Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 62 references

RPPNet claims that replacing fixed bars with perceptually grouped variable-length rhythm-pitch primitives improves the long-term structure and musicality of generated melodies, and that the gain is due to the perceptual grouping, not model

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:43 UTC pith:7ZPOI24D

load-bearing objection RPPNet sells a genuinely new variable-length, psychology-flavored structural unit, but the paper never specifies W(·), and that gap keeps the core perceptual claim from being testable. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19776 v1 pith:7ZPOI24D submitted 2026-07-22 cs.SD cs.AI

RPPNet: Perceptually-Grouped Rhythm-Pitch Primitives for Long-Term Structure Melody Generation via Boundary-Aware Modeling

Tieyao Zhang , Yuke Liu , Jiaxing Yu , Xinda Wu , Kejun Zhang , Genfang Chen This is my paper
classification cs.SD cs.AI
keywords melody generationrhythm-pitch primitiveperceptual groupingsymbolic musichierarchical Transformerstructure modelingmusic psychologydynamic programming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Fixed bars are a poor proxy for how listeners chunk music, so melody generators built on bar-level units tend to produce structurally fragmented long-term output. RPPNet addresses this by generating a sequence of Rhythm-Pitch Primitives (RPPs)—short variable-length groups of at most three notes—whose boundaries are chosen automatically from acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity. A two-stage Transformer first plans the RPP sequence, then expands each primitive into concrete notes via a time-scale expansion mapping. In listening tests, RPPNet outperformed fixed-bar baselines on coherence, rhythmicity, structure, and overall impression, and an ablation with randomly grouped primitives showed the gain comes from the perceptual grouping semantics, not from variable segmentation alone. The residual gap to human-composed music, especially in rhythmic-pattern fidelity, points to where further work is needed.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a hierarchical melody-generation model whose structural units are perceptually grounded variable-length rhythm-pitch primitives—rather than notated bars—produces melodies listeners rate as more coherent, more rhythmic, better structured, and better overall than those of fixed-bar-level baselines. The authors trace the improvement to the grouping rules themselves: replacing them with random groups of the same length distribution degrades every rating dimension significantly.

What carries the argument

The Rhythm-Pitch Primitive (RPP) is the paper's central object: a chunk of one to three notes described by note count, a rhythmic pattern (five categories such as iambic and trochaic), and a melodic contour (ascending, descending, undulating). RPP boundaries are formed by a dynamic-programming algorithm that maximizes a structural weight function W(·) over possible chunks, the function encoding metrical position, duration, and syncopation. The architecture then splits generation into an RPP-level Transformer that predicts the global primitive sequence and a Note-level Transformer that expands each primitive into notes, with decoupled serial prediction and a time-scale expansion mapping keepi

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central premise is that its dynamic-programming grouping weight function W(·) really captures acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity so that the resulting variable-length units match how human listeners chunk phrases; the paper neither specifies W(·) fully nor validates the boundaries against human annotations.

