Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

MusGO: A Community-Driven Framework For Assessing Openness in Music-Generative AI

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 MusGO is a 13-category, evidence-based framework that scores how open a music-generating AI model really is, and applying it to 16 models shows training data is the most closed component.

desk verdict A well-documented, community-driven openness framework for music-gen AI with a public leaderboard; the ordering is only as solid as its weighting choices, but the main findings are robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03599 v1 pith:FTURU4EN submitted 2025-07-04 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CYeess.AS

Roser Batlle-Roca , Laura Ibáñez-Martínez , Xavier Serra , Emilia Gómez , Martín Rocamora This is my paper
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.CYeess.AS
keywords music-generativeAIopennesstransparencyopen-washingcommunity-drivenframeworkleaderboardtrainingdataresponsible
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 make 'open' a checkable, quantitative property of music-generating AI rather than a label companies attach to their models. It introduces MusGO, a framework that scores a model across 13 categories: 8 essential components such as source code, training data, weights, and licensing, plus 5 desirable extras such as model cards and datasheets. The authors surveyed 110 members of the music information retrieval community to decide which categories matter and how much, then applied the framework to 16 well-known music-generation models and published a publicly updatable leaderboard. The results show training data is the least open category, with only one model fully open, while training procedure is the most open, giving regulators and artists a shared yardstick for spotting 'open-washing'.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the MusGO framework: a checklist of 13 openness categories, split into 8 essential components (each graded closed, partial, or fully open) and 5 desirable components (each binary, present or absent). Two design choices carry the argument: the essential/desirable split, decided from survey relevance scores, and the weighted openness score that doubles the three most relevant categories (source code, training data, model weights) and normalises the result to a 100-point scale for ordering. The framework is operationalised as an evidence-based protocol: each model is scored by one author with written justification, reviewed by two others following consensual qualitative research, and the full evidence set is committed to a public repository so that any score can be inspected and contested. Distinctive to MusGO is the rule that training data counts as fully open when legal restrictions prevent direct release but detailed source information is disclosed.

What would settle it

Recompute the MusGO leaderboard with equal weights across the eight essential categories, or with weights taken from a new survey of practicing musicians and non-academic developers, and compare the ordering; if models shift positions substantially, the published ranking depends on the double-weighting of source code, training data, and model weights rather than on stable properties of the models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that openness in music-generative AI is not a binary status but a composite, graded property that can be assessed evidence by evidence through a domain-specific framework. To build that framework, the authors adapt a recently proposed openness methodology for large language models, refine it with feedback from a 110-person survey of the music information retrieval community, and produce MusGO: 13 categories, of which 8 are essential (scored closed, partial, or fully open) and 5 are desirable (binary present or absent). The essential categories are weighted — source code, training data, and model weights count double — and normalised into a 100-point openness score that orders the leaderboard. Applying the framework to 16 state-of-the-art models shows that training data is the most closed category, with only Stable Audio Open fully open, while training procedure is the most open, with 11 of 16 models fully open; it also shows that models releasing model weights tend to provide code documentation and are typically released under open-source or responsible-AI licenses. These assessments, along with their written justifications, are released in a public repository so scores can be scrutinised and appealed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the survey of 110 participants represents the community's priorities; the paper itself acknowledges the sample skewed male, academic, and European/North American, so if artists, developers, or non-Western stakeholders valued the categories differently, the weights and the leaderboard order built on them would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MusGO is used as intended, a music-AI release labelled 'open' can be checked against 13 concrete criteria, so incomplete claims such as weights without training-data details become visible and contestable.
  • The leaderboard can track how individual models change over time, as maintainers add code, datasheets, or licenses in response to community requests.
  • Because training data and model weights carry double weight, the framework encodes the position that these two components are the core of openness, and that documentation alone cannot compensate for their absence.
  • The survey-grounded refinement shows that domain-specific adaptation is workable, and the same adaptation template could be applied to other AI domains beyond music.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the essential/desirable split carries a normative claim about what openness should mean in music: reproducibility components are necessary, while documentation extras are optional; testing that claim would require surveying the artists and independent developers the current sample under-represents.
  • The treatment of IP-restricted training data — rating a model fully open when detailed sources are disclosed but the data itself is not released — creates a possible loophole where a model could score fully open on training data while providing no access to the data at all.
  • The framework's categories are currently static; as the paper notes, controllability, real-time use, and hardware requirements are emerging concerns it does not yet operationalize, and a natural extension is a hardware-efficiency category whose weight increases for low-resource settings.
  • The observed correlation between open weights, open code, documentation, and licensing suggests a cluster behaviour: groups that release one key component tend to release several, making targeted pressure to open training data a potentially high-leverage policy point.
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 introduces MusGO, a community-driven framework for assessing the openness of music-generative AI models. The authors adapt the LLM openness framework of Liesenfeld and Dingemanse (2024) to the music domain, refine it using a survey of 110 MIR community members, and arrive at 13 categories (8 essential, 5 desirable). They apply the framework to 16 music-generative models, compute a weighted openness score (O-score) from the essential categories, and publish a leaderboard plus an open repository with per-model evidence. The central empirical claims are that openness varies significantly across models, that Training procedure is the most open category (11/16 fully open), and that Training data is the most closed category (only 1/16 fully open).

