WhisQ: Cross-Modal Representation Learning for Text-to-Music MOS Prediction

Jakaria Islam Emon; Kazi Tamanna Alam; Md. Abu Salek

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 24 references

WhisQ: Cross-Modal Representation Learning for Text-to-Music MOS Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read WhisQ uses Whisper and Qwen to predict text-to-music MOS scores, beating the official baseline by 7% on overall quality and 14% on text alignment.

desk verdict WhisQ has a sensible architecture and plausible validation-set results, but the headline gains are measured in-sample and the abstract numbers don't match the tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05899 v1 pith:ZS3H3R4A submitted 2025-06-06 cs.SD cs.AIeess.AS

Jakaria Islam Emon , Kazi Tamanna Alam , Md. Abu Salek This is my paper

classification cs.SDcs.AIeess.AS

keywords WhisQtext-to-musicevaluationMOSpredictioncross-modalrepresentationlearningoptimaltransportSinkhorndistancesequenceco-attentionWhisperandQwenencoders

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a cross-modal architecture, WhisQ, can automatically predict human mean opinion scores for text-to-music systems on two axes at once: overall musical quality and alignment between the generated audio and its text prompt. The proposed model combines a frozen Whisper audio encoder and a frozen small language model (Qwen) with a sequence-level co-attention layer and a Sinkhorn optimal transport regularizer. On the MusicEval Track-1 benchmark, the paper reports that WhisQ raises Spearman correlation by 7% for overall quality and 14% for text alignment over the official baseline, and that the optimal transport term alone accounts for a 10% improvement on text alignment. If correct, this gives a fast, fully automatic evaluator that could replace costly human MOS collection in text-to-music development.

What carries the argument

The architecture has three load-bearing parts. First, frozen pretrained encoders: Whisper-Base produces a temporal sequence of audio embeddings from log-mel spectrograms, and the Qwen-3 0.6B small language model produces a sequence of text embeddings projected to a common feature dimension. Second, a bidirectional multi-head co-attention layer (audio attending to text and text attending to audio) produces fine-grained cross-modal representations, which are pooled and concatenated for the text-alignment prediction head; the overall-quality head uses pooled audio features only. Third, a Sinkhorn optimal transport loss (approximating the Wasserstein distance with entropy regularization, p=2, blur=0.05) is added to the Huber task loss, pulling the audio and text embedding distributions closer in the shared space. Only 2.66M parameters are trainable; the backbones stay frozen.

What would settle it

Run WhisQ on the official MusicEval Track-1 test set (or any held-out split of MusicEval not used for hyperparameter selection) with the exact hyperparameters from the paper, and check whether the SRCC improvements over the official baseline of +7% for overall quality and +14% for text alignment persist; if they shrink to near zero or reverse, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that keeping audio and text as temporal sequences and aligning them through bidirectional co-attention plus an explicit optimal transport penalty is what allows a MOS predictor to capture text-to-music alignment, not just overall audio quality. The paper supports this with validation-set numbers: WhisQ reaches 0.7585 utterance-level SRCC for overall quality and 0.6109 for text alignment, compared with 0.6881 and 0.5425 for the official baseline, and removing the optimal transport term drops the text-alignment SRCC to 0.4895.

Load-bearing premise

The paper tunes hyperparameters on the validation set and reports all results on that same validation set, so the claimed gains over the baseline have not been shown to hold on the official test split.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

WhisQ's combination of frozen Whisper and Qwen backbones needs only 2.66M trainable parameters, so an automatic MOS predictor of this kind can be adapted cheaply to new text-to-music models or rating scales.
If the 14% text-alignment SRCC gain generalizes, prompt-alignment scoring in text-to-music can be automated well enough to pre-screen candidates before expensive human listening tests.
The ablation showing that optimal transport regularization contributes a 10% SRCC improvement on text alignment implies that future systems should treat cross-modal alignment as a first-class objective, not a side effect of attention.
The dual-head design lets a single forward pass report both overall quality (from audio-only pooled features) and text alignment (from fused features), matching the two-axis structure of the MusicEval labels.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The reported gains are computed on the validation set; the paper does not show results on the official test split, so a natural next step is to run the same frozen model on the test set and check whether the 7% and 14% SRCC advantages over the baseline persist.
The large negative SRCC of the Wav2Vec2 plus ModernBERT ablation suggests the choice of pretrained backbones is decisive; testing the same co-attention and optimal-transport head with other audio and text encoders would tell whether the alignment module transfers.
The optimal-transport loss is applied between whole audio and text sequences; an untested refinement is to align at a finer granularity, such as word-level or phrase-level features, which could improve interpretability and text-alignment accuracy.
Because the paper uses a mean of two Huber losses rather than the challenge's official metric formula, it is an inference that the ranking over other systems would hold under the exact official evaluation metric.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my read of arXiv:2506.05899.