What would settle it

If a listener study were run in which human annotators marked phrase boundaries on a set of melodies and agreement with RPPNet's automatic boundaries was no better than chance, the perceptual grounding claim would be falsified even though the generated melodies might still be preferred. Alternatively, a blind listening test giving randomly grouped variable-length sequences the same length distribution and training budget would, if it scored equal to RPPNet, falsify the claim that the gain stems from perceptual grouping.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Generative models for symbolic music can be built on perceptually motivated variable-length units instead of bars, potentially reducing long-term fragmentation.
  • The two-stage decoupling (structure first, details second) offers a natural control knob for form and motivic development.
  • The automatic grouping algorithm can produce phrase-like annotations for training data without human labels.
  • The ablation indicates structural semantics, not sequence-length variability, drive the quality gain.
  • The distributional analysis singles out rhythmic patterns as the weakest-learned attribute, suggesting a concrete target for future loss design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not specify the weight function W(·) except by reference to the repository, and it reports no validation of RPP boundaries against human phrase annotations; a direct test of boundary agreement would either support or undermine the perceptual-grounding claim.
  • The same chunking principle may transfer to other temporal sequence domains where fixed tokenization misaligns with perceived units, such as speech prosody or gesture segmentation.
  • Extending RPPs to polyphonic music would require rethinking the at-most-three-notes constraint, since chords and simultaneous voices do not collapse into monophonic primitives.
  • A stricter test of the perceptual claim would be a forced-choice listening experiment pitting RPPNet against fixed-bar outputs matched for pitch content, to rule out low-level acoustic differences.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. RPPNet is a two-stage Transformer for monophonic melody generation. The first stage generates a sequence of Rhythm-Pitch Primitives (RPPs), variable-length units of 1–3 notes obtained by a dynamic-programming segmentation heuristic; the second stage decodes each RPP into MIDI notes via a time-scale expansion mapping. The segmentation is claimed to operationalize acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity perception. Subjective listening tests (15 raters, four dimensions) show RPPNet significantly outperforming Museformer and MELONS, while an ablation with randomly grouped RPPs is significantly worse. RPPNet with ground-truth RPPs performs comparably to RPPNet. Objective PPL/SE are reported only for the ablation, not for the external baselines. The paper's causal claim that the performance gain comes from the psychological validity of the RPP grouping depends on the unspecified weight function W(·) and is not validated against human phrase-boundary annotations.

