Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Pretrained context-aware embeddings can rank expressive MIDI piano performances in line with human ratings, and kernel-based distances built on them detect contextual distortions that note-level attribute metrics miss—without requiring note

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

2026-07-31 23:12 UTC pith:JXXDY5NW

load-bearing objection Useful evaluation tooling for expressive MIDI, but the perceptual-proxy claim rests on a small listening study with overlapping CIs; the perturbation experiments are the strongest part. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27909 v1 pith:JXXDY5NW submitted 2026-07-30 cs.SD cs.LG

Integrating Contextual Embeddings into Evaluation of Expressive MIDI Piano Performances

Dmitrii Gavrilev , Ilya Borovik , Vladimir Viro This is my paper
classification cs.SD cs.LG
keywords expressive piano performanceMIDI evaluationcontextual embeddingsKernel Music DistanceKernel Performance Distancemaximum mean discrepancyalignment-free metricshuman perception
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.

This paper argues that the usual way of evaluating expressive MIDI piano performances—correlating note-level attributes like timing, velocity, and duration—misses how notes depend on each other. To fix that, it tests whether embeddings from self-supervised symbolic-music models can serve as perceptual proxies, and introduces two alignment-free distributional metrics, Kernel Music Distance and Kernel Performance Distance. In a listening study, the new metrics agree with human naturalness and expression ratings about as well as attribute correlations do, while also responding to contextual corruptions that attribute metrics ignore. If right, these deep-feature metrics give generative and rendering researchers a single scalar that captures both fidelity and diversity without requiring note-wise alignment.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that chunk-level, pooled embeddings from pretrained symbolic-music models carry enough perceptual information to rank generated MIDI piano performances roughly as well as traditional attribute correlations. Concretely, Kernel Performance Distance with CLaMP3 embeddings reaches a Kendall tau-B of 0.44 for naturalness, within the 0.43–0.48 range of per-attribute Pearson correlations, while Aria embeddings reach 0.51 after Relative Mahalanobis post-processing. The authors also show that kernel-based metrics respond to contextual perturbations—such as transferring velocities from one performance to another—that leave attribute correlations nearly unchanged. They conc

What carries the argument

The central object is Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) with a Gaussian kernel applied to global performance embeddings: Kernel Music Distance (KMD) is the rescaled squared MMD between two corpora, and Kernel Performance Distance (KPD) averages per-score MMD to account for score-performance dependence. The embeddings come from fixed-length chunking plus pooling, with CLaMP3 using BERT-like encoding followed by average pooling and Aria using the chunk's end-of-sequence token hidden state averaged across chunks. MMD's characteristic kernel ensures that two distributions are equal if and only if their mean embeddings coincide, giving an alignment-free, distributional comparison that captures both

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that averaged fixed-length chunk embeddings preserve the fine-grained expressive cues humans judge—and, secondarily, that mean human scores derived from roughly 5.6 ratings per performance are accurate enough to test that premise.

