CMI-RewardBench: Evaluating Music Reward Models with Compositional Multimodal Instruction
Authors: Yinghao Ma, Haiwen Xia, Hewei Gao, Weixiong Chen, Yuxin Ye, Yuchen Yang, Sungkyun Chang, Mingshuo Ding, +4 more
Organizations: Queen Mary University of London, London, UK · Peking University, Beijing, China · Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany · Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark · Beijing University of Post and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · Soochow University, Suzhou, China · University of Manchester, Manchester, UK · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
While music generation models have evolved to handle complex multimodal inputs mixing text, lyrics, and reference audio, evaluation mechanisms have lagged behind. In this paper, we bridge this critical gap by establishing a comprehensive ecosystem for music reward modeling under Compositional Multimodal Instruction (CMI), where the generated music may be conditioned on text descriptions, lyrics, and audio prompts. We first introduce CMI-Pref-Pseudo, a large-scale preference dataset comprising 110k pseudo-labeled samples, and CMI-Pref, a high-quality, human-annotated corpus tailored for fine-grained alignment tasks. To unify the evaluation landscape, we propose CMI-RewardBench, a unified benchmark that evaluates music reward models on heterogeneous samples across musicality, text-music alignment, and compositional instruction alignment. Leveraging these resources, we develop CMI reward models (CMI-RMs), a parameter-efficient reward model family capable of processing heterogeneous inputs. We evaluate their correlation with human judgment scores on musicality and alignment on CMI-Pref along with previous datasets. Further experiments demonstrate that CMI-RM not only correlates strongly with human judgments, but also enables effective inference-time scaling via top-k filtering. Code is available at GitHub (https://github.com/Haiwen-Xia/CMI-RewardBench). Model weights: CMI-RM (https://huggingface.co/HaiwenXia/CMI-RM). Datasets: CMI-Pref-Pseudo (https://huggingface.co/datasets/HaiwenXia/cmi-pref-pseudo) and CMI-Pref (https://huggingface.co/datasets/HaiwenXia/cmi-pref)
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reward models should act as proxies for human evaluation under compositional multimodal instructions (CMI). Human judges evaluate a generated waveform with respect to the provided prompt—text descriptions, lyrics, and/or reference audio—considering both musicality and instruction alignment. However, current reward models are typically fragmented: they either score musicality from audio alone or capture alignment for a single modality pair, and thus cannot reliably proxy human judgments across flexible CMI inputs.
Data set
PAM
MusicEval
SongEval
AIME
MusicPref
Music Arena
CMI-Pref-Pseudo
CMI-Pref
Text Condition
✔
unavailable
✗
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Lyrics Condition
✗
✗
unavailable
✗
✗
✔
✔
✔
Audio Condition
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✔
✔
#samples
500
2748
2,399
15,600
2,520
2,800
110k
4,027
#Testing samples
500
413
-
-
-
1,340
-
500
#Duration of audio(hours)
0.83
16.62
140.54
16.67
unavailable
88.30
808.85
133.80
Table 1: Statistics of CMI-Pref and CMI-Pref-Pseudo compared with previous datasets. Samples here refer to pairs for preference datasets and individual audio clips for MOS datasets.
Figure 2: Model architecture of compositional music instruction reward model (CMI-RM).
Musicality
PAM (Music Subset)
MusicEval (Test Split)
Music Arena
CMI-Pref
Method&Model
LCC
SRCC
K-Tau
LCC
SRCC
K-Tau
ACC
ACC
PAM score
0.5873
0.6099
0.4367
0.6466
0.6724
0.4874
63.13%
65.40%
audiobox-CE
0.5283
0.5204
0.3665
0.6393
0.6599
0.4830
64.25%
71.80%
audiobox-CU
0.4645
0.4704
0.3279
0.6272
0.6764
0.4950
67.76%
71.40%
audiobox-PC
0.2505
0.2230
0.1552
0.1225
0.0768
0.0514
58.73%
59.00%
audiobox-PQ
0.4636
0.4513
0.3166
0.6016
0.6335
0.4620
67.54%
73.80%
Table 2: Musicality results on CMI-RewardBench. For each metric, the best performance is marked in boldface and second with underline.