Significance. If the perception-driven grouping claim could be substantiated, the paper would make a useful contribution: it proposes a compact hierarchical representation with explicit variable-length structure, a clean two-stage decoder, and a controlled random-grouping ablation. The subjective comparison is meaningfully designed and the RPPNet-Real condition is a sensible sanity check. However, as submitted, the perceptual foundation is not demonstrated: the manuscript defers the definition of W(·) to a repository and provides no validation against human phrase-boundary annotations. The central novelty therefore rests on an unverified assumption. The paper also ships code on GitHub, which is an asset for reproducibility, but the manuscript text must stand on its own.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Algorithm 1, footnote 2] The paper's core claim—that the performance gain comes from 'the structural correctness of the psychological representation' (§5.2)—rests entirely on the weight function W(·) used in Algorithm 1. The manuscript does not define W; footnote 2 refers to a repository. It also reports no validation of RPP boundaries against human phrase-boundary annotations. The random-grouping ablation (Table 3) only shows that the heuristic outperforms random segmentation; random segmentation is an arbitrary control and cannot establish that W captures acoustic cues, auditory inertia, or similarity perception. This is load-bearing: if W is arbitrary, the perceptual claim collapses, even if the generated music is preferred. Please (a) specify W completely in the paper or appendix, and (b) validate RPP boundaries against human-annotated phrase boundaries (e.g., GTTM-informed annotations or listener boundary a
  2. [§4.3.1, Tables 1 and 3] Objective PPL/SE are reported only for RPPNet versus RPPNet-Random-Grouped. Museformer and MELONS are excluded because PPL requires a consistent vocabulary, but the central comparison in §5.3 therefore rests entirely on one subjective listening test with 15 participants. The abstract and §5.3 claim superiority over baselines; this is not backed by any objective structural measure. The subjective protocol itself is under-specified: no details are given on the number of ratings per melody, the statistical test used, multiple-comparison correction, or inter-rater agreement. Please either report objective metrics for the baselines in a compatible tokenization (or at least structural statistics such as repetition/self-similarity), and/or document the subjective protocol fully so the reader can assess reliability.
  3. [§3.2.1, Eq. (1)] The RPP-level token is defined as v_i = {b_i, p_i, d_i, r_i, m_i}, where b_i is the measure index. Eq. (1) factorizes the probability as P(pos_t | h<t) P(d_t, r_t, m_t | h<t, pos_t), omitting b_t. Since note-level decoding uses T_start = b_i R_bar + p_i (§3.3.2), the model must generate b_i or pos_t must encode both bar and metrical position. The notation is ambiguous; if b_i is derived from the cumulative durations of previous RPPs, this should be stated explicitly and Eq. (1) corrected. This is a load-bearing point: the strict alignment claim depends on a well-defined temporal position variable.
  4. [§4.2, RPPNet-Random-Grouped] The random-grouping ablation aligns the length distribution, but it does not control for the internal attribute distribution of the resulting RPPs (rhythm-pattern and contour categories). Since W(·) is not specified, the reader cannot determine whether the ablation controls for the perceptual scoring or merely for a particular distribution of RPP types. Please report the attribute distributions of the random-grouped units and, if possible, add an ablation that preserves the marginal distribution of RPP attributes while destroying boundary order, so the effect can be attributed to grouping semantics rather than to unit-type frequencies.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§4.2 and §4.3.2] These sections contain a nearly identical paragraph on exclusions of MelodyGLM and PhraseLDM; remove the duplicate.
  2. [Table 3, §4.3.1] SE is called 'Structural Error' in the text but 'structural entropy of Rhythmic Pattern Primitives' in the table footnote; define SE mathematically and use the term consistently.
  3. [§5.2] 'structural quality also approaching non-significance (6.77 vs. 6.51, p=0.08)' should be 'approaching significance' or, more neutrally, 'did not reach significance.'
  4. [Table 1] 'Melons' is inconsistent with 'MELONS' used elsewhere; unify capitalization.
  5. [Eq. (1), §3.2.1] The equation uses pos_t while the token definition uses p_i and b_i; choose one notation and map the attributes explicitly.
  6. [§1] The claim of being 'the first hierarchical model to do so' should be tempered; PhraseLDM (ref. [36]) also uses phrase-level abstraction. Rephrase to emphasize the perceptually driven grouping rather than any hierarchical unit.
  7. [§4.3] Please provide training hyperparameters, model dimensions, inference decoding strategy (temperature/sampling), and compute environment in the paper or appendix.
  8. [§5.1] The Pearson correlation over 23 aggregated categories is a weak distributional comparison; report per-category errors or KL divergence as well.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the main result is an external comparison against bar-level baselines, though the perceptual-grouping attribution rests on an unspecified W (a support gap, not a circular step).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) design a heuristic RPP grouping algorithm (Algorithm 1, Section 3.1) using an unspecified weight function W(·); (2) train a two-stage Transformer on the resulting RPP/note representations; (3) evaluate against Museformer, MELONS, and a random-grouping ablation using both subjective listening and objective metrics. No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction: W(·) is a fixed heuristic, not fit to the test data, and the headline result is human ratings of generated music against external baselines. The use of MelodyNet [49] and the subjective-evaluation protocol 'Following [49]' is a self-citation, but [49] is a dataset/methodology source with overlapping authors, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or a result that presupposes the current claim. The exclusions of MelodyGLM [49] and PhraseLDM also do not smuggle in the conclusion. The closest thing to a circular step is the causal attribution in Section 5.2: 'Ablation experiments reveal that performance gains stem from the proper encoding of perceptual grouping principles.' The random-grouping ablation (Table 3 and Table 1) only demonstrates that the proposed heuristic outperforms random segmentation; it does not establish that W(·) operationalizes acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity perception, because W(·) is not fully specified in the paper ('The complete formalization of W(·) is available in the repository', footnote 2, Section 3.1) and no human phrase-boundary agreement study is reported. This is a support/validity gap, not circularity: the conclusion does not reduce to the input by construction, and the main comparison against Museformer/MELONS is independent. The objective SE metric is defined over the proposed RPP vocabulary, which may favor RPPNet, but the subjective external-baseline comparison carries the principal claim. Score 2 reflects one minor non-load-bearing self-citation; no step reaches the threshold of a fitted-input prediction or definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on W(·), the hand-defined RPP taxonomy, and the assumption that the heuristic grouping matches human perception. These are not independently verified in the paper; the most load-bearing is W(·), which is not even fully specified in the manuscript.