What would settle it

A within-chunk perturbation that preserves each chunk's average embedding but changes expressive ordering or articulation (e.g., swapping velocities between adjacent notes in the same chunk); if KMD/KPD stay flat while listeners reliably hear the difference, the perceptual-proxy claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • Kernel metrics on contextual embeddings can replace or complement attribute correlations when comparing human and generated MIDI performances, since they need no note alignment.
  • The metrics detect contextual corruptions, such as swapping velocities between interpretations, that leave per-attribute correlations unchanged, so they capture inter-note dependencies.
  • KPD's per-score averaging prevents popular pieces or unbalanced repertoires from dominating the evaluation.
  • CLaMP3 embeddings support reference-free evaluation: marginal Mahalanobis distances estimated on a training set still correlate with human ratings when the target piece is absent from the reference set.
  • Aria embeddings, weaker out of the box, reach human-level ranking after Mahalanobis post-processing, showing that embedding choice and post-processing matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If chunk-pooling is the bottleneck, replacing average pooling with sequence-aware or attention-pooled representations could push the metrics beyond the current ceiling of roughly 0.5 Kendall tau rather than merely matching attribute correlations.
  • The same KMD/KPD recipe should transfer to other instrument families and repertoires; the paper's listening study covers only Western classical solo piano, so a cross-genre replication with human ratings would test generality.
  • Because KPD is a distributional metric, it could serve as a training objective or early-stopping signal for generative performance models, not just as an evaluation score.
  • The per-sample pseudo-ratings (Mahalanobis and Relative Mahalanobis) point toward no-reference quality assessment of a single performance, a use case the paper only partially explores.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of objective evaluation of expressive MIDI piano performances. It argues that attribute-scoped metrics (correlation, KL divergence, reconstruction error) are limited because they treat individual expressive attributes in isolation and generally require note alignment. The authors propose two distributional, alignment-free metrics on top of self-supervised symbolic-music embeddings: Kernel Music Distance (KMD), an MMD-based distance between sets of performances, and Kernel Performance Distance (KPD), a per-score average of MMD. They also propose per-sample pseudo ratings based on Mahalanobis and Relative Mahalanobis distances in embedding space. Experiments show that KMD/KPD respond to synthetic corruptions (pauses, velocity transfer) that leave attribute correlations nearly unchanged, and a listening study with 23 participants is used to compare the pseudo ratings against human MOS. The paper releases an open-source library, Pereval. The central claims are that contextual embeddings can serve as perceptual proxies on par with traditional correlation-based metrics and that the proposed kernel metrics are alignment-free and context-aware.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides a practical, reproducible evaluation toolbox for expressive MIDI performance, and it demonstrates a concrete failure mode of attribute-scoped metrics through the velocity-transfer experiment. The synthetic perturbation results in Table 2 are clean and compelling: inter-attribute correlations remain essentially unchanged while KMD/KPD values change substantially, showing that embedding-based distributional metrics detect contextual corruption that attribute statistics miss. The release of Pereval is a concrete community benefit. The main significance risk is the perceptual validation: the listening study is small, the MOS ground truth is noisy, and the headline 'on par with traditional metrics' claim rests on correlations with overlapping confidence intervals. The paper's contribution is therefore potentially valuable, but the perceptual-proxy claim is not yet established at the confidence level the text suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Table 3] The listening study is underpowered for the claims made. With 23 participants and 810 ratings across 145 performances, the per-performance MOS averages only about 5.6 ratings, and no inter-rater reliability (e.g., ICC) is reported. The 95% confidence intervals in Table 3 overlap for the key comparisons: KPD(CLaMP3) = 0.44±0.12 vs. Aggregated Correlation = 0.51±0.09; RMD(Aria) = 0.51±0.13 vs. Aggregated Correlation = 0.51±0.09; and KPD(CLaMP3) = 0.44±0.12 vs. KPD(Aria) = 0.29±0.14, which is nevertheless described as a 'significant margin' in Sec. 4.3. Overlap of marginal intervals is not a significance test, and with noisy MOS the Kendall tau-B values are attenuated. To support the 'perceptual proxy' claim, the authors should report the distribution of ratings per performance, ICC or a variance-component model, confidence intervals for the differences between methods, and ideally collect
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Table 4] The model-level comparison is internally inconsistent for the PianoFlow variants. Human naturalness ratings rank PianoFlow-2 (3.55) above PianoFlow-16 (3.24) above PianoFlow-128 (3.12), but the deep feature metrics KMD, KPD, and FMD rank PianoFlow-128 as best (e.g., KMD_CLaMP3 = 9.7 vs. 10.3 and 11.5). The text says this 'can be explained by different levels of diversity' but offers no quantitative support. Since the paper recommends these metrics for model selection, this reversal affects the central usefulness claim. The authors should either provide a concrete diversity measure that resolves the discrepancy or acknowledge that the metrics do not fully track human preference across sampling steps.
  3. [Sec. 3, Sec. 4.2] The alignment-free and context-aware properties rest on the fixed-length chunking plus pooling construction of the embeddings, but the validation of these properties is indirect. The synthetic perturbations (velocity transfer, pauses) are global transformations, and the note-shift experiment in Fig. 4 shows that the metrics are nearly insensitive to removing up to 20 notes from the beginning of each performance. This suggests that the pooled global representations may wash out finer-grained expressive structure that matters perceptually. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, provide a perturbation that directly tests cross-chunk or phrase-level dependencies, e.g., swapping expressive timing profiles between phrase boundaries while preserving note-level marginals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.3] Please report the exact number of ratings per performance (mean, min, max) and the procedure used to compute the 95% confidence intervals in Table 3 (bootstrap? per-score aggregation?). This is needed to interpret the '±' values.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] Typographical inconsistency: 'Frèchet' appears in the section heading; the standard spelling is 'Fréchet'.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Table 3] The table caption lists 'Kernel Perf. Distance' and 'Relative Mahalanobis', but the main text sometimes uses 'KPD' and 'RMD' without redefinition. Consider defining abbreviations in the caption.