The new thing is the specific combination: frozen Whisper-Base audio encoder, Qwen-3-0.6B text encoder, sequence-level co-attention, and a Sinkhorn optimal transport regularizer, all for text-to-music MOS prediction on MusicEval Track-1. That combination is new, and the validation-set numbers look reasonable: utterance-level SRCC of 0.7585 on OMQ and 0.6109 on TA, both above the official baseline. The OT ablation shows a large gap (TA SRCC drops from 0.6109 to 0.4895 without OT), which is consistent with the paper's argument that explicit cross-modal alignment matters. As an engineering contribution, it's a clean, reproducible-in-principle setup.

But the central claim isn't supported yet. All results come from the provided validation set, and the hyperparameters were selected on that same set (Section III). No test split is used. With 2,748 clips, selection bias is a real threat: the reported advantage could be tuning noise. The internal numbers don't help. The abstract says 7% OMQ and 14% TA improvement; Table II implies roughly 10% and 12.6% relative. The OT ablation is described as a 10% gain, but the table shows a ~24.8% relative change for TA utterance-level SRCC. Those mismatches need correcting. Also, the 'official baseline' is neither described nor cited, and the Wav2Vec2+ModernBERT alternative gives negative SRCC, which smells like a misconfigured baseline rather than a fair comparison. No code or data release is mentioned.

I'd call the paper a reasonable incremental extension, not a breakthrough. The architecture choice is defensible, and with a proper test split, corrected numbers, and a released baseline it could be a solid short paper. As it stands, a serious referee would need the authors to produce test-set results and fix the arithmetic.

For a reading group, it's a maybe: useful for discussing evaluation methodology, but the validation-only design limits what you can learn. I wouldn't cite it in my own work this year. But it deserves peer review rather than desk rejection, because the underlying approach is sound enough to warrant a chance for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes WhisQ, a cross-modal MOS predictor for text-to-music (TTM) audio on the MusicEval Track-1 benchmark. WhisQ uses a frozen Whisper-Base encoder for audio, a frozen Qwen-3 0.6B SLM for text, a sequence-level co-attention module, and a Sinkhorn optimal transport (OT) regularization term, with separate prediction heads for overall music quality (OMQ) and text alignment (TA). Experiments on the MusicEval validation set report SRCC gains over an official baseline and a set of ablations that are used to argue that OT and sequence co-attention are the main contributors to performance.

Significance. If the reported gains generalize to held-out data, WhisQ would be a useful automatic TTM evaluator with a modest number of trainable parameters (2.66M) and a principled cross-modal alignment mechanism. The paper provides detailed hyperparameters and a systematic ablation structure, and it addresses a real evaluation gap for text-to-music systems. The central claim, however, currently rests on validation-set numbers without significance testing, and the headline percentages do not match the tables, so the strength of the contribution is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[§III-A, §III-B, Table II] All reported results, including the baseline comparison, are computed on the MusicEval Track-1 validation set, and the hyperparameters in Table I are optimized on that same set. Because no test split is used, the claimed +7%/+14% improvements over the official baseline may reflect selection bias rather than genuine model quality. The official baseline itself is not described or cited in §IV.A, so the comparison protocol is not reproducible. Please evaluate on the official test set, or justify why validation-set results are sufficient, and specify the baseline configuration and tuning protocol.
[Abstract, §I, Table II] The quantitative claims in the abstract and contribution list are inconsistent with Table II. On utterance-level SRCC, the gain over the official baseline is 0.0704 (10.2% relative) for OMQ, not 7%; for TA it is 0.0684 (12.6% relative), not 14%. The OT ablation gain on TA is 0.1214 (24.8% relative), not 10% as claimed in the abstract and §I. Please correct these numbers and state whether percentages are absolute or relative.
[§III-B, §IV.A] The ablation study is not controlled: Table I gives hyperparameters only for the full proposed model, and the paper does not state whether the w/o OT, attention, or backbone variants were retuned. The reported OT benefit could therefore be an artifact of a poorly tuned ablated variant. Please retune the ablations under the same protocol or report the tuning search, and provide confidence intervals or significance tests for the Table II differences before claiming that OT provides the largest performance gain.