free parameters (3)
  • W(·) scoring weights = Not specified (repository only)
    The dynamic-programming segmentation in Algorithm 1 depends on the cumulative structural weight W(·) over candidate note groups. The manuscript defers the complete formalization to a repository, so the coefficients and rules for metrical position, duration, and syncopation are unavailable for independent scrutiny.
  • Maximum RPP length = 3 notes
    Section 3.1 states each RPP contains at most three notes. This hand-chosen cap fixes the granularity of the entire RPP vocabulary and the amount of temporal downsampling.
  • RPP attribute taxonomies = 5 rhythm patterns; 10+ contour categories
    The discrete rhythm-pattern and melodic-contour categories in Table 2 are hand-defined; they determine the RPP vocabulary and the distributional statistics reported in the paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The scoring function W(·) operationalizes acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity perception and yields RPP boundaries that match human phrase perception.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and Algorithm 1; no human-annotation validation of RPP boundaries is reported.
  • domain assumption Grouping-preference results from music psychology (Deliege; Cooper and Meyer; Lamont and Dibben) transfer to symbolic monophonic melody data and to the heuristic implementation.
    Section 2.3 cites these theories; the mapping from qualitative psychological rules to a scoring function is assumed rather than tested.
  • domain assumption Subjective 10-point ratings from 15 paid listeners are sensitive and reliable enough to support between-model comparisons.
    Section 4.3.2 reports means and p-values but no inter-rater reliability, effect sizes, or rater-level analysis.
  • domain assumption The MelodyNet dataset provides valid monophonic melodies adequate for training and benchmarking long-term structure.
    Section 4.1 describes the dataset source and count but no quality audit or validation of monophonic and melody extraction.
invented entities (1)
  • RPP (Rhythm-Pitch Primitive) no independent evidence
    purpose: Variable-length structural unit encoding note count, rhythm pattern, and melodic contour; the intermediate representation that replaces fixed bars.
    New representational construct. Its perceptual validity is inferred from cited psychology and assessed only through this paper's own subjective listening test, not against an external benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10724 in / 14883 out tokens · 128964 ms · 2026-08-01T11:43:56.121077+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing symbolic music generation models typically use bars as the basic structural unit. However, human perception of musical phrases often does not align with notated bar lines, leading to long-term structural fragmentation. This paper proposes RPPNet-a two-stage deep learning architecture with variable structural boundaries. It first generates variable-length Rhythm-Pitch Primitive (RPP) sequences, where each RPP encodes note count, rhythm, and contour; then decodes the RPP sequences into concrete notes. The grouping of RPPs is automatically derived from acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity perception based on music psychology. Experiments show that melodies generated by RPPNet are superior in both long-term structure and musicality, with significant improvements across all subjective evaluation dimensions. Ablation studies confirm that the performance gain stems from the structural correctness of the psychological representation, rather than from model capacity. This work offers an interdisciplinary perspective for music generation, integrating music theory, computational modeling, and music psychology.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In recent years, text-to-audio mod- els have achieved notable results and can generate com- plete songs, yet they do not allow fine-grained user con- trol [2–4]

    INTRODUCTION Symbolic melody generation is a core direction of gen- erative AI in art [1]. In recent years, text-to-audio mod- els have achieved notable results and can generate com- plete songs, yet they do not allow fine-grained user con- trol [2–4]. Symbolic music, in contrast, enables precise control over melody, harmony, and other elements, holding a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    It replaces fixed bar-level boundaries with flexible rhythm-pitch primitives grouped by acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity per- ception

    We propose RPPNet, a two-stage hierarchical frame- work with a novel perception-driven structural rep- resentation. It replaces fixed bar-level boundaries with flexible rhythm-pitch primitives grouped by acoustic cues, auditory inertia, and similarity per- ception

  3. [3]

    Controlled ablations demonstrate that per- formance gains stem from perceptual grouping prin- ciples rather than model capacity

    We propose an automatic grouping algorithm that derives structural boundaries without explicit anno- tations. Controlled ablations demonstrate that per- formance gains stem from perceptual grouping prin- ciples rather than model capacity

  4. [4]

    The proposed time-scale expansion mapping bridges discrete RPP events and continuous Note-level gen- eration, with decoupled serial prediction ensuring strict alignment between generated notes and the RPP sequences

  5. [5]

    Experimental results show that RPPNet outperforms existing baselines in long-term structural coherence and musicality

  6. [6]

    HMM introduce latent states to im- plicitly control token distributions [26, 27], while dynamic Bayesian networks further explicitly model deep depen- dencies [28]

    RELA TED WORK 2.1 Long Sequence Symbolic Music Generation Symbolic music generation performs algorithmic com- position by modeling discrete musical events, encoded in formats including MIDI, MusicXML, and ABC nota- tion.Early research focused on local sequential dependency modeling: N-gram Markov chains predict the next event based on joint preceding even...