  4. [Fig. 5] The scatter plots are informative but the caption says 'RMD (Aria)' only in the second panel; the first panel is 'Aggregated Correlation pseudo ratings'. This is clear from the axis labels, but the caption could state both explicitly.
  5. [Sec. 2.2.2, Eq. (1)] The definition of inter-set correlation averages over all pairs, but it is unclear how missing notes handled by linear interpolation affect the pairing count. A brief remark would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central metric-validation chain is anchored to external human ratings and reference-set statistics, not to fitted target labels.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that SSL embeddings can serve as perceptual proxies and that KMD/KPD are alignment-free, context-sensitive metrics—are validated against external human MOS ratings (Sec. 4.3) and synthetic perturbations (Sec. 4.2). The bandwidths use median-reference-set heuristics (Eq. 3-7), the alpha=100 rescale is a fixed readability constant, and covariance estimates use Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage without reference to human scores (Eq. 8-9). No parameter is fitted to the target human ratings, so the Kendall-tau agreement is an independent empirical check rather than a tautology. KMD/KPD are direct applications of MMD/AMMD with proper citations, not renamed known results presented as new derivations. Self-citations (e.g., PianoFlow from ref. [19]) appear only as one evaluated generative model, not as load-bearing evidence for the metric's validity. The underpowered listening study (about 5.6 ratings per MOS) is a legitimate statistical-correctness concern, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on any free parameter fitted to human scores: bandwidths use the median heuristic, alpha is a rank-invariant readability rescale, and covariance shrinkage follows Ledoit-Wolf. The uncharged premises are domain assumptions: (1) Euclidean structure in CLaMP3/Aria embedding space encodes perceptual dissimilarity; (2) fixed-length chunking + global pooling preserves expression-relevant detail; (3) MOS from ~5.6 ratings per item is a reliable ground truth; (4) alignment + linear interpolation of missing notes is lossless enough. These are partially validated by the perturbation and listening experiments, but they set the ceiling of what the metrics can detect. No invented entities: KMD, KPD, and the pseudo-rating variants are derived quantities from existing embeddings and standard statistics, not new postulates.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (global rescaling constant) = 100
    Eqs. 5 and 7: 'a global constant factor that is introduced for improved readability.' Rank-invariant; does not affect any comparison or conclusion.
  • sigma (KMD Gaussian kernel bandwidth) = median distance between embeddings in the reference set
    Sec. 3.2, standard median heuristic [5, 6]; data-dependent but not fit to human ratings.
  • sigma (KPD Gaussian kernel bandwidth) = median within-score distance
    Sec. 3.3: chosen so cross-piece distances do not affect kernel values; affects absolute KPD values, not rank comparisons.
  • Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage intensity = not specified in the paper
    Eq. 8 uses Ledoit-Wolf shrinkage [29] for Sigma; the shrinkage parameter is not reported, so Mahalanobis pseudo-ratings (Table 3) are not exactly reproducible from the text.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Euclidean distance in CLaMP3/Aria embedding space is a perceptual-dissimilarity proxy
    Sec. 3: embeddings psi map performances to R^d and are used with Euclidean/kernel distances; the listening study (Sec. 4.3) provides indirect validation, but the premise is assumed in all metric constructions.
  • domain assumption Fixed-length chunking plus global pooling preserves performance-expression information
    Sec. 3: CLaMP3 'average pooling' of chunk encodings; Aria 'last hidden state of each chunk's end-of-sequence token, then averaged across chunks'. The alignment-free property and the sensitivity claims depend on this.
  • domain assumption Per-performance MOS with ~5.6 ratings is reliable enough for rank comparison
    Sec. 4.3: 810 ratings over 145 performances; per-score Kendall tau-B is computed against these MOS values.
  • standard math Unbiased MMD estimator and Gaussian characteristic kernel give valid distribution comparison
    Eqs. 3–4 invoke Gretton et al. [5]; Gaussian kernel characteristic-ness and the U-statistic estimator are assumed as background.
  • domain assumption Parangonar alignment with linear interpolation of missing notes introduces negligible distortion
    Sec. 4: missing notes from transcription/alignment errors are linearly interpolated; the pipeline is applied to reference and evaluated sets alike.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 11626 in / 20691 out tokens · 172539 ms · 2026-07-31T23:12:23.337000+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Objective evaluation of expressive MIDI piano performances typically relies on attribute statistics such as timing, velocity, and duration of individual notes. However, these methods often disregard dependencies between notes, which poses a potential limitation in assessing the similarity between two sets of performances. In generative applications, the wide variety of expressive attributes makes it difficult to aggregate them into a single scalar metric for model selection. In this work, we reexamine attribute-scoped metrics and explore the perceptual properties of contextual embeddings from self-supervised symbolic music models, Aria and CLaMP3. Results from our listening study indicate that these models can be used as perceptual proxies, showing agreement with per-sample human ratings on par with traditional metrics. To measure conditional distributional similarity, we adapt Kernel Audio Distance to the symbolic music domain. Unlike Pearson correlation and reconstruction error, kernel-based methods on contextual embeddings do not require note alignment and are sensitive to contextual perturbations. To facilitate reproducibility, we release Pereval, an open-source library that integrates performance evaluation utilities, including both attribute-scoped and deep feature metrics.