Significance. If the framework and leaderboard are accepted, MusGO would be a useful, reproducible, and publicly inspectable tool for identifying 'open-washing' and for tracking openness in a domain where copyright and IP constraints make openness particularly contested. Strengths of the paper include the open repository, the documented consensus-review process for model assessments, the transparent presentation of survey results, and the explicit adaptation of an existing evidence-based framework rather than inventing categories from scratch. The main weakness is that the quantitative leaderboard ordering rests on weighting and classification decisions that are not shown to be robust; the paper's headline findings therefore need additional sensitivity support before they can be treated as fully evidence-based.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3] The tie-breaking rule stated in §4.3 (when O-scores are equal, the model with more fulfilled desirable categories is ranked higher) is another arbitrary component of the ordering. The sensitivity analysis requested above should also vary this tie-breaking rule, for example by breaking ties in favor of the model with higher scores in particular essential categories, to confirm that the reported ordering does not hinge on this convention.
  2. [§3.2.1 and §5.3] The paper acknowledges that the survey sample is biased toward male academics in Europe and North America and notes that this matches typical ISMIR demographics. However, because the category weights and the essential/desirable classification are derived from this sample, the external validity of the leaderboard depends on whether these preferences are representative of the broader MIR community and other stakeholders such as artists and developers. The paper should either perform a subsample robustness check (e.g., recomputing the category relevance and classification after excluding or reweighting regions/genders, if the anonymized response data permit) or explicitly discuss which pairwise orderings in the leaderboard are most fragile under plausible weight shifts. The current discussion in §5.3 treats the bias as a limitation but does not assess its consequences for the ranking.
  3. [§5.1] The operationalization of 'fully open' for Training data is relaxed in the framework: a model qualifies as fully open when direct access to training data is restricted by legal concerns, provided that detailed information about all sources is disclosed. This deviates from the survey statement, which was presented as reflecting the fully open level. The relaxation is acknowledged in §5.3, but the paper does not quantify how this choice affects the leaderboard; if a stricter criterion (e.g., requiring actual data access or a closed audit process) were applied, the set of models achieving full openness in Training data—and potentially the overall ordering—could change. The paper should discuss this sensitivity or justify the relaxation more concretely.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3] The paper states that the final framework was refined through both survey feedback and internal MTG discussions, but it does not itemize which changes came from which source. A short attribution list would strengthen the 'community-driven' claim and make the refinement process more transparent.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 (the leaderboard) is referenced in §4.3 but is not reproduced in the text provided; since the leaderboard is a central output, the paper should either include the figure with at least an abbreviated example row or explicitly direct readers to the online leaderboard with a description of the columns and symbols.
  3. [§4.3] The sentence 'we do not intend to reduce openness to a single value' is somewhat in tension with the use of the O-score to order the leaderboard. Clarifying that the score is an ordering heuristic rather than a measurement would help readers interpret the leaderboard.
  4. [§2.2] When discussing the Foundation Model Transparency Index, the paper criticizes it for not allowing individual data points to be scrutinized. Since MusGO makes its evidence public, it may be worth noting explicitly that the FMTI has since released its data or that the criticism is specifically about the version cited; otherwise the contrast is slightly out of date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework's weights come from an external community survey and the model assessments are evidence-based, not fitted to the conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained relative to its claims. MusGO is constructed by adapting Liesenfeld and Dingemanse's external framework to music, refining the categories via an independent 110-participant MIR survey (Section 3.2) and internal MTG discussions (Section 3.3). The O-score in Section 4.3 weights three essential categories double based on the survey's median relevance scores; these weights are derived from the survey data, not fitted to the 16 model assessments, so the leaderboard ordering is not forced by construction to reproduce a predetermined conclusion. The empirical findings, such as Training data being the most closed category and Training procedure the most open, are read off per-category evidence collected for each model and are publicly inspectable in the open repository. The acknowledged sample bias toward male academics in Europe and North America (Sections 3.2.1 and 5.3) and the partly judgment-based essential/desirable split are validity and sensitivity concerns, not circularity: they do not make any claimed output equal an input by definition. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work on transparency and artistic practices appear only as background references and are not load-bearing for the framework's derivation or the leaderboard results. No step in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no physical or conceptual entities beyond evaluation categories and a weighted score. The main free parameters are the weight factor and the essential/desirable threshold, both derived from the survey and authors' choices. The load-bearing axioms concern survey representativeness and the reliability of public evidence, which are acknowledged limitations.

