Don't CLAP: Are Music-Text Models Bag-of-Words?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Text-to-music systems are assessed on audio quality and on how faithfully the music follows its prompt, and the CLAP score, the cosine similarity between a music-text model's audio and text embeddings, is the standard objective metric of faithfulness. We ask how accurately that score reflects the text: when an attribute is linked to an instrument (e.g., distorted guitar), does the text embedding capture that binding? To find out, we introduce an attribute swap perturbation: the caption of a real recording is edited by exchanging exactly one property, timbre, lead versus accompaniment, or order of first appearance, between two instruments. We then test four contrastive music-text models and one large audio-language model on whether the audio scores higher against the original caption than against the perturbed one. No contrastive model distinguishes the two captions reliably. The audio-language model does better, but further experiments show that its advantage rests largely on audio-agnostic language priors. Our results thus provide compelling evidence that the CLAP score and related metrics do not capture fine-grained musical meaning or attribute bindings; their representation is closer to a bag-of-words that leaves them insensitive to meaning-changing perturbations of the caption.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.
Builds on
20 of 26 references.
References · 20
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2022Large-scale Contrastive Language-Audio Pretraining with Feature Fusion and Keyword-to-Caption Augmentationcited by 719
- 2022When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it?cited by 610
- 2024Qwen2-Audio Technical Reportcited by 560
- 2022Winoground: Probing Vision and Language Models for Visio-Linguistic Compositionalitycited by 529
- 2023Simple and Controllable Music Generationcited by 488
- 2023AudioLDM 2: Learning Holistic Audio Generation with Self-supervised Pretrainingcited by 344
- 2023SugarCrepe: Fixing Hackable Benchmarks for Vision-Language Compositionalitycited by 243
- 2023MusicLDM: Enhancing Novelty in Text-to-Music Generation Using Beat-Synchronous Mixup Strategiescited by 94
- 2023The Song Describer Dataset: a Corpus of Audio Captions for Music-and-Language Evaluationcited by 68
- 2025MuQ: Self-Supervised Music Representation Learning with Mel Residual Vector Quantizationcited by 68
- 2023CompA: Addressing the Gap in Compositional Reasoning in Audio-Language Modelscited by 43
8 more
- 2023Moisesdb: A dataset for source separation beyond 4-stemscited by 39
- 2025CLIP Behaves like a Bag-of-Words Model Cross-modally but not Uni-modallycited by 31
- 2025KAD: No More FAD! An Effective and Efficient Evaluation Metric for Audio Generationcited by 24
- 2025CLaMP 3: Universal Music Information Retrieval Across Unaligned Modalities and Unseen Languagescited by 21
- 2025Are you really listening? Boosting Perceptual Awareness in Music-QA Benchmarkscited by 16
- 2025Survey on the Evaluation of Generative Models in Musiccited by 10
- 2025Music Arena: Live Evaluation for Text-to-Musiccited by 8
- 2023The Role of Linguistic Priors in Measuring Compositional Generalization of Vision-Language Modelscited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.