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

42 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Integrating Con- textual Embeddings into Evaluation of Expressive MIDI Piano Perfor- mances

    INTRODUCTION In recent years, research in Music Information Retrieval (MIR) has shown growing interest in understanding and modeling the expressive aspects of music. A significant branch of MIR focuses on processing symbolic music us- ing formats such as MusicXML and MIDI. The latter al- lows researchers to isolate the expression attributes of in- dividua...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    BACKGROUND AND RELA TED WORK 2.1 Problem Formulation In this section, we describe the problem and provide a brief overview of the field. Given a sequence of note-level score featuresy, we assume an underlying distribution of expres- sive performance feature sequencesx∈ X, where each element corresponds to note attributes, such as pitch, ve- locity, onset,...

  3. [3]

    per-song FAD score

    DEEP FEA TURE METRICS CLaMP3 supports a diverse range of instruments and mul- tiple modalities, including text, audio, ABC notation, and MIDI [7]. In contrast, Aria is an autoregressive trans- former pretrained on a large-scale corpus of expressive pi- ano performances [8, 20]. Both models act as mappings ψ:X →R d for a performancex∈ Xthat disregard the t...

  4. [4]

    Scores and performances are realigned using Parang- onar [34]

    EXPERIMENTS Data.We combine the ASAP [31] and ATEPP [32] datasets of classical piano music, replacing a subset of the original scores with the corresponding files from PDMX [33]. Scores and performances are realigned using Parang- onar [34]. Some notes may be missing from the aligned data due to transcription errors, human performance errors, alignment fa...

  5. [5]

    In- spired by recent advances in adjacent fields, we pro- pose deep feature metrics based on rich embeddings from symbolic music understanding models

    CONCLUSION In this paper, we discuss the limitations of attribute-scoped metrics for evaluating expressive MIDI performances. In- spired by recent advances in adjacent fields, we pro- pose deep feature metrics based on rich embeddings from symbolic music understanding models. Our experiments demonstrate the agreement of these metrics with human perception...

  6. [6]

    The call for par- ticipation was posted across online classical music com- munities

    ETHICS STA TEMENT Participation in our listening test was voluntary, and all participants consented to taking the test. The call for par- ticipation was posted across online classical music com- munities. All collected data were anonymous, as no per- sonal data were collected at any stage. In this work, the datasets used in training and evaluating models ...

  7. [7]

    An evaluation of linear and non-linear models of expressive dynamics in classical piano and symphonic music,

    C. E. Cancino-Chacón, T. Gadermaier, G. Widmer, and M. Grachten, “An evaluation of linear and non-linear models of expressive dynamics in classical piano and symphonic music,”Machine Learning, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 887–909, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Llaqo: Towards a query-based coach in expressive music performance assessment,

    H. Zhang, V . K. Cheung, H. Nishioka, S. Dixon, and S. Furuya, “Llaqo: Towards a query-based coach in expressive music performance assessment,” inICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acous- tics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  9. [9]

    Computational modeling of expressive music performance with linear and non- linear basis function models,

    C. E. Cancino-Chacón, “Computational modeling of expressive music performance with linear and non- linear basis function models,”Johannes Kepler Uni- versity, Linz, 2018

    2018

  10. [10]

    Sounding out reconstruction error- based evaluation of generative models of expressive performance,