minor comments (6)

[§II.A and Table I] Dfeat is defined as 512 in Eqs. (1)-(5) but Table I lists Feature Dimension 1280; clarify which value is used and how it is derived from the Whisper-Base (512) and Qwen-3 hidden sizes.
[§IV.A] The text 'For OQ)' should read 'For OMQ,'.
[Abstract and Table II] The metric abbreviation is inconsistent: OMQ in the text versus OQM in the table header; please unify.
[References] Reference [9] is the Qwen technical report; if the paper uses Qwen-3-0.6B, cite the specific Qwen3 release or model card.
[§III-B] State how the Qwen-3 text encoder handles the full prompt and how the sequence length interacts with the 3,000-frame audio padding.
[§IV.A] The Wav2Vec2+ModernBERT ablation produces negative correlations; please report its training behavior and indicate whether the result reflects convergence failure rather than a genuine property of that backbone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: WhisQ is a supervised pipeline trained on labeled MOS data; validation-set tuning and percentage mismatches are correctness concerns, not circularity.

full rationale

WhisQ's derivation chain is a standard supervised MOS-prediction pipeline: Equations (1)-(10) define fixed pretrained encoders, a trainable projection/co-attention/MLP, a Huber task loss, and a Sinkhorn optimal-transport regularizer, all optimized against the MusicEval Track-1 MOS labels. Nothing in Equations (8)-(10) defines the predicted scores in terms of the reported metrics, nor are the reported metrics defined in terms of the predicted scores. The OMQ and TA outputs are functions of audio and text features only, not of the evaluation targets. The baseline comparison and ablation numbers in Table II are empirical measurements on the AudioMOS Track-1 validation set, not outputs forced by construction. No load-bearing result is imported from a same-author citation: references [4], [8], [9], and [10] are external and support the dataset, pretrained backbones, and Sinkhorn algorithm respectively. The only concerns raised by the manuscript are methodological rather than circular: hyperparameters in Table I were selected on the same validation set used for the headline comparisons, and the abstract's claimed 7%/14%/10% gains do not exactly match relative improvements computable from Table II. These issues affect generalization claims and reporting accuracy, but they do not reduce any prediction to its input by definition. Therefore no circularity step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on several hyperparameters tuned on the validation set and on assumptions about the suitability of Whisper, Qwen, and OT loss for music-text alignment.

free parameters (7)

learning_rate = 7.307e-4
Reported in Table I; tuned on validation set.
momentum = 0.7435
Reported in Table I; tuned on validation set.
batch_size = 128
Reported in Table I; tuned on validation set.
epochs = 148
Reported in Table I; tuned on validation set.
ot_weight_lambda = 4.057e-5
Reported in Table I; tuned on validation set. Controls the strength of the OT loss.
sinkhorn_blur = 0.05
Reported in Table I; Sinkhorn regularization parameter.
feature_dim = 512 (Section II) vs 1280 (Table I)
The paper contradicts itself on the feature dimension; the actual value used in experiments is unclear.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Whisper-Base audio features are adequate for representing musical quality despite being trained on speech.
The paper uses Whisper-Base frozen as the audio encoder without discussing its suitability for music.
domain assumption Sinkhorn optimal transport between audio and text sequences aligns semantically relevant information and improves TA prediction.
This is the core motivation for the OT loss; the paper provides no theoretical or empirical evidence that OT specifically enforces the desired alignment.
domain assumption The MusicEval MOS labels are reliable enough to train and evaluate a predictor.
The paper relies on the dataset's ground truth without analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WhisQ: Cross-Modal Representation Learning for Text-to-Music MOS Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZS3H3R4A