  7. [7]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold,

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Fig- urnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenkoet al., “Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold,”nature, vol. 596, no. 7873, pp. 583–589, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    METHOD 3.1 Heuristic Segmentation of Rhythm-Pitch Primitive To construct cognitively grounded low-level structural units, we propose a heuristic melody segmentation algo- rithm that parses melodies into Rhythm-Pitch Primitives (RPPs), each containing at most three notes to carry local boundary information and support RPP-level generation, laying the found...

  9. [9]

    Af- ter removing non-melody tracks and incomplete data, 274,300 melodies remain, split into train/validation/test sets at a ratio of18 : 1 : 1

    EXPERIMENT 4.1 Dataset We adopt the MelodyNet dataset [49], comprising over 300,000 MIDI melodies from FreeMIDI, HookTheory, BitMIDI, MuseScore, KernScores, and Kunstderfuge. Af- ter removing non-melody tracks and incomplete data, 274,300 melodies remain, split into train/validation/test sets at a ratio of18 : 1 : 1. 4.2 Compared Models To evaluate the st...

  10. [10]

    Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation,

    J. M. J. Valanarasu, P. Oza, I. Hacihaliloglu, and V . M. Patel, “Medical transformer: Gated axial-attention for medical image segmentation,” inInternational Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2021, pp. 36–46

    2021

  11. [11]

    RESULT 5.1 Statistic Analysis To quantify RPP-level distributional fidelity, we statisti- cally compare real and generated attribute distributions, yielding a Pearson correlation of92.19%across 23 cate- gories (Table 2). Dimension-level analysis reveals strong alignment in note group (r= 0.98) and melodic contour (r= 0.90), while rhythm pattern shows the ...

  12. [12]

    Experiments confirm that this frame- work significantly outperforms existing baselines in long- term structural coherence and overall musicality

    DISCUSSION This work integrates music-psychological principles with music theory to propose RPPNet, a perception-driven structural representation for melody generation that tran- scends fixed bar-level boundaries through hierarchical de- coupled generation. Experiments confirm that this frame- work significantly outperforms existing baselines in long- ter...

  13. [13]

    A survey on deep learning for symbolic music generation: Representations, algo- rithms, evaluations, and challenges,

    S. Ji, X. Yang, and J. Luo, “A survey on deep learning for symbolic music generation: Representations, algo- rithms, evaluations, and challenges,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Simple and control- lable music generation,

    J. Copet, F. Kreuk, I. Gat, T. Remez, D. Kant, G. Syn- naeve, Y . Adi, and A. Défossez, “Simple and control- lable music generation,”Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, vol. 36, pp. 47 704–47 720, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Wavcraft: Audio editing and generation with large language models,

    J. Liang, H. Zhang, H. Liu, Y . Cao, Q. Kong, X. Liu, W. Wang, M. D. Plumbley, H. Phan, and E. Benetos, “Wavcraft: Audio editing and generation with large language models,” inICLR 2024 Workshop on LLM Agents, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=xJw7x2ZBex

    2024

  16. [16]

    Hierarchical modeling and task decomposition: break long sequence generation into multi-level subtasks for globally controllable structure

    takes retrieved thematic material as a conditional se- quence to enhance cross-segment thematic consistency. Hierarchical modeling and task decomposition: break long sequence generation into multi-level subtasks for globally controllable structure. MusicFramework [42] cap- tures repetitive patterns via hierarchical representations to support multi-level a...