    S. D. Peter, C. E. Cancino-Chacón, E. Karystinaios, and G. Widmer, “Sounding out reconstruction error- based evaluation of generative models of expressive performance,” inProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Digital Libraries for Musicology, 2023, pp. 58–66

    2023

  11. [11]

    A kernel two-sample test,

    A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. Smola, “A kernel two-sample test,”The journal of machine learning research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 723–773, 2012

    2012

  12. [12]

    Kad: No more fad! an effective and efficient evaluation metric for audio generation,

    Y . Chung, P. Eu, J. Lee, K. Choi, J. Nam, and B. S. Chon, “Kad: No more fad! an effective and efficient evaluation metric for audio generation,” arXiv:2502.15602, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.15602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,

    S. Wu, G. Zhancheng, R. Yuan, J. Jiang, S. Doh, G. Xia, J. Nam, X. Li, F. Yu, and M. Sun, “Clamp 3: Universal music information retrieval across unaligned modalities and unseen languages,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, 2025, pp. 2605–2625

    2025

  14. [14]

    Scaling self-supervised representation learning for symbolic piano performance,

    L. Bradshaw, A. Spangher, H. Fan, S. Biderman, and S. Colton, “Scaling self-supervised representation learning for symbolic piano performance,” inProceed- ings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Adapting frechet audio distance for generative music evaluation,

    A. Gui, H. Gamper, S. Braun, and D. Emmanouilidou, “Adapting frechet audio distance for generative music evaluation,” inICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process- ing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1331–1335

    2024

  16. [16]

    Aligning text-to-music evaluation with human preferences,

    Y . Huang, Z. Novack, K. Saito, J. Shi, S. Watanabe, Y . Mitsufuji, J. Thickstun, and C. Donahue, “Aligning text-to-music evaluation with human preferences,” in Proceedings of the International Society for Music In- formation Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    From aesthetics to human preferences: Compara- tive perspectives of evaluating text-to-music systems,

    H. Zhang, J. Liang, H. Phan, W. Wang, and E. Bene- tos, “From aesthetics to human preferences: Compara- tive perspectives of evaluating text-to-music systems,” in2025 IEEE 35th International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  18. [18]

    From audio en- coders to piano judges: Benchmarking performance understanding for solo piano,

    H. Zhang, J. Liang, and S. Dixon, “From audio en- coders to piano judges: Benchmarking performance understanding for solo piano,” inProceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), San Francisco, USA, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Vir- tuosonet: A hierarchical rnn-based system for model- ing expressive piano performance

    D. Jeong, T. Kwon, Y . Kim, K. Lee, and J. Nam, “Vir- tuosonet: A hierarchical rnn-based system for model- ing expressive piano performance.” inISMIR, 2019, pp. 908–915

    2019

  20. [20]

    Graph neu- ral network for music score data and modeling expres- sive piano performance,

    D. Jeong, T. Kwon, Y . Kim, and J. Nam, “Graph neu- ral network for music score data and modeling expres- sive piano performance,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 3060–3070

    2019

  21. [21]

    Scoreperformer: Expressive piano performance rendering with fine-grained con- trol

    I. Borovik and V . Viro, “Scoreperformer: Expressive piano performance rendering with fine-grained con- trol.” inISMIR, 2023, pp. 588–596

    2023

  22. [22]

    Towards an integrated approach for expressive piano performance synthesis from music scores,

    J. Tang, E. Cooper, X. Wang, J. Yamagishi, and G. Fazekas, “Towards an integrated approach for expressive piano performance synthesis from music scores,” inICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Process- ing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  23. [23]

    Dexter: Learning and controlling performance expression with diffusion models,

    H. Zhang, S. Chowdhury, C. E. Cancino-Chacón, J. Liang, S. Dixon, and G. Widmer, “Dexter: Learning and controlling performance expression with diffusion models,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 15, p. 6543, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Reconstruct- ing human expressiveness in piano performances with a transformer network,

    J. Tang, G. Wiggins, and G. Fazekas, “Reconstruct- ing human expressiveness in piano performances with a transformer network,” inInternational Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research, 2023, pp. 83–96

    2023

  25. [25]

    Symupe: Af- fective and controllable symbolic music performance,

    I. Borovik, D. Gavrilev, and V . Viro, “Symupe: Af- fective and controllable symbolic music performance,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia, 2025, pp. 10 699–10 708

    2025

  26. [26]