free parameters (2)
  • weight factor for top essential categories = 2
    The weighted openness score multiplies essential categories E1, E2, and E3 (those with median relevance 5) by a factor of 2. This factor is chosen by the authors, not fitted to data, and directly affects the leaderboard ordering.
  • essential/desirable threshold = median relevance 4 or 5 for essential, 3 for desirable
    Categories with median relevance 4 or 5 were made essential, while Package and API, with median 3, were made desirable. This threshold is a judgement call that determines the structure of the framework.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The survey sample of 110 participants is representative of the MIR community's views on openness.
    The paper uses survey responses to set category weights and the essential/desirable split, while acknowledging the sample is biased toward male academics in Europe and North America. The use of these weights in the leaderboard assumes this representativeness.
  • domain assumption Openness can be reliably assessed from publicly available artifacts such as papers, websites, and model repositories.
    The evaluation methodology relies on official publishers and maintainers plus third-party sources like HuggingFace, assuming these sources are complete and accurate enough for a fair assessment.
  • domain assumption Consensual qualitative review by the authors is sufficient to ensure consistent and unbiased model assessments.
    Each model was assessed by one author and reviewed by two others, following consensual qualitative research principles. This assumes the process eliminates or sufficiently mitigates individual bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MusGO: A Community-Driven Framework For Assessing Openness in Music-Generative AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTURU4EN

@misc{pith2026250703599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MusGO: A Community-Driven Framework For Assessing Openness in Music-Generative AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTURU4EN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03599}
}
read the original abstract

Since 2023, generative AI has rapidly advanced in the music domain. Despite significant technological advancements, music-generative models raise critical ethical challenges, including a lack of transparency and accountability, along with risks such as the replication of artists' works, which highlights the importance of fostering openness. With upcoming regulations such as the EU AI Act encouraging open models, many generative models are being released labelled as 'open'. However, the definition of an open model remains widely debated. In this article, we adapt a recently proposed evidence-based framework for assessing openness in LLMs to the music domain. Using feedback from a survey of 110 participants from the Music Information Retrieval (MIR) community, we refine the framework into MusGO (Music-Generative Open AI), which comprises 13 openness categories: 8 essential and 5 desirable. We evaluate 16 state-of-the-art generative models and provide an openness leaderboard that is fully open to public scrutiny and community contributions. Through this work, we aim to clarify the concept of openness in music-generative AI and promote its transparent and responsible development.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MusGO: A Community-Driven Framework For Assessing Openness in Music-Generative AI

