Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Diff-TONE: Timestep Optimization for iNstrument Editing in Text-to-Music Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Diff-TONE claims that swapping the instrument word in a text prompt at the denoising step where an instrument classifier last changes its prediction edits timbre while preserving melody and structure, with no retraining and no slowdown.

desk verdict A simple inference-time timestep-selection trick that improves content preservation at the cost of instrument accuracy; the classifier-based mechanism is under-validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15530 v1 pith:OZGQDOOE submitted 2025-06-18 cs.SD cs.LGeess.ASeess.SP

Teysir Baoueb , Xiaoyu Bie , Xi Wang , Gaël Richard This is my paper
classification cs.SDcs.LGeess.ASeess.SP
keywords diffusionmodelstext-to-musicgenerationinstrumenteditingtimbretransfertimestepselectionlatent-spaceclassificationknowledgedistillation
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

The paper sets out to edit the instrument of an existing music clip without retraining a text-to-music diffusion model and without slowing generation. Its claim is that a diffusion model builds audio in stages, structure first, instrument and timbre next, then fine detail, so swapping the instrument word in the text prompt at a carefully chosen intermediate denoising step can change the timbre while keeping the melody and structure. The chosen step is found by an instrument classifier: the last timestep at which the classifier changes its prediction marks when instrument information begins to enter the latent. On 90 instrument pairs, this timestep selection gives better chroma similarity (0.099 vs 0.148 for a random swap) and better Kernel Audio Distance (18.265 vs 18.846 for a random swap), at the cost of lower top-1 instrument accuracy than swapping at the midpoint (23.00% vs 39.33%). If correct, the method offers a lightweight, training-free knob for controlling timbre in generative music tools, and the paper also reports better results than MusicMagus on the three pairs tested in that prior work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the last-change timestep heuristic driven by a distilled instrument classifier. At each denoising step the method computes $\tilde{x}_0$, the one-step prediction of the clean latent, and asks the classifier which instrument it hears; the last timestep at which the classifier's answer changes is declared the boundary where instrument information starts being written into the latent, and the prompt's instrument word is swapped there. The classifier is built in three stages: a teacher classifier trained on MERT features, a student network with Mimi blocks distilled to align with the teacher via cosine similarity on the Stable Audio Open latent, and a final classification head. The stage-ordering premise, structure and content first, then instrument, then refinement, makes the boundary meaningful; the paper supports it with a single-note example where swapping at $t=21$ changes timbre while keeping the note, swapping at $t=9$ does nothing, and swapping at $t=39$ changes the note itself.

