Sound and Music Biases in Deep Music Transcription Models: A Systematic Analysis
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automatic Music Transcription (AMT) -- the task of converting music audio into note representations -- has seen rapid progress, driven largely by deep learning systems. Due to the limited availability of richly annotated music datasets, much of the progress in AMT has been concentrated on classical piano music, and even a few very specific datasets. Whether these systems can generalize effectively to other musical contexts remains an open question. Complementing recent studies on distribution shifts in sound (e.g., recording conditions), in this work we investigate the musical dimension -- specifically, variations in genre, dynamics, and polyphony levels. To this end, we introduce the MDS corpus, comprising three distinct subsets -- (1) Genre, (2) Random, and (3) MAEtest -- to emulate different axes of distribution shift. We evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art AMT systems on the MDS corpus using both traditional information-retrieval and musically-informed performance metrics. Our extensive evaluation isolates and exposes varying degrees of performance degradation under specific distribution shifts. In particular, we measure a note-level F1 performance drop of 20 percentage points due to sound, and 14 due to genre. Generally, we find that dynamics estimation proves more vulnerable to musical variation than onset prediction. Musically informed evaluation metrics, particularly those capturing harmonic structure, help identify potential contributing factors. Furthermore, experiments with randomly generated, non-musical sequences reveal clear limitations in system performance under extreme musical distribution shifts. Altogether, these findings offer new evidence of the persistent impact of the Corpus Bias problem in deep AMT systems.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Dec 2025.
Builds on
16 of 37 references.
References · 16
- 2018Enabling Factorized Piano Music Modeling and Generation with the MAESTRO Datasetcited by 217
- 2017Onsets and Frames: Dual-Objective Piano Transcriptioncited by 94
- 2020High-resolution Piano Transcription with Pedals by Regressing Onset and Offset Timescited by 61
- 2021Sequence-to-Sequence Piano Transcription with Transformerscited by 48
- 2022ID and OOD Performance Are Sometimes Inversely Correlated on Real-world Datasetscited by 44
- 2024Foundation Models for Music: A Surveycited by 37
- 2023LLark: A Multimodal Instruction-Following Language Model for Musiccited by 29
- 2020Computer-Generated Music for Tabletop Role-Playing Gamescited by 23
- 2023Automatic Piano Transcription with Hierarchical Frequency-Time Transformercited by 22
- 2016On the Potential of Simple Framewise Approaches to Piano Transcriptioncited by 21
- 2024A Data-Driven Analysis of Robust Automatic Piano Transcriptioncited by 15
- 2020Polyphonic Piano Transcription Using Autoregressive Multi-State Note Modelcited by 11
4 more
- 2024Towards Musically Informed Evaluation of Piano Transcription Modelscited by 5
- 2017An Experimental Analysis of the Entanglement Problem in Neural-Network-based Music Transcription Systemscited by 2
- 2018A Computational Study of the Role of Tonal Tension in Expressive Piano Performancecited by 1
- 2025Piano Transcription by Hierarchical Language Modeling with Pretrained Roll-based Encoderscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.