    INTRODUCTION Music-generative AI is introducing critical ethical con- cerns, particularly regarding its impact on creative pro- cesses and authorship, potential legal issues from data mis- use, and disruptions to existing business and intellectual property (IP) models [1–5]. Furthermore, these technolo- gies usually exhibit a Western cultural bias, underm...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK 2.1 Defining ‘open’ models Documentation efforts in AI have supported model transparency by disclosing development processes, data sources, and model attributes [15–18]. However, defining openness in AI is challenging, as it involves multiple com- ponents (e.g., source code, documentation, model weights, training data) [13] and...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    OPENNESS FRAMEWORK FOR MUSIC AI 3.1 From LLMs to music We adopted the evidence-based framework introduced by Liesenfeld and Dingemanse (2024) [11] and tailored it to the music domain. Our initial adaptation involved modi- fying references to LLMs to align with music-generative models, for example, by renaming LLM-oriented labels and excluding instruction ...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    ASSESSING OPENNESS 4.1 Model selection We selected 16 state-of-the-art music generation mod- els: 6 GANSynth [38], Jukebox [39], RA VE [40], Musika [41], Moûsai [42], MusicGen [43], MusicLM [44], VampNet [45], MusicLDM [46], Music ControlNet [47], Noise2Music [48], MeLoDy [49], DITTO-2 [50], Diff-A- Riff [51], JASCO [52], and Stable Audio Open [53]. Our s...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This situation underscores different levels of com- mitment across the community, particularly regarding crit- ical categories such as training data, source code, and li- censing

    DISCUSSION 5.1 Music-generative open AI Our assessment reveals a significantly diverse landscape of music-generative models in terms of openness, highlight- ing both notable efforts and significant room for improve- ment. This situation underscores different levels of com- mitment across the community, particularly regarding crit- ical categories such as ...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Given the lack of transparency and accountabil- ity in these systems, we advocate for open models

    CONCLUSION With the rise of music-generative AI, debates around the ethical implications of these models have intensi- fied. Given the lack of transparency and accountabil- ity in these systems, we advocate for open models. Yet, what constitutes an open model remains undefined for music-generative AI. In this work, we adapt an exist- ing openness framewor...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Par- ticipants were informed about the scope and purpose of the study, as well as the intended use of the collected data

    ETHICS STATEMENT This study involved a voluntary, anonymous online sur- vey aimed at gathering feedback from the MIR commu- nity on a preliminary adapted openness framework. Par- ticipants were informed about the scope and purpose of the study, as well as the intended use of the collected data. Regarding study design, participant information and data prot...

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been supported by IA y Música: Cátedra en Inteligencia Artificial y Música (TSI-100929-2023-1), funded by the Secretaría de Estado de Digitalización e In- teligencia Artificial and the European Union-Next Gener- ation EU, and IMPA: Multimodal AI for Audio Processing (PID2023-152250OB-I00), funded by the Ministry of Sci- ence,...

    work page 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Computational creativ- ity and music generation systems: An introduction to the state of the art,

    F. Carnovalini and A. Rodà, “Computational creativ- ity and music generation systems: An introduction to the state of the art,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Deep learning for singing processing: Achievements, challenges and impact on singers and listeners,

    E. Gómez, M. Blaauw, J. Bonada, P. Chandna, and H. Cuesta, “Deep learning for singing processing: Achievements, challenges and impact on singers and listeners,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03046 , 7 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03046 v1

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Artificial intelligence and music: Open questions of copyright law and engineering praxis,

    B. L. T. Sturm, M. Iglesias, O. Ben-Tal, M. Miron, and E. Gómez, “Artificial intelligence and music: Open questions of copyright law and engineering praxis,” Arts, vol. 8, p. 115, 9 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    The ethical implications of generative au- dio models: A systematic literature review,

    J. Barnett, “The ethical implications of generative au- dio models: A systematic literature review,”AIES 2023 - Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 146–161, 8 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Transparency in music-generative ai: A systematic literature review,

    R. Batlle-Roca, E. Gómez, W.-H. Liao, X. Serra, and Y . Mitsufuji, “Transparency in music-generative ai: A systematic literature review,” Research Square (preprint), 12 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3708077/v2

    2024

  6. [14]

    A shift in artistic prac- tices through artificial intelligence,

    K. Tatar, P. Ericson, K. Cotton, P. T. N. Del Prado, R. Batlle-Roca, B. Cabrero-Daniel, S. Ljungblad, G. Diapoulis, and J. Hussain, “A shift in artistic prac- tices through artificial intelligence,”Leonardo, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 293–297, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Ex- tracting training data from diffusion models,