  17. [17]

    Audioldm: Text-to- audio generation with latent diffusion models,

    H. Liu, Z. Chen, Y . Yuan, X. Mei, X. Liu, D. Mandic, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Audioldm: Text-to- audio generation with latent diffusion models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Deep learning for music gen- eration: Challenges and directions,

    J.-P. Briot and F. Pachet, “Deep learning for music gen- eration: Challenges and directions,”Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 981–993, 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    Music trans- former: Generating music with long-term structure,

    H. C.-Z. Anna, V . Ashish, U. Jakob, S. Ian, H. Curtis, S. Noam, D. Monica, E. Douglaset al., “Music trans- former: Generating music with long-term structure,” arXiv preprint, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    Neural speech synthesis with transformer network,

    N. Li, S. Liu, Y . Liu, S. Zhao, and M. Liu, “Neural speech synthesis with transformer network,” inPro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, vol. 33, 2019, pp. 6706–6713

    2019

  21. [21]

    Extraction of organic chemistry grammar from unsupervised learning of chemical reac- tions,

    P. Schwaller, B. Hoover, J.-L. Reymond, H. Stro- belt, and T. Laino, “Extraction of organic chemistry grammar from unsupervised learning of chemical reac- tions,”Science Advances, vol. 7, no. 15, p. eabe4166, 2021

    2021

  22. [22]

    Popmag: Pop music accompaniment generation,

    Y . Ren, J. He, X. Tan, T. Qin, Z. Zhao, and T.-Y . Liu, “Popmag: Pop music accompaniment generation,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2020, pp. 1198–1206

    2020

  23. [23]

    Computational creativ- ity and music generation systems: An introduction to the state of the art,

    F. Carnovalini and A. Rodà, “Computational creativ- ity and music generation systems: An introduction to the state of the art,”Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, p. 14, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Foundation models for music: A survey,

    Y . Ma, A. Øland, A. Ragni, B. M. Del Sette, C. Saitis, C. Donahue, C. Lin, C. Plachouras, E. Benetos, E. Sha- triet al., “Foundation models for music: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14340, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Deep learning’s shallow gains: A comparative evaluation of algorithms for automatic music generation,

    Z. Yin, F. Reuben, S. Stepney, and T. Collins, “Deep learning’s shallow gains: A comparative evaluation of algorithms for automatic music generation,”Machine Learning, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 1785–1822, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Bader,Springer Handbook of Systematic Musicol- ogy

    R. Bader,Springer Handbook of Systematic Musicol- ogy. Springer, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music genera- tion,

    B. Yu, P. Lu, R. Wang, W. Hu, X. Tan, W. Ye, S. Zhang, T. Qin, and T.-Y . Liu, “Museformer: Transformer with fine-and coarse-grained attention for music genera- tion,”Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, vol. 35, pp. 1376–1388, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Theme transformer: Symbolic music genera- tion with theme-conditioned transformer,

    Y .-J. Shih, S.-L. Wu, F. Zalkow, M. Müller, and Y .-H. Yang, “Theme transformer: Symbolic music genera- tion with theme-conditioned transformer,”IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia, vol. 25, pp. 3495–3508, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Melons: Generating melody with long-term structure using transformers and structure graph,

    Y . Zou, P. Zou, Y . Zhao, K. Zhang, R. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Melons: Generating melody with long-term structure using transformers and structure graph,” in ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2022, pp. 191–195

    2022

  30. [30]

    PopMNet: Gener- ating structured pop music melodies using neural net- works,

    J. Wu, X. Liu, X. Hu, and J. Zhu, “PopMNet: Gener- ating structured pop music melodies using neural net- works,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 286, p. 103303, 2020

    2020

  31. [31]

    G. W. Cooper, G. Cooper, and L. B. Meyer,The Rhyth- mic Structure of Music. University of Chicago press, 1963

    1963

  32. [32]

    Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff’s grouping pref- erence rules,

    I. Deliege, “Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff’s grouping pref- erence rules,”Music perception, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 325– 359, 1987

    1987

  33. [33]

    Motivic structure and the perception of similarity,

    A. Lamont and N. Dibben, “Motivic structure and the perception of similarity,”Music Perception, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 245–274, 2001

    2001

  34. [34]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  35. [35]

    Interval and contour in melody process- ing,

    J. Edworthy, “Interval and contour in melody process- ing,”Music Perception, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 375–388, 1985