@misc{pith2026250605899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WhisQ: Cross-Modal Representation Learning for Text-to-Music MOS Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZS3H3R4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05899}
}

read the original abstract

Mean Opinion Score (MOS) prediction for text to music systems requires evaluating both overall musical quality and text prompt alignment. This paper introduces WhisQ, a multimodal architecture that addresses this dual-assessment challenge through sequence level co-attention and optimal transport regularization. WhisQ employs the Whisper Base pretrained model for temporal audio encoding and Qwen 3, a 0.6B Small Language Model (SLM), for text encoding, with both maintaining sequence structure for fine grained cross-modal modeling. The architecture features specialized prediction pathways: OMQ is predicted from pooled audio embeddings, while TA leverages bidirectional sequence co-attention between audio and text. Sinkhorn optimal transport loss further enforce semantic alignment in the shared embedding space. On the MusicEval Track-1 dataset, WhisQ achieves substantial improvements over the baseline: 7% improvement in Spearman correlation for OMQ and 14% for TA. Ablation studies reveal that optimal transport regularization provides the largest performance gain (10% SRCC improvement), demonstrating the importance of explicit cross-modal alignment for text-to-music evaluation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05899 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of the proposed WhisQ architecture. A log-mel spectrogram and its text prompt are encoded by pretrained speech and language models. Sequence-level coattention merges the embeddings; two lightweight MLP heads predict OMQ and TA MOS, while a Sinkhorn optimal transport loss tightens audio text alignment. To bridge this gap we introduce WhisQ, a fully automatic evaluator built on pretrained foundation models… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** A. Architecture Let Dfeat = 512 be the primary feature dimension. Given an audio input Xa and text prompt Xt, we extract sequence representations Ha ∈ R Ta×Dfeat and Ht ∈ R Tt×Dfeat : Ha = WhisperEncoder(LogMel(Xa)) (1) Ht = Proj(Qwen(Xt)) (2) The Whisper-Base encoder provides Dfeat-dimensional audio features from Log-Mel spectrograms. Outputs from the Qwen language model are processed by a linear projection layer,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Musiclm: Generating music from text,

A. Agostinelli, T. I. Denk, Z. Borsos, J. Engel, M. Verzetti, A. Caillon, Q. Huang, A. Jansen, A. Roberts, M. Tagliasacchi et al. , “Musiclm: Generating music from text,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models,

H. Liu, Z. Chen, Y . Yuan, X. Mei, X. Liu, D. Mandic, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[3]

Fast timing- conditioned latent audio diffusion,

Z. Evans, C. Carr, J. Taylor, S. H. Hawley, and J. Pons, “Fast timing- conditioned latent audio diffusion,” in Forty-first International Confer- ence on Machine Learning , 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Musiceval: A generative music dataset with expert ratings for automatic text-to-music evaluation,

C. Liu, H. Wang, J. Zhao, S. Zhao, H. Bu, X. Xu, J. Zhou, H. Sun, and Y . Qin, “Musiceval: A generative music dataset with expert ratings for automatic text-to-music evaluation,” 04 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025
[5]

SSL-MOS: A Self-Supervised Learning Based Approach with A Transformer Target Model For MOS Pre- diction,

Z. Jiang, X. Li, and P. Lu, “SSL-MOS: A Self-Supervised Learning Based Approach with A Transformer Target Model For MOS Pre- diction,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1061–1065, relevant for \cite{sslfinetune2024}

work page 2024
[6]

Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,

Y . Wu, K. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Hui, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dubnov, “Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023
[7]

MOSNet: Deep learning based objective assessment for voice conver- sion,

C.-C. Lo, S.-W. Fu, W.-C. Huang, H.-M. Wang, T. Toda, and Y . Tsao, “MOSNet: Deep learning based objective assessment for voice conver- sion,” in Interspeech 2019, 2019, pp. 1133–1137

work page 2019
[8]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

2023

Show all 24 references

[9]

Qwen technical report,

J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huang et al. , “Qwen technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Efficient optimal transport algorithm by accelerated gradient descent,

D. An, N. Lei, X. Xu, and X. Gu, “Efficient optimal transport algorithm by accelerated gradient descent,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 9, 2022, pp. 10 119–10 128

2022
[11]

wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 449– 12 460, 2020

2020
[12]

Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirectional encoder for fast, memory efficient, and long context finetuning and inference,

B. Warner, A. Chaffin, B. Clavi ´e, O. Weller, O. Hallstr ¨om, S. Taghadouini, A. Gallagher, R. Biswas, F. Ladhak, T. Aarsen et al. , “Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirectional encoder for fast, memory efficient, and long context finetuning and inference,” arXiv ...