    N. Carlini, J. Hayes, M. Nasr, M. Jagielski, V . Sehwag, F. Tramer, B. Balle, D. Ippolito, and E. Wallace, “Ex- tracting training data from diffusion models,” in 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , 2023, pp. 5253–5270

    2023

  8. [16]

    Quantifying memorization across neural language models,

    N. Carlini, D. Ippolito, M. Jagielski, K. Lee, F. Tramer, and C. Zhang, “Quantifying memorization across neural language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2202.07646

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Generation or repli- cation: Auscultating audio latent diffusion models,

    D. Bralios, G. Wichern, F. G. Germain, Z. Pan, S. Khu- rana, C. Hori, and J. Le Roux, “Generation or repli- cation: Auscultating audio latent diffusion models,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2024, p...

    2024

  10. [18]

    On reproducible ai: Towards reproducible research, open science, and digital scholarship in ai publications,

    O. E. Gundersen, Y . Gil, and D. W. Aha, “On reproducible ai: Towards reproducible research, open science, and digital scholarship in ai publications,” AI Magazine, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 56–68, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v39i3.2816

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Rethinking open source generative ai: open-washing and the eu ai act,

    A. Liesenfeld and M. Dingemanse, “Rethinking open source generative ai: open-washing and the eu ai act,” in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , ser. FAccT ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Why open-source generative ai models are an ethical way forward for science,

    A. Spirling, “Why open-source generative ai models are an ethical way forward for science,” Nature, vol. 616, no. 7957, pp. 413–413, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Olmo: Accelerating the science of language models,

    D. Groeneveld, I. Beltagy, P. Walsh, A. Bhagia, R. Kinney, O. Tafjord, A. H. Jha, H. Ivison, I. Magnusson, Y . Wang et al. , “Olmo: Accelerating the science of language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00838, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.00838

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    The gradient of generative ai release: Methods and considerations,

    I. Solaiman, “The gradient of generative ai release: Methods and considerations,” in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , ser. FAccT ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 111–122. [Online]. Avai...

    2023

  15. [23]

    FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity,

    M. Arnold, R. K. E. Bellamy, M. Hind, S. Houde, S. Mehta, A. Mojsilovi ´c, R. Nair, K. N. Ramamurthy, A. Olteanu, D. Piorkowski, D. Reimer, J. Richards, J. Tsay, and K. R. Varshney, “FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity,” IB...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Datasheets for datasets,

    T. Gebru, J. Morgenstern, B. Vecchione, J. W. Vaughan, H. Wallach, H. D. III, and K. Crawford, “Datasheets for datasets,” Commun. ACM , vol. 64, no. 12, p. 86–92, nov 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    The dataset nutrition label,

    S. Holland, A. Hosny, S. Newman, J. Joseph, and K. Chmielinski, “The dataset nutrition label,” Data Protection and Privacy, vol. 12, no. 12, p. 1, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Model cards for model reporting,

    M. Mitchell, S. Wu, A. Zaldivar, P. Barnes, L. Vasser- man, B. Hutchinson, E. Spitzer, I. D. Raji, and T. Ge- bru, “Model cards for model reporting,” in Proceed- ings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAT* ’19. New York, NY , USA: Associatio...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Between copyright and computer science: The law and ethics of generative ai,

    D. R. Desai and M. Riedl, “Between copyright and computer science: The law and ethics of generative ai,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14653, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14653

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The Open Source AI Definition – version 1.0,

    Open Source Initiative (OSI), “The Open Source AI Definition – version 1.0,” 10 2024, last accessed: March 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://opensour ce.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition

    2024

  21. [29]

    Open-source AI must reveal its training data, per new OSI definition,

    K. Robison (The Verge), “Open-source AI must reveal its training data, per new OSI definition,” 10 2024, last accessed: March 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/28/24281820/ope n-source-initiative-definition-artificial-intelligence-m eta-llama

    2024

  22. [30]

    The Open Source AI Definition: What the Critics Say,

    R. Gall (The News Stack), “The Open Source AI Definition: What the Critics Say,” 11 2024, last accessed: March 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://thenewstack.io/the-open-source-ai-definitio n-what-the-critics-say/

    2024

  23. [31]