    1985

  36. [36]

    Pitch and contour in music processing

    ——, “Pitch and contour in music processing.”Psy- chomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cog- nition, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 44, 1982

    1982

  37. [37]

    An experiment in musical composition,

    F. P. Brooks, A. L. Hopkins, P. G. Neumann, and W. V . Wright, “An experiment in musical composition,”IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, no. 3, pp. 175– 182, 1957

    1957

  38. [38]

    A hidden Markov model of melody production in Greek church chant,

    P. Mavromatis, “A hidden Markov model of melody production in Greek church chant,”Computing in mu- sicology: a directory of research, no. 14, pp. 93–112, 2006

    2006

  39. [39]

    HMM Analysis of Musical Structure: Identifi- cation of Latent Variables Through Topology-Sensitive Model Selection,

    ——, “HMM Analysis of Musical Structure: Identifi- cation of Latent Variables Through Topology-Sensitive Model Selection,” inInternational Conference on Mathematics and Computation in Music. Springer, 2009, pp. 205–217

    2009

  40. [40]

    K. P. Murphy,Dynamic Bayesian Networks: Represen- tation, Inference and Learning. University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, 2002

    2002

  41. [41]

    Song From PI: A Musically Plausible Network for Pop Music Gen- eration,

    H. Chu, R. Urtasun, and S. Fidler, “Song From PI: A Musically Plausible Network for Pop Music Gen- eration,” in5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24- 26, 2017, Workshop Track Proceedings. OpenRe- view.net, 2017

    2017

  42. [42]

    A Hi- erarchical Latent Variable Encoder-Decoder Model for Generating Dialogues,

    I. V . Serban, A. Sordoni, R. Lowe, L. Charlin, J. Pineau, A. C. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “A Hi- erarchical Latent Variable Encoder-Decoder Model for Generating Dialogues,” inProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA, S. Singh and S. Markovitch, Eds. AAAI Press, 2017,...

    2017

  43. [43]

    MidiNet: A Convolutional Generative Adversarial Network for Symbolic-Domain Music Generation,

    L.-C. Yang, S.-Y . Chou, and Y .-H. Yang, “MidiNet: A Convolutional Generative Adversarial Network for Symbolic-Domain Music Generation,” inProceedings of the 18th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2017, Suzhou, China, October 23-27, 2017, S. J. Cunningham, Z. Duan, X. Hu, and D. Turnbull, Eds., 2017, pp. 324–331

    2017

  44. [44]

    Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context,

    Z. Dai, Z. Yang, Y . Yang, J. G. Carbonell, Q. Le, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context,” inProceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 2978–2988

    2019

  45. [45]

    Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transform- ers with linear attention,

    A. Katharopoulos, A. Vyas, N. Pappas, and F. Fleuret, “Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transform- ers with linear attention,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 5156–5165

    2020

  46. [46]

    Lerdahl and R

    F. Lerdahl and R. S. Jackendoff,A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, Reissue, with a New Preface. MIT press, 1996

    1996

  47. [47]

    Miditok: A python pack- age for midi file tokenization,

    N. Fradet, J.-P. Briot, F. Chhel, A. E. F. Seghrouchni, and N. Gutowski, “Miditok: A python pack- age for midi file tokenization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17202, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    PhraseV AE and PhraseLDM: La- tent Diffusion for Full-Song Multitrack Symbolic Mu- sic Generation,

    L. Ou and Y . Wang, “PhraseV AE and PhraseLDM: La- tent Diffusion for Full-Song Multitrack Symbolic Mu- sic Generation,”CoRR, vol. abs/2512.11348, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    PhraseLDM [36] is excluded due to its re- liance on explicit phrase annotations unavailable in Melo- dyNet

    is excluded as its pretrain-finetune paradigm in- troduces a confounding variable unrelated to boundary design. PhraseLDM [36] is excluded due to its re- liance on explicit phrase annotations unavailable in Melo- dyNet. The ablation baseline RPPNet-Random-Grouped isolates perceptual semantics from variable-length group- ing alone, enabling a controlled co...