    Aria-midi: A dataset of piano midi files for symbolic music modeling,

    L. Bradshaw and S. Colton, “Aria-midi: A dataset of piano midi files for symbolic music modeling,” inInternational Conference on Learn- ing Representations, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=X5hrhgndxW

    2025

  27. [27]

    Frechet music distance: A metric for gen- erative symbolic music evaluation,

    J. Retkowski, J. St˛ epniak, and M. Modrzejew- ski, “Frechet music distance: A metric for gen- erative symbolic music evaluation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07948, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Clamp 2: Multimodal music information retrieval across 101 languages using large language models,

    S. Wu, Y . Wang, R. Yuan, G. Zhancheng, X. Tan, G. Zhang, M. Zhou, J. Chen, X. Mu, Y . Gaoet al., “Clamp 2: Multimodal music information retrieval across 101 languages using large language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: NAACL 2025, 2025, pp. 435–451

    2025

  29. [29]

    Effectively unbiased fid and inception score and where to find them,

    M. J. Chong and D. Forsyth, “Effectively unbiased fid and inception score and where to find them,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 6070–6079

    2020

  30. [30]

    Conditional genera- tive moment-matching networks,

    Y . Ren, J. Zhu, J. Li, and Y . Luo, “Conditional genera- tive moment-matching networks,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  31. [31]

    Demystifying MMD gans,

    M. Binkowski, D. J. Sutherland, M. Arbel, and A. Gretton, “Demystifying MMD gans,” in6th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2018, V ancouver , BC, Canada, April 30 - May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceed- ings. OpenReview.net, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=r1lUOzWCW

    2018

  32. [32]

    Rethinking fid: To- wards a better evaluation metric for image generation,

    S. Jayasumana, S. Ramalingam, A. Veit, D. Glasner, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Kumar, “Rethinking fid: To- wards a better evaluation metric for image generation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 9307– 9315

    2024

  33. [33]

    Evaluating aleatoric uncertainty via conditional generative models,

    Z. Huang, H. Lam, and H. Zhang, “Evaluating aleatoric uncertainty via conditional generative models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04287, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    A simple uni- fied framework for detecting out-of-distribution sam- ples and adversarial attacks,

    K. Lee, K. Lee, H. Lee, and J. Shin, “A simple uni- fied framework for detecting out-of-distribution sam- ples and adversarial attacks,”Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  35. [35]

    A well-conditioned estima- tor for large-dimensional covariance matrices,

    O. Ledoit and M. Wolf, “A well-conditioned estima- tor for large-dimensional covariance matrices,”Journal of multivariate analysis, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 365–411, 2004

    2004

  36. [36]

    A simple fix to mahalanobis distance for improving near-ood detection,

    J. Ren, S. Fort, J. Liu, A. G. Roy, S. Padhy, and B. Lakshminarayanan, “A simple fix to mahalanobis distance for improving near-ood detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09022, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Automatic note-level score-to-performance align- ments in the asap dataset,

    S. D. Peter, C. E. Cancino-Chacón, F. Foscarin, A. P. McLeod, F. Henkel, E. Karystinaios, and G. Widmer, “Automatic note-level score-to-performance align- ments in the asap dataset,”Transactions of the Interna- tional Society for Music Information Retrieval, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  38. [38]

    Atepp: A dataset of automatically transcribed expressive piano performance,

    H. Zhang, J. Tang, S. R. Rafee, S. Dixon, G. Fazekas, and G. A. Wiggins, “Atepp: A dataset of automatically transcribed expressive piano performance,” inISMIR 2022 Hybrid Conference, 2022

    2022

  39. [39]

    Pdmx: A large-scale public domain musicxml dataset for symbolic music processing,

    P. Long, Z. Novack, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and J. McAuley, “Pdmx: A large-scale public domain musicxml dataset for symbolic music processing,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  40. [40]

    Online symbolic music alignment with of- fline reinforcement learning,

    S. D. Peter, “Online symbolic music alignment with of- fline reinforcement learning,” inInternational Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    Gibbs sampling with people,

    P. M. C. Harrison, R. Marjieh, F. Adolfi, P. van Rijn, M. Anglada-Tort, O. Tchernichovski, P. Larrouy- Maestri, and N. Jacoby, “Gibbs sampling with people,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2008.02595

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    The treatment of ties in ranking prob- lems,

    M. G. Kendall, “The treatment of ties in ranking prob- lems,”Biometrika, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 239–251, 1945

    1945