What would settle it

On a fixed set of prompts and instrument pairs, generate each clip, then sweep the prompt swap across every timestep and plot the tradeoff between content preservation (Chroma) and target-instrument accuracy. If the timestep Diff-TONE selects does not coincide with the swap timestep that best preserves content while still reaching the target instrument, or if a fixed timestep from the same range matches its numbers, then the classifier's last change is not actually identifying the instrument-infusion boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in Stable Audio Open's latent diffusion process, instrument identity is not present from the first timestep but is infused at an identifiable intermediate step. The authors compute the predicted clean latent at each step, $\tilde{x}_0 = (x_t - \sqrt{1 - \bar\alpha_t}\,\epsilon_\theta(x_t, t))/\sqrt{\bar\alpha_t}$, and feed it to a lightweight classifier distilled from MERT and trained on IRMAS. They take the last timestep where the classifier's predicted instrument changes as the onset of instrument information, replace the instrument word in the prompt, and continue denoising. On the 90-pair evaluation this selection improves Chroma (0.099 vs 0.148 for Diff-Random and 0.189 for Diff-Midpoint) and KAD (18.265 vs 18.846 and 20.716) while giving lower instrument accuracy than swapping at the midpoint (23.00% vs 39.33%), and on the three MusicMagus pairs it improves all three metrics. The method adds no training to the diffusion model and no extra denoising steps.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the last time the instrument classifier changes its prediction marks the exact timestep where instrument information begins to enter the latent, with melody and structure already fixed, an assumption that must hold even though the classifier is only 38% accurate on the generated evaluation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Instrument editing becomes a training-free operation on top of an existing text-to-music diffusion model, provided the model shows the structure-then-timbre ordering.
  • The chosen timestep preserves melody and structure better than random or midpoint swapping, so a musician can retarget instrumentation while keeping the composed line.
  • The method adds no extra denoising steps; the only added cost is running the distilled classifier over intermediate latents.
  • On the three pairs used in the MusicMagus comparison, Diff-TONE improves Chroma, KAD, and target-instrument accuracy at the same time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the stage-ordering claim generalizes, the same last-change criterion could edit attributes other than instrument, such as genre, mood, or playing style, by swapping the relevant prompt phrase and using an attribute-specific probe.
  • Because the method needs the same random seed as the original generation, applying it to arbitrary real recordings would require first inverting the audio into the model's latent; the paper lists real-audio application as future work.
  • The distilled classifier's 38% top-1 accuracy on generated audio means the selected boundary is likely noisy; a stronger probe could sharpen the onset estimate and possibly close the instrument-accuracy gap with Diff-Midpoint.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Diff-TONE, an inference-time method for editing the instrument in an audio track generated by Stable Audio Open. The method computes an approximate clean latent \tilde{x}_0 at each diffusion timestep, feeds it to a distilled MERT-based instrument classifier, and swaps the instrument name in the text prompt at the last timestep at which the classifier's prediction changes. The authors argue that diffusion models first establish content, then instrument, then refinement, and that this classifier-defined timestep balances content preservation and timbre change. Experiments on 90 instrument pairs report lower Chroma distance and KAD than random and midpoint swap baselines, but lower top-1 instrument accuracy; on three pairs from MusicMagus, Diff-TONE outperforms MusicMagus on all metrics.

