Nieto, Dawen Liang, Daniel PW Ellis, andCColinRaffel. Mir_eval: Atransparentimplementationofcommonmirmetrics. In ISMIR,volume10, pp. 2014,

    2014

  4. [22]

    Jamendomaxcaps: A large scale music- caption dataset with imputed metadata.arXiv:2502.07461,

    Abhinaba Roy, Renhang Liu, Tongyu Lu, and Dorien Herremans. Jamendomaxcaps: A large scale music- caption dataset with imputed metadata.arXiv:2502.07461,

    arXiv

  5. [23]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

    2010 arXiv

  6. [24]

    Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally controlled text-to-music generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10970,

    Or Tal, Alon Ziv, Itai Gat, Felix Kreuk, and Yossi Adi. Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally controlled text-to-music generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10970,

    arXiv

  7. [25]

    Meta audiobox aesthetics: Unified automatic quality assessment for speech, music, and sound.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05139,

    Andros Tjandra, Yi-Chiao Wu, Baishan Guo, John Hoffman, Brian Ellis, Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Sanyuan Chen, Matt Le, Nick Zacharov, et al. Meta audiobox aesthetics: Unified automatic quality assessment for speech, music, and sound.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05139,

    arXiv

  8. [27]

    Audiobox: Unified audio generation with natural language prompts

    Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Matthew Le, Andros Tjandra, Yi-Chiao Wu, Baishan Guo, Jiemin Zhang, Xinyue Zhang, Robert Adkins, William Ngan, et al. Audiobox: Unified audio generation with natural language prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15821,

    arXiv

  9. [29]

    A survey of ai music generation tools and models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12982,

    Yueyue Zhu, Jared Baca, Banafsheh Rekabdar, and Reza Rawassizadeh. A survey of ai music generation tools and models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12982,

    arXiv

  10. [30]

    19 Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025) A Dataset specifications To date, publicly available human-annotated text-to-music data is limited in terms of quantity, audio-quality, genre diversity and paired textual description quality. To the best of ou...

    2019

  11. [31]

    model. For each data sample, we first encode it to it’s corresponding pre- quantization continuous representation using a pretrained EnCodec model that operates in the expected latent representation frame rate. We then perform temporal blurring (Tal et al., 2024), averaging ev...

    2023

  12. [32]

    open source recipe12, training with a latent KL divergence constraint w.r.tN (0,I ), without any quantization performed during training. We train{25, 50, 100}[Hz] latent frequency variants for each model, training for400k steps using AdamW optimizer with a learning rate of3· 1...

    2023

  13. [33]

    For the FM case we perform slight modifications similarly to Tal et al

    to obtain text embeddings and pass them via cross-attention layers as text conditions. For the FM case we perform slight modifications similarly to Tal et al. (2024) and include U-Net-like skip connections. With2N being the number of transformer decoder blocks, we add skip-con...

    2024

  14. [34]

    The results show a similar trend to Table 2 where AR performs better than FM in most cases, where there is less consistency regarding the representation used for FM or the degradation of performance as frame rate increases. As shown in Appendix B, MusicCaps suffers from high v...

    2025

  15. [35]

    may mitigate this effect, and we leave that for future work. J Inpainting algorithms In the fine-tuning case of AR decoding, we need to introduce3 new tokens (<a>, <b>, <c>) in order to partition the source latent representation to3 segments: A,B,C. B is the segment to be inpa...

    2025

  16. [1956]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952,

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952,

    arXiv

  17. [1980]

    Stable audio open

    Zach Evans, Julian D Parker, CJ Carr, Zack Zukowski, Josiah Taylor, and Jordi Pons. Stable audio open. In ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5. IEEE,

    2025

  18. [1999]

    Tunes by technology: A comprehensive survey of music generation models

    18 Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025) Mohammed Johar Pathariya, Pratyush Basavraj Jalkote, Aniket Maharudra Patil, Abhishek Ashok Sutar, and Rajashree L Ghule. Tunes by technology: A comprehensive survey of music generation models. In 2024 Interna...

    2025

  19. [2016]

    Music transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04281,

    17 Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025) Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Ashish Vaswani, Jakob Uszkoreit, Noam Shazeer, Ian Simon, Curtis Hawthorne, Andrew M Dai, Matthew D Hoffman, Monica Dinculescu, and Douglas Eck. Music transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04281,

    2025 arXiv

  20. [2017]

    The mtg-jamendo dataset for automatic music tagging

    16 Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (09/2025) Dmitry Bogdanov, Minz Won, Philip Tovstogan, Alastair Porter, and Xavier Serra. The mtg-jamendo dataset for automatic music tagging. InMachine Learning for Music Discovery Workshop, International Conference on...

    2025

  21. [2018]

    Multiplicity of periodic bouncing solutions for generalized impact hamiltonian systems

    Delong Huang and Fei Guo. Multiplicity of periodic bouncing solutions for generalized impact hamiltonian systems. Boundary Value Problems, 2019(1):57,

    2019

  22. [2019]

    Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models

    Qingqing Huang, Daniel S Park, Tao Wang, Timo I Denk, Andy Ly, Nanxin Chen, Zhengdong Zhang, Zhishuai Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Christian Frank, et al. Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03917,

    arXiv

  23. [2020]

    Evolving four-part harmony using genetic algorithms

    Patrick Donnelly and John Sheppard. Evolving four-part harmony using genetic algorithms. InApplications of Evolutionary Computation: EvoApplications 2011: EvoCOMNET, EvoFIN, EvoHOT, EvoMUSART, EvoSTIM, and EvoTRANSLOG, Torino, Italy, April 27-29, 2011, Proceedings, Part II, pp...

    2011

  24. [2021]

    Diffusion based text-to-music generation with global and local text based conditioning

    Jisi Zhang, Pablo Peso Parada, Md Asif Jalal, and Karthikeyan Saravanan. Diffusion based text-to-music generation with global and local text based conditioning. In ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5. IEEE,

    2025

  25. [2022]

    Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies

    Ke Chen, Yusong Wu, Haohe Liu, Marianna Nezhurina, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Shlomo Dubnov. Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro...

    2024

  26. [2023]

    Seed-music: A unified framework for high quality and controlled music generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09214,

    Ye Bai, Haonan Chen, Jitong Chen, Zhuo Chen, Yi Deng, Xiaohong Dong, Lamtharn Hantrakul, Weituo Hao, Qingqing Huang, Zhongyi Huang, et al. Seed-music: A unified framework for high quality and controlled music generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09214,

    arXiv

  27. [2024]

    Efficient training of language models to fill in the middle.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14255,

    Mohammad Bavarian, Heewoo Jun, Nikolas Tezak, John Schulman, Christine McLeavey, Jerry Tworek, and Mark Chen. Efficient training of language models to fill in the middle.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.14255,

    arXiv

  28. [2025]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.