2024 arXiv
[13]

Simple and controllable music generation,

J. Copet et al., “Simple and controllable music generation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023

2023
[14]

Mo ˆusai: Efficient text-to-music diffusion models,

F. Schneider, O. Kamal, Z. Jin, and B. Sch ¨olkopf, “Mo ˆusai: Efficient text-to-music diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2024

2024
[15]

Musicmagus: Zero-shot text-to-music editing via diffu- sion models,

Y . Zhang et al., “Musicmagus: Zero-shot text-to-music editing via diffu- sion models,” in Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2024

2024
[16]

High fidelity text-guided music generation and editing via single-stage flow matching,

G. Le Lan et al., “High fidelity text-guided music generation and editing via single-stage flow matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03648, 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies,

K. Chen, Y . Wu, H. Liu, M. Nezhurina, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dub- nov, “Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strategies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01546 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[18]

Mospc: Mos prediction based on pairwise comparison,

K. Wang, Y . Zhao, Q. Dong, T. Ko, and M. Wang, “Mospc: Mos prediction based on pairwise comparison,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2023

2023
[19]

Resource-efficient fine- tuning strategies for automatic mos prediction in text-to-speech for low- resource languages,

P. Do, M. Coler, J. Dijkstra, and E. Klabbers, “Resource-efficient fine- tuning strategies for automatic mos prediction in text-to-speech for low- resource languages,” in Proceedings of Interspeech 2023 , 2023

2023
[20]

Zero- shot out-of-domain is no joke: Lessons learned in the voicemos 2023 challenge,

M. Kune ˇsov´a, J. Lehe ˇcka, J. Mich ´alek, J. Matouˇsek, and J. ˇSvec, “Zero- shot out-of-domain is no joke: Lessons learned in the voicemos 2023 challenge,” in Proceedings of Interspeech 2024 , 2024

2023
[21]

Apg-mos: Auditory percep- tion guided-mos predictor for synthetic speech,

Z. Lian, L. Wang, and H. Huang, “Apg-mos: Auditory percep- tion guided-mos predictor for synthetic speech,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20447, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

Lavcap: Llm- based audio-visual captioning using optimal transport,

K. Rho, H. Lee, V . Iverson, and J. S. Chung, “Lavcap: Llm- based audio-visual captioning using optimal transport,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09291, 2025

2025 arXiv
[23]

U-sam: An audio language model for unified speech, audio, and music understanding,

Z. Wang, X. Xia, X. Zhu, and L. Xie, “U-sam: An audio language model for unified speech, audio, and music understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13880, 2025

2025 arXiv
[24]

Cmot: Cross-modal mixup via optimal transport for speech translation,

Y . Zhou, Q. Fang, and Y . Feng, “Cmot: Cross-modal mixup via optimal transport for speech translation,” in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Musiclm: Generating music from text,

A. Agostinelli, T. I. Denk, Z. Borsos, J. Engel, M. Verzetti, A. Caillon, Q. Huang, A. Jansen, A. Roberts, M. Tagliasacchi et al. , “Musiclm: Generating music from text,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models,

H. Liu, Z. Chen, Y . Yuan, X. Mei, X. Liu, D. Mandic, W. Wang, and M. D. Plumbley, “Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Fast timing- conditioned latent audio diffusion,

Z. Evans, C. Carr, J. Taylor, S. H. Hawley, and J. Pons, “Fast timing- conditioned latent audio diffusion,” in Forty-first International Confer- ence on Machine Learning , 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Musiceval: A generative music dataset with expert ratings for automatic text-to-music evaluation,

C. Liu, H. Wang, J. Zhao, S. Zhao, H. Bu, X. Xu, J. Zhou, H. Sun, and Y . Qin, “Musiceval: A generative music dataset with expert ratings for automatic text-to-music evaluation,” 04 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025

[5] [5]

SSL-MOS: A Self-Supervised Learning Based Approach with A Transformer Target Model For MOS Pre- diction,

Z. Jiang, X. Li, and P. Lu, “SSL-MOS: A Self-Supervised Learning Based Approach with A Transformer Target Model For MOS Pre- diction,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1061–1065, relevant for \cite{sslfinetune2024}

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,

Y . Wu, K. Chen, T. Zhang, Y . Hui, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and S. Dubnov, “Large-scale contrastive language-audio pretraining with feature fusion and keyword-to-caption augmentation,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

work page 2023

[7] [7]

MOSNet: Deep learning based objective assessment for voice conver- sion,

C.-C. Lo, S.-W. Fu, W.-C. Huang, H.-M. Wang, T. Toda, and Y . Tsao, “MOSNet: Deep learning based objective assessment for voice conver- sion,” in Interspeech 2019, 2019, pp. 1133–1137

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,

A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervi- sion,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 28 492–28 518

2023