Significance. The proposed method is simple, requires no retraining of the text-to-music model, and is a plausible practical tool for timbre editing; the authors provide a demo page and make code available upon acceptance. The classifier-based timestep selection is an interesting mechanism that could be useful beyond this setting. However, the key premise—that classifier prediction flips locate the onset of instrument information—is only weakly supported, and the evaluation is complicated by the use of the same teacher model for selection and scoring, and by unreported failure rates. If the premise is validated with independent evidence, this would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 1] The central selection rule is ambiguous: Section IV defines the swap timestep as 'the last time the classifier changes its prediction,' whereas the Figure 1 caption states that swapping occurs 'once the classifier does not change its prediction.' These rules can select different timesteps, and neither is validated. More importantly, the assumption that the classifier's flip point marks the onset of instrument-infusion in the latent is load-bearing and is supported only by a single single-note example (Section IV-A, Figure 2). Given that the distilled classifier attains only 38% top-1 accuracy on the generated evaluation set (Table I), the paper should provide a systematic analysis of classifier prediction trajectories over timesteps and relate the selected timesteps to human-annotated or oracle swap timesteps.
  2. [Section V-E, Table II] The instrument-accuracy evaluation uses the MERT teacher classifier, and the timestep-selection student is distilled from the same MERT teacher. Consequently, the Inst. Acc. metric is partially self-referential: the method is tuned to a surrogate that is then used to score it. An evaluation with an independent instrument classifier or a listening study is needed to confirm that Diff-TONE actually changes the instrument, and to interpret the lower accuracy relative to Diff-Midpoint (23.00% vs. 39.33%).
  3. [Section VI-B, Conclusion] The Conclusion acknowledges that the classifier may never change its prediction or may select a timestep too late for any editing to occur, but the paper never reports the frequency of these failure cases. If such failures are substantial, the improved Chroma and KAD in Table II could be driven by near-no-op edits, which would also explain the lower Inst. Acc. The paper should report the distribution of selected timesteps, the fraction of edits that actually change the predicted instrument, and error bars or significance tests across the 90 pairs and 10 prompts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] The sentence 'recent development have led' should read 'recent developments have led'.
  2. [Abstract, Section I] The claim that the method 'does not introduce additional computational overhead to the generation process' is inaccurate, since the classifier must be run at every timestep to determine the swap point; this should be rephrased, e.g., as 'no overhead during the denoising steps after the swap' or 'minimal overhead'.
  3. [Section V-B, Table III] The paper should clarify the exact number of prompts used for the three-pair MusicMagus comparison (10 per pair? the same 10 generated prompts?) and whether the same random seeds are used across methods.
  4. [Table I] The table caption and row labels are somewhat redundant; consider adding a note that the teacher classifier is an upper bound, not an oracle for human perception, to avoid overinterpreting the absolute numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the central result is evaluated against independent metrics (Chroma, KAD) and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a classifier-selected intermediate timestep balances content preservation and timbre change. This is not circular by construction: the selected timestep is defined by the distilled classifier's prediction changes, but the two headline metrics (Chroma and KAD) are computed independently of that classifier and of the teacher model used to supervise it. The only metric sharing lineage with the selection mechanism is Inst. Acc., which uses the MERT teacher classifier; however, Diff-TONE does not claim to improve this metric (Table II reports 23.00%, worse than Diff-Midpoint's 39.33%), so the paper is not presenting a fitted input as a successful prediction. The self-citations in the paper ([5], [49]) are background references and are not load-bearing for the proposed mechanism. The limitations of the approach, such as the classifier never changing or changing too late, are acknowledged in the conclusion and concern empirical validity and robustness, not definitional circularity. The underlying premise that the diffusion process infuses instrument information at a particular stage is supported only by a single illustrative example, which is a weakness in evidence strength, but it is not a logical reduction of the result to its inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical assumptions about diffusion model dynamics and the reliability of a distilled classifier. No scalar free parameters are fitted beyond the trained classifier's weights; the main uncertainties are the untested stage-ordering premise and the weak classifier.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The generation process of text-to-music diffusion models focuses first on overall structure/content, then instrument information, then quality refinement.
    Sections IV and IV-A: the entire method is built on this observation, which is illustrated only by a single note example in Figure 2 and not systematically validated across prompts or pairs.
  • ad hoc to paper The last change in the instrument classifier's prediction marks the onset of instrument information infusion in the latent.
    Section IV: this heuristic defines the swap timestep. No theoretical or empirical justification is provided beyond the single illustrative example.
  • domain assumption The distilled classifier trained on IRMAS latents generalizes to Stable Audio Open generated latents well enough to select useful timesteps.
    Section IV.B and Table I: the distilled classifier achieves only 38% top-1 accuracy on the generated evaluation set, yet is used as the selection criterion.
  • domain assumption MERT representations can be distilled into Stable Audio Open's latent space while preserving instrument information.
    Section IV.B: the three-stage distillation procedure assumes that the student network can align MERT features with the Stable Audio Open encoder latents well enough for classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diff-TONE: Timestep Optimization for iNstrument Editing in Text-to-Music Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZGQDOOE

@misc{pith2026250615530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diff-TONE: Timestep Optimization for iNstrument Editing in Text-to-Music Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZGQDOOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15530}
}
read the original abstract

Breakthroughs in text-to-music generation models are transforming the creative landscape, equipping musicians with innovative tools for composition and experimentation like never before. However, controlling the generation process to achieve a specific desired outcome remains a significant challenge. Even a minor change in the text prompt, combined with the same random seed, can drastically alter the generated piece. In this paper, we explore the application of existing text-to-music diffusion models for instrument editing. Specifically, for an existing audio track, we aim to leverage a pretrained text-to-music diffusion model to edit the instrument while preserving the underlying content. Based on the insight that the model first focuses on the overall structure or content of the audio, then adds instrument information, and finally refines the quality, we show that selecting a well-chosen intermediate timestep, identified through an instrument classifier, yields a balance between preserving the original piece's content and achieving the desired timbre. Our method does not require additional training of the text-to-music diffusion model, nor does it compromise the generation process's speed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of Diff-TONE: We start from an initial noisy latent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mel spectrogram corresponding to an audio generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text

    Andrea Agostinelli et al. “Musiclm: Generating music from text”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11325 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Music- STAR: a Style Translation system for Audio-based Re- instrumentation

    Mahshid Alinoori and Vassilios Tzerpos. “Music- STAR: a Style Translation system for Audio-based Re- instrumentation”. In: Proc. ISMIR. 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    ediffi: Text-to-image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers

