Research

Automatic music transcription systems produce sheet music that can be read and played back. We argue that these two targets call for complementary evaluations of notation similarity to a reference score and playback similarity to the original performance, respectively. Our study considers notation similarity metrics from the optical music recognition literature and a wide range of playback-similarity methods validated through a listening study across over 100 participants and 230 piano recordings covering 23 works, 30 performers, and six composers. We find, fortuitously, that the playback similarity metric that correlates best with human judgments, CLEWS, is also the cheapest to run. We also find that the two evaluation dimensions favor different systems among a collection of 24 pipelines formed by pairing eight audio-to-MIDI models with three MIDI-to-score converters, with the latter component systematically determining the favored objective. The complementarity between metrics also holds when adding to the pool Rubato, a new end-to-end system that offers substantially improved notation similarity while remaining competitive, though not the best, on playback similarity.

Post-training text-to-music generation requires reward signals that capture multiple aspects of musical quality beyond what any single automatic metric can measure. We study structured, rubric-based rewards from pretrained audio-language models (ALMs) as training signals for both autoregressive and diffusion-based music generators. An ALM scores each generated clip against the rubric; we rank candidates generated for the same text prompt by their scores and convert these rankings into preference pairs for DPO on both MusicGen-small and ACE-Step v1, and additionally use the rubric scores directly as scalar rewards for DiffusionNFT on ACE-Step v1. On MusicCaps, rubric-based optimization improves CLAP, SongEval, and Audiobox-Aesthetics simultaneously, with the strongest gains obtained by DiffusionNFT on ACE-Step. By contrast, on MusicGen-small, building preferences from any one of these automatic evaluators produces clear cross-metric trade-offs: the targeted evaluator improves while other independent evaluators deteriorate. We further study tempo, key, and instrumentation, where precise objective rewards are available. Directly optimizing these specialized rewards reliably improves the target attributes, whereas ALM rubrics provide only partial transfer for tempo and instrumentation and no measurable improvement for key. Together, these results suggest a practical division of labor: ALM rubrics are effective for broad perceptual qualities that are difficult to formalize, while specialized objective rewards remain preferable when reliable measurements are available.