mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Exploring Adapter Design Tradeoffs for Low Resource Music Generation

arXiv 2506.21298 ↗First posted 26 Jun 2025cs.SD cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning large-scale music generation models, such as MusicGen and Mustango, is a computationally expensive process, often requiring updates to billions of parameters and, therefore, significant hardware resources. Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) techniques, particularly adapter-based methods, have emerged as a promising alternative, enabling adaptation with minimal trainable parameters while preserving model performance. However, the design choices for adapters, including their architecture, placement, and size, are numerous, and it is unclear which of these combinations would produce optimal adapters and why, for a given case of low-resource music genre. In this paper, we attempt to answer this question by studying various adapter configurations for two AI music models, MusicGen and Mustango, on two genres: Hindustani Classical and Turkish Makam music. Our findings reveal distinct trade-offs: convolution-based adapters excel in capturing fine-grained local musical details such as ornamentations and short melodic phrases, while transformer-based adapters better preserve long-range dependencies crucial for structured improvisation. Additionally, we analyze computational resource requirements across different adapter scales, demonstrating how mid-sized adapters (40M parameters) achieve an optimal balance between expressivity and quality. Furthermore, we find that Mustango, a diffusion-based model, generates more diverse outputs with better adherence to the description in the input prompt while lacking in providing stability in notes, rhythm alignment, and aesthetics. Also, it is computationally intensive and requires significantly more time to train. In contrast, autoregressive models like MusicGen offer faster training and are more efficient, and can produce better quality output in comparison, but have slightly higher redundancy in their generations.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jun 2025.

Builds on

18 of 38 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  4. 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,236
  5. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
  6. 2016Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs)cited by 3,502
  7. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  8. 2020AdapterFusion: Non-Destructive Task Composition for Transfer Learningcited by 788
  9. 2019PANNs: Large-Scale Pretrained Audio Neural Networks for Audio Pattern Recognitioncited by 574
  10. 2023MusicLM: Generating Music From Textcited by 448
  11. 2020AdapterHub: A Framework for Adapting Transformerscited by 444
  12. 2017Dilated Residual Networkscited by 294
6 more
  1. 2023Cultural Bias and Cultural Alignment of Large Language Modelscited by 149
  2. 2023Mustango: Toward Controllable Text-to-Music Generationcited by 100
  3. 2024ALoRA: Allocating Low-Rank Adaptation for Fine-tuning Large Language Modelscited by 36
  4. 2024Joint Audio and Symbolic Conditioning for Temporally Controlled Text-to-Music Generationcited by 28
  5. 2024Fr'echet Distance for Offline Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems with Sparse Labelscited by 5
  6. 2024Missing Melodies: AI Music Generation and its "Nearly" Complete Omission of the Global Southcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.