    Yogesh Balaji et al. “ediffi: Text-to-image diffusion models with an ensemble of expert denoisers”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01324 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Arpit Bansal et al. “Universal guidance for diffusion models”. In: Proc. CVPR. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    WaveTransfer: A Flexible End-to- end Multi-instrument Timbre Transfer with Diffusion

    Teysir Baoueb et al. “WaveTransfer: A Flexible End-to- end Multi-instrument Timbre Transfer with Diffusion”. In: Proc. MLSP. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Stable video diffusion: Scal- ing latent video diffusion models to large datasets

    Andreas Blattmann et al. “Stable video diffusion: Scal- ing latent video diffusion models to large datasets”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    A Comparison of Sound Segrega- tion Techniques for Predominant Instrument Recogni- tion in Musical Audio Signals

    Juan J Bosch et al. “A Comparison of Sound Segrega- tion Techniques for Predominant Instrument Recogni- tion in Musical Audio Signals.” In: Proc. ISMIR. 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing in- structions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. “Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing in- structions”. In: Proc. CVPR. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to- music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strate- gies

    Ke Chen et al. “Musicldm: Enhancing novelty in text-to- music generation using beat-synchronous mixup strate- gies”. In: Proc. ICASSP. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Executing your Commands via Motion Diffusion in Latent Space

    Xin Chen et al. “Executing your Commands via Motion Diffusion in Latent Space”. In: Proc. CVPR. 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Scaling instruction-finetuned language models

    Hyung Won Chung et al. “Scaling instruction-finetuned language models”. In: JMLR 25.70 (2024), pp. 1–53

    2024

  4. [12]

    KAD: No More FAD! An Effec- tive and Efficient Evaluation Metric for Audio Genera- tion

    Yoonjin Chung et al. “KAD: No More FAD! An Effec- tive and Efficient Evaluation Metric for Audio Genera- tion”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15602 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Self-Supervised VQ-V AE for One- Shot Music Style Transfer

    Ond ˇrej C´ıfka et al. “Self-Supervised VQ-V AE for One- Shot Music Style Transfer”. In: Proc. ICASSP. 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Timbre transfer using image-to-image denoising diffu- sion implicit models

    Luca Comanducci, Fabio Antonacci, and Augusto Sarti. “Timbre transfer using image-to-image denoising diffu- sion implicit models”. In: Proc. ISMIR. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Simple and controllable music gen- eration

    Jade Copet et al. “Simple and controllable music gen- eration”. In: Proc. NeurIPS. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Moshi: a speech-text foun- dation model for real-time dialogue

    Alexandre D ´efossez et al. “Moshi: a speech-text foun- dation model for real-time dialogue”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00037 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. “Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis”. In: Proc. NeurIPS. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Stable audio open

    Zach Evans et al. “Stable audio open”. In: Proc. ICASSP. 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Text-to-audio generation using instruction guided latent diffusion model

    Deepanway Ghosal et al. “Text-to-audio generation using instruction guided latent diffusion model”. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 2023, pp. 3590–3598

    2023

  12. [20]

    Generative adversarial net- works

    Ian Goodfellow et al. “Generative adversarial net- works”. In: Commun. ACM 63.11 (2020), pp. 139–144

    2020

  13. [21]

    Animatediff: Animate your person- alized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning

    Yuwei Guo et al. “Animatediff: Animate your person- alized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning”. In: Proc. ICLR. 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    InstructME: An Instruction Guided Music Edit And Remix Framework with Latent Diffu- sion Models

    Bing Han et al. “InstructME: An Instruction Guided Music Edit And Remix Framework with Latent Diffu- sion Models”. In: Proc. IJCAI. 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Denois- ing diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. “Denois- ing diffusion probabilistic models”. In: Proc. NeurIPS. 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Classifier-Free Diffu- sion Guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. “Classifier-Free Diffu- sion Guidance”. In: Proc. NeurIPS Workshops. 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models

    Qingqing Huang et al. “Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03917 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Make-an-audio: Text-to-audio generation with prompt-enhanced diffusion models