PAM (Music Subset)
CMI-Pref (Subsets)
Text-Music
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
CMI-Pref w/o Audio
CMI-Pref w/ Audio
Lyrics-Music
✗
✗
✗
✗
✔
✗
✔
Audio-Music
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✔
✔
Metrics
LCC
SRCC
K-Tau
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
ACC
CLAP score (default)
0.4692
0.4517
0.3171
60.80%
64.00%
-
-
62.40%
-
CLAP score (music)
0.3192
0.2881
0.1978
67.20%
73.60 %
-
-
70.40%
-
Table 3: Benchmark Results on Compositional Multimodal Instruction Alignment.
Training variant
PAM
MusicEval
Music Arena
CMI-Pref
Metric ↑
Mean SRCC
SRCC
Acc.
Mean Acc.
Distill only
0.3925
0.5117
64.25%
71.10%
Distill+CMI-Pref
0.6116
0.7315
71.41%
75.90%
Distill+MusicEval
0.4338
0.3460
64.78%
69.00%
Distill+Both
0.5464
0.8266
73.43%
76.05%
Scratch+Both
0.2630
0.4986
71.34%
72.15%
Table 4: Aggregated ablation results with a fixed CMI-RM architecture. Mean SRCC on PAM averages the musicality and text–music alignment regression tasks. Music Arena accuracy uses musicality score sMUS for pairwise prediction. Mean Acc. on CMI-Pref averages musicality and alignment preference accuracy.
Figure 3: Pairwise preference matrices for test-time scaling with RM reranking. Each cell reports the percentage of trials in which annotators preferred system A (row) over system B (column).
Model
Alignment
AudioBox
SongEval
MuQ-MuLan ↑
CE ↑
CU ↑
Mus ↑
MusicGen
0.298
6.046
6.989
2.143
MusicGen (N=3)
0.323
6.405
7.255
2.213
MusicGen (N=10)
0.339
6.647
7.416
2.273
Stable Audio
0.293
5.567
7.170
2.055
Stable Audio (N=3)
0.301
5.732
7.245
2.078
Table 5: Test-time scaling results of MusicGen-small and Stable-audio-open-small on objective metrics on text-music alignment (MuQ-Mulan) and musicality (AudioBox, and SongEval).
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Distribution of audio duration. The x-axis denotes generated audio duration (seconds), and the y-axis denotes sample count ( N=6458 unique audios). To improve readability, bar heights are clipped at 500 and overflow counts are annotated in red; a tiny fraction of samples with duration > 300 seconds is omitted from the plot.
Figure 5: Distribution of total listening time per audio. “Total listening time” denotes accumulated playback time spent by annotators on one audio. Starting from 8,054 records (4,027 votes × 2 audios), we remove 8 outliers with listening time > 500 seconds and report the remaining N=8046 samples.
Figure 6: Correlation between audio duration (x-axis) and total listening time (y-axis), computed on N=8046 filtered samples. The dashed diagonal denotes y=x (full listening).
Metric
Instruction Following
Music Quality
Agreement Count
445
466
Disagreement Count
199
178
Agreement Rate
0.691
0.724
Krippendorff’s α
0.382
0.447
Appendix
Table 6: Inter-annotator agreement on overlapping votes, computed over 644 vote pairs from 492 comparisons with multiple annotations.
Metric
Alignment Preference
Musicality Preference
Agreement Rate
0.750
0.752
Krippendorff’s α
0.500
0.504
Wilson 95% CI
(70.9%, 78.5%)
(71.1%, 78.7%)
Appendix
Table 7: Reliability of CMI-Pref-test, computed by comparing three annotators’ re-annotations of all 500 test samples with the original test labels.
Figure 7: Distribution of annotators’ confidence scores for instruction following and music quality.