    The Open Source AI Definition is a step forward in defining openness in AI,

    A. Tarkowski and P. Keller, “The Open Source AI Definition is a step forward in defining openness in AI,” 11 2024, last accessed: March 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openfuture.eu/blog/the-open-sourc e-ai-definition-is-a-step-forward-in-defining-opennes s-in-ai/

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ai art and its impact on artists,

    H. H. Jiang, L. Brown, J. Cheng, M. Khan, A. Gupta, D. Workman, A. Hanna, J. Flowers, and T. Gebru, “Ai art and its impact on artists,” in Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Soci- ety, 2023, pp. 363–374

    2023

  25. [33]

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),” 2024, last accessed: March 23, 2025. [Online]...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Article 53: Obligations for Providers of General-Purpose AI Models (Artificial Intelligence Act),

    ——, “Article 53: Obligations for Providers of General-Purpose AI Models (Artificial Intelligence Act),” 2024, last accessed: March 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/53/

    2024

  27. [35]

    General-Purpose AI Models in the AI Act - Questions & Answers,

    E. A. Office, “General-Purpose AI Models in the AI Act - Questions & Answers,” 03 2025, last accessed: March 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/general-p urpose-ai-models-ai-act-questions-answers

    2025

  28. [36]

    Second Draft of the General- Purpose AI Code of Practice,

    EU AI Office, “Second Draft of the General- Purpose AI Code of Practice,” 12 2024, last accessed: March 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/second -draft-general-purpose-ai-code-practice-published-w ritten-independent-experts

    2024

  29. [37]

    Opening up chatgpt: Tracking openness, trans- parency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generators,

    A. Liesenfeld, A. Lopez, and M. Dingemanse, “Opening up chatgpt: Tracking openness, trans- parency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generators,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces , ser. CUI ’23. New York, NY , USA...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Ai documentation: A path to accountability,

    F. Königstorfer and S. Thalmann, “Ai documentation: A path to accountability,”Journal of Responsible Tech- nology, vol. 11, p. 100043, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Patterns and anti-patterns, principles and pitfalls: accountability and transparency in ai,

    J. Matthews, “Patterns and anti-patterns, principles and pitfalls: accountability and transparency in ai,” AI Magazine, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 82–89, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Artificial intelligence and the value of transparency,

    J. Walmsley, “Artificial intelligence and the value of transparency,” AI & society , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 585– 595, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works,

    C. Novelli, M. Taddeo, and L. Floridi, “Accountability in artificial intelligence: what it is and how it works,” Ai & Society, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1871–1882, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    The foundation model transparency index,

    R. Bommasani, K. Klyman, S. Longpre, S. Kapoor, N. Maslej, B. Xiong, D. Zhang, and P. Liang, “The foundation model transparency index,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12941, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.12941

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    The model openness framework: Promoting completeness and openness for reproducibility, transparency and usability in ai,

    M. White, I. Haddad, C. Osborne, X.-Y . Liu, A. Ab- delmonsef, and S. Varghese, “The model openness framework: Promoting completeness and openness for reproducibility, transparency and usability in ai,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13784, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org...

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Risks and opportunities of open-source generative ai,

    F. Eiras, A. Petrov, B. Vidgen, C. Schroeder, F. Pizzati, K. Elkins, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bibi, A. Purewal, C. Botos, F. Steibel, F. Keshtkar, F. Barez, G. Smith, G. Guadagni, J. Chun, J. Cabot, J. Imperial, J. A. Nolazco, L. Landay, M. Jackson, P. H. S. Torr, T. Darrell, Y . L...

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Near to mid- term risks and opportunities of open source generative ai,

    F. Eiras, A. Petrov, B. Vidgen, C. S. de Witt, F. Pizzati, K. Elkins, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bibi, B. Csaba, F. Steibel, F. Barez, G. Smith, G. Guadagni, J. Chun, J. Cabot, J. M. Imperial, J. A. Nolazco-Flores, L. Landay, M. Jackson, P. Röttger, P. H. S. Torr, T. Darrell, Y . S. ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    GANSynth: Adversarial neural audio synthesis,

    J. Engel, K. K. Agrawal, S. Chen, I. Gulrajani, C. Donahue, and A. Roberts, “GANSynth: Adversarial neural audio synthesis,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1xQVn 09FX

    2019

  39. [47]

