What Do Audio-Language Judges of Generated Music Listen For? Four Probes with Controls from Expert Ratings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Open audio-language models are used as judges of generated music: given a clip and its text prompt, the model rates the clip, and the judge is validated by how well its ratings correlate with expert ratings. The correlation does not show what the judge responds to: the music, the text prompt, or the way the question is asked. We propose four probes that test each of these, three of them read against a control computed from the human ratings: removing the audio, replacing the clip with another model's clip for the same prompt, swapping the order of two clips in pairwise judging, and rewording the instruction. We apply them to five open judges on all 2,748 clips of MusicEval, and the last two to the SongEval songs. Without audio, no judge exceeds what the prompt alone predicts from the human ratings, and for prompt alignment every judge falls below it. With audio, every judge follows the clip it hears when rating prompt alignment, two do when rating musical quality, and the strongest judge's quality score tracks the experts' alignment rating more than their quality rating. The pairwise verdicts of the four smaller judges follow the position of a clip in the pair (its slot) rather than its quality on both rating sets. For musical quality, rewording the instruction moves the correlation of most judges as much as changing the judge. MusicEval's prompt assignment bounds any prompt-only judge at the model level. We recommend reporting the four probes with every music judge.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.
Builds on
16 of 21 references.
References · 16
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
- 2025SongEval: A Benchmark Dataset for Song Aesthetics Evaluationcited by 26
- 2025Aligning Text-to-Music Evaluation with Human Preferencescited by 21
- 2025AudioJudge: Understanding What Works in Large Audio Model Based Speech Evaluationcited by 21
- 2025MusicEval: A Generative Music Dataset with Expert Ratings for Automatic Text-to-Music Evaluationcited by 18
- 2025Are you really listening? Boosting Perceptual Awareness in Music-QA Benchmarkscited by 16
- 2026All That Glitters Is Not Audio: Rethinking Text Priors and Audio Reliance in Audio-Language Evaluationcited by 8
- 2026TuneJury: An Open Metric for Improving Music Generation Preference Alignmentcited by 4
4 more
- 2026JASTIN: Aligning LLMs for Zero-Shot Audio and Speech Evaluation via Natural Language Instructionscited by 2
- 2026Auditing Protocol-Level Shortcuts in Large Audio Language Model Judges for Speech Evaluationcited by 2
- 2026Genre Bias or Aesthetic Perception? Identifying and Mitigating Shortcut Learning in Music Evaluationcited by 2
- 2026Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.