  50. [50]

    Byte pair encoding for symbolic music,

    N. Fradet, N. Gutowski, F. Chhel, and J.-P. Briot, “Byte pair encoding for symbolic music,” inProceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2023, pp. 2001–2020

    2023

  51. [51]

    The Jazz Transformer on the Front Line: Exploring the Shortcomings of AI- composed Music through Quantitative Measures,

    S.-L. Wu and Y .-H. Yang, “The Jazz Transformer on the Front Line: Exploring the Shortcomings of AI- composed Music through Quantitative Measures,” in Proceedings of the 21th International Society for Mu- sic Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2020, Montreal, Canada, October 11-16, 2020, J. Cumming, J. H. Lee, B. McFee, M. Schedl, J. Devaney, C. McKa...

    2020

  52. [52]

    Musicbert: Symbolic music understanding with large- scale pre-training,

    M. Zeng, X. Tan, R. Wang, Z. Ju, T. Qin, and T.-Y . Liu, “Musicbert: Symbolic music understanding with large- scale pre-training,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 2021, pp. 791–800

    2021

  53. [53]

    Structure-enhanced pop music generation via harmony-aware learning,

    X. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Qiu, L. Wang, and J. Zhou, “Structure-enhanced pop music generation via harmony-aware learning,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2022, pp. 1204–1213

    2022

  54. [54]

    The power of fragmen- tation: A hierarchical transformer model for struc- tural segmentation in symbolic music generation,

    G. Wu, S. Liu, and X. Fan, “The power of fragmen- tation: A hierarchical transformer model for struc- tural segmentation in symbolic music generation,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Lan- guage Processing, vol. 31, pp. 1409–1420, 2023

    2023

  55. [55]

    Controllable deep melody generation via hierarchi- cal music structure representation,

    S. Dai, Z. Jin, C. Gomes, and R. B. Dannenberg, “Controllable deep melody generation via hierarchi- cal music structure representation,” inProceedings of the 22nd International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2021, Online, November 7-12, 2021, J. H. Lee, A. Lerch, Z. Duan, J. Nam, P. Rao, P. van Kranenburg, and A. Srinivasamurthy...

    2021

  56. [56]

    A theme music genera- tion model based on hybrid variational autoencoders and conditional generative adversarial networks,

    F. Jin, P. Li, and X. Wu, “A theme music genera- tion model based on hybrid variational autoencoders and conditional generative adversarial networks,”En- gineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 161, p. 112131, 2025

    2025

  57. [57]

    Introduction to Schenke- rian analysis,

    A. Forte and S. E. Gilbert, “Introduction to Schenke- rian analysis,”(No Title), 1982

    1982

  58. [58]

    Processing of hierarchical syntactic structure in music,

    S. Koelsch, M. Rohrmeier, R. Torrecuso, and S. Jentschke, “Processing of hierarchical syntactic structure in music,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 38, pp. 15 443– 15 448, 2013

    2013

  59. [59]

    Implicit learning and acquisition of music,

    M. Rohrmeier and P. Rebuschat, “Implicit learning and acquisition of music,”Topics in cognitive science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 525–553, 2012

    2012

  60. [60]

    Compound word transformer: Learning to compose full-song music over dynamic directed hypergraphs,

    W.-Y . Hsiao, J.-Y . Liu, Y .-C. Yeh, and Y .-H. Yang, “Compound word transformer: Learning to compose full-song music over dynamic directed hypergraphs,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial In- telligence, vol. 35, 2021, pp. 178–186

    2021

  61. [61]

    MelodyGLM: Multi-task Pre- training for Symbolic Melody Generation,

    X. Wu, Z. Huang, K. Zhang, J. Yu, X. Tan, T. Zhang, Z. Wang, and L. Sun, “MelodyGLM: Multi-task Pre- training for Symbolic Melody Generation,”CoRR, vol. abs/2309.10738, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Survey on the evaluation of generative models in music,

    A. Lerch, C. Arthur, N. Bryan-Kinns, C. Ford, Q. Sun, and A. Vinay, “Survey on the evaluation of generative models in music,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 58, no. 4, Oct. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3769106

    work page doi:10.1145/3769106 2025