    Rongjie Huang et al. “Make-an-audio: Text-to-audio generation with prompt-enhanced diffusion models”. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR. 2023, pp. 13916–13932

    2023

  19. [27]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. “Auto-encoding variational bayes”. In: Proc. ICLR. 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models

    Tuomas Kynk ¨a¨anniemi et al. “Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models”. In: Proc. NeurIPS. 2024. 7

    2024

  21. [29]

    Efficient neural music generation

    Max WY Lam et al. “Efficient neural music generation”. In: Proc. NeurIPS (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Music style transfer with time-varying inversion of diffusion models

    Sifei Li et al. “Music style transfer with time-varying inversion of diffusion models”. In: Proc. AAAI. 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    MERT: Acoustic Music Understanding Model with Large-Scale Self-supervised Training

    Yizhi LI et al. “MERT: Acoustic Music Understanding Model with Large-Scale Self-supervised Training”. In: Proc. ICLR. 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Content-based controls for music large language modeling

    Liwei Lin et al. “Content-based controls for music large language modeling”. In: Proc. ISMIR. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Audioldm 2: Learning holistic au- dio generation with self-supervised pretraining

    Haohe Liu et al. “Audioldm 2: Learning holistic au- dio generation with self-supervised pretraining”. In: IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process. (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Audioldm: Text-to-audio genera- tion with latent diffusion models

    Haohe Liu et al. “Audioldm: Text-to-audio genera- tion with latent diffusion models”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Music understanding llama: Ad- vancing text-to-music generation with question answer- ing and captioning

    Shansong Liu et al. “Music understanding llama: Ad- vancing text-to-music generation with question answer- ing and captioning”. In: Proc. ICASSP. 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Foundation models for music: A survey

    Yinghao Ma et al. “Foundation models for music: A survey”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14340 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zero-shot unsuper- vised and text-based audio editing using DDPM inver- sion

    Hila Manor and Tomer Michaeli. “Zero-shot unsuper- vised and text-based audio editing using DDPM inver- sion”. In: Proc. ICML. 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation

    Jan Melechovsky et al. “Mustango: Toward controllable text-to-music generation”. In: Proc. NAACL. 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady et al. “Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models”. In:Proc. CVPR. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Ditto: Diffusion inference-time t-optimization for music generation

    Zachary Novack et al. “Ditto: Diffusion inference-time t-optimization for music generation”. In: Proc. ICML. 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach et al. “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models”. In: Proc. CVPR. 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Audio Conditioning for Music Generation via Discrete Bottleneck Features

    Simon Rouard et al. “Audio Conditioning for Music Generation via Discrete Bottleneck Features”. In: Proc. ISMIR. 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz et al. “Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven generation”. In: Proc. CVPR. 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia et al. “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding”. In: Proc. NeurIPS. 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. “Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models”. In: Proc. ICLR. 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Human motion diffusion model

    Guy Tevet et al. “Human motion diffusion model”. In: Proc. ICLR. 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Towards Music Instrument Classification using Convolutional Neural Networks

    Paul Tiemeijer, Mahyar Shahsavari, and Mahmood Fa- zlali. “Towards Music Instrument Classification using Convolutional Neural Networks”. In: 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS). 2024, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/COINS61597. 2024.10622136

    2024

  40. [48]

    Audio Prompt Adapter: Un- leashing Music Editing Abilities for Text-to-Music with Lightweight Finetuning

    Fang-Duo Tsai et al. “Audio Prompt Adapter: Un- leashing Music Editing Abilities for Text-to-Music with Lightweight Finetuning”. In: Proc. ISMIR. 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Analysis of Classifier-Free Guidance Weight Schedulers

    Xi Wang et al. “Analysis of Classifier-Free Guidance Weight Schedulers”. In: Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Transplayer: Timbre Style Transfer with Flexible Timbre Control

    Yuxuan Wu et al. “Transplayer: Timbre Style Transfer with Flexible Timbre Control”. In: Proc. ICASSP. 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Musicmagus: Zero-shot text-to- music editing via diffusion models

    Yixiao Zhang et al. “Musicmagus: Zero-shot text-to- music editing via diffusion models”. In: Proc. IJCAI . 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.