    Jukebox: A generative model for music,

    P. Dhariwal, H. Jun, C. Payne, J. W. Kim, A. Radford, and I. Sutskever, “Jukebox: A generative model for music,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00341 , 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00341

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rave: A variational autoencoder for fast and high-quality neural audio synthesis,

    A. Caillon and P. Esling, “Rave: A variational autoencoder for fast and high-quality neural audio synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05011 , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05011

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Musika! fast infinite wave- form music generation,

    M. Pasini and J. Schlüter, “Musika! fast infinite wave- form music generation,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Moûsai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion,

    F. Schneider, O. Kamal, Z. Jin, and B. Schölkopf, “Moûsai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757 ,

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Diff-a-riff: Musical accompaniment co- creation via latent diffusion models,

    J. Nistal, M. Pasini, C. Aouameur, M. Grachten, and S. Lattner, “Diff-a-riff: Musical accompaniment co- creation via latent diffusion models,” inProceedings of the 25th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Simple and control- lable music generation,

    J. Copet, F. Kreuk, I. Gat, T. Remez, D. Kant, G. Syn- naeve, Y . Adi, and A. Défossez, “Simple and control- lable music generation,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    Musiclm: Generating music from text,

    A. Agostinelli, T. I. Denk, Z. Borsos, J. En- gel, 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. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11325

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Vampnet: Music generation via masked acoustic to- ken modeling,

    H. F. Garcia, P. Seetharaman, R. Kumar, and B. Pardo, “Vampnet: Music generation via masked acoustic to- ken modeling,” in Proceedings of the 24th Interna- tional Society for Music Information Retrieval Confer- ence (ISMIR), 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

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

    K. Chen, Y . Wu, H. Liu, M. Nezhurina, T. Berg- Kirkpatrick, and S. Dubnov, “Musicldm: Enhanc- ing novelty in text-to-music generation using beat- synchronous mixup strategies,” inICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICAS...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Music controlnet: Multiple time-varying controls for music generation,

    S.-L. Wu, C. Donahue, S. Watanabe, and N. J. Bryan, “Music controlnet: Multiple time-varying controls for music generation,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech and Lang. Proc. , vol. 32, p. 2692–2703, May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.20 24.3399026

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models,

    Q. Huang, D. S. Park, T. Wang, T. I. Denk, A. Ly, N. Chen, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, J. Yu, C. Frank et al. , “Noise2music: Text-conditioned music generation with diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03917, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03917

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Efficient neural music generation,

    M. W. Y . Lam, Q. Tian, T. Li, Z. Yin, S. Feng, M. Tu, Y . Ji, R. Xia, M. Ma, X. Song, J. Chen, Y . Wang, and Y . Wang, “Efficient neural music generation,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’23. Red Hook, N...

    2024

  51. [59]

    DITTO-2: Distilled diffusion inference-time t- optimization for music generation,

    Z. Novack, J. McAuley, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, and N. J. Bryan, “DITTO-2: Distilled diffusion inference-time t- optimization for music generation,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 2024

    2024

  52. [61]

    Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally con- trolled text-to-music generation,

    O. Tal, A. Ziv, I. Gat, F. Kreuk, and Y . Adi, “Joint audio and symbolic conditioning for temporally con- trolled text-to-music generation,” inProceedings of the 25th International Society for Music Information Re- trieval Conference (ISMIR), 2024

    2024

  53. [62]

    Stable audio open,

    Z. Evans, J. D. Parker, C. Carr, Z. Zukowski, J. Tay- lor, and J. Pons, “Stable audio open,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14358, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” in 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014 - Conference Track Proceedings . International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Dec 2014. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org...

    2014 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Generative adversarial networks,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,” Commun. ACM , vol. 63, no. 11, p. 139–144, Oct. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3422622

    2020 doi

  56. [65]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, a...

    2017

  57. [66]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020, pp. 6840–6851. [Online]. Avai...

    2020

  58. [67]

    Flow matching for generative modeling,

    Y . Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, “Flow matching for generative modeling,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=PqvMRDCJT9t

    2023

  59. [68]

    A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research,

    C. E. Hill, B. J. Thompson, and E. N. Williams, “A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research,” The Counseling Psychologist , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 517–572, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10 .1177/0011000097254001

    1997

  60. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.1 1757

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.1 1757

Pith tools

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