Metric
Value
#Votes with same preference
3309
#Votes with different preference
718
Agreement rate
0.822
Avg. confidence (same Pref.)
IF: 3.674, MQ: 3.734
Avg. confidence (diff. Pref.)
IF: 3.171, MQ: 3.311
Appendix
Table 8: Agreement between instruction-following and music-quality preferences, and the corresponding average confidence.
Configuration
Win A (%)
Win B (%)
Tie (%)
Musicality
Original (A,B)
51.96
40.96
7.08
Reversed (B,A)
59.27
33.48
7.25
Agreed (Filtered)
57.80
36.97
5.22
Alignment
Original (A,B)
33.65
43.71
22.64
Appendix
Table 9: Distribution of pseudo-labels across varying query configurations. “Original” and “Reversed” denote the presentation order of the audio pair. “Agreed” represents the subset of labels where the model’s preference remained consistent across both permutations. The discrepancy between Original and Reversed highlights positional bias, which is rectified in the Agreed set.
Dimension
Positive Descriptors
Negative Descriptors
Melody
Catchy, Memorable, Distinct
Repetitive, Generic, Wandering
Structure
Coherent, Progression, Build-up
Disjointed, Abrupt, Random Loops
Rhythm
Groovy, Steady, Driving
Off-beat, Unstable, Chaotic
Audio Quality
Clean mix, Balanced, High-fidelity
Harsh, Muddy, Distorted/Clipping
Vocals
Natural, Clear articulation
Robotic, Slurred, Artifacts
Appendix
Table 10: Taxonomy of musical attributes used in the annotation process.
Figure 8: Platform of human annotation.
Training pipeline
Musicality Acc.
Alignment Acc.
Pseudo pretrain (before FT)
71.0%
71.8%
Pseudo pretrain → FT (no smoothing)
75.2%
71.0%
Direct FT (from scratch)
75.0%
69.3%
Pseudo pretrain → FT (with smoothing)
77.8%
74.0%
Appendix
Table 11: Real-test reward-head accuracy (%) under different training pipelines.
Figure 9: Cross-entropy loss of checkpoints trained on CMI-Pseudo. Pseudo indicates metrics on the CMI-Pseudo validation set, and Real denotes results on the test set of CMI-Pref.
Figure 10: Accuracy of checkpoints trained on CMI-Pseudo. Pseudo indicates metrics on the CMI-Pseudo validation set, and Real denotes results on the test set of CMI-Pref.
Pseudo Size
Pref-Test Acc. ↑
Pref-Test CE ↓
Mus-Acc ↑
Align-Acc ↑
4k
0.582
0.674
0.726
0.664
8k
0.640
0.656
0.750
0.692
16k
0.605
0.655
0.754
0.700
32k
0.646
0.627
0.782
0.700
64k
0.711
0.593
0.778
0.740
110k
0.720
0.559
0.761
0.735
Appendix
Table 12: Pseudo data size ablation under the fixed epoch-progress protocol (same-epoch comparison).
Pseudo Size
Pref-Test Acc. ↑
Pref-Test CE ↓
Mus-Acc ↑
Align-Acc ↑
4k
0.588
0.724
0.742
0.696
8k
0.623
0.685
0.768
0.694
16k
0.646
0.636
0.760
0.682
32k
0.566
0.725
0.752
0.710
64k
0.711
0.593
0.778
0.740
110k
0.712
0.570
0.762
0.714
Appendix
Table 13: Pseudo data size ablation under the fixed-step protocol (same-step comparison).
Pseudo-label setup
PAM Mean SRCC
MusicEval SRCC
Music Arena Acc
CMI-Pref Mean Acc
Smooth (Qwen only)
0.529
0.742
0.701
0.756
Mix (70k Qwen + 40k Gemini)
0.550
0.761
0.699
0.768
Smooth + Mix
0.450
0.765
0.707
0.775
Appendix
Table 14: Aggregated results under different pseudo-label source designs.
