Factual and Musical Evaluation Metrics for Music Language Models

Daniel Chenyu Lin, Michael Freeman, John Thickstun
11/2/2025
cs.SDcs.CLcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Music language models (Music LMs), like vision language models, leverage multimodal representations to answer natural language queries about musical audio recordings. Although Music LMs are reportedly improving, we find that current evaluations fail to capture whether their answers are correct. Specifically, for all Music LMs that we examine, widely-used evaluation metrics such as BLEU, METEOR, and BERTScore fail to measure anything beyond linguistic fluency of the model's responses. To measure the true performance of Music LMs, we propose (1) a better general-purpose evaluation metric for Music LMs adapted to the music domain and (2) a factual evaluation framework to quantify the correctness of a Music LM's responses. Our framework is agnostic to the modality of the question-answering model and could be generalized to quantify performance in other open-ended question-answering domains. We use open datasets in our experiments and will release all code on publication.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{lin2025factual,
  title  = {Factual and Musical Evaluation Metrics for Music Language Models},
  author = {Daniel Chenyu Lin and Michael Freeman and John Thickstun},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2511.05550},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05550v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2511.05550.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2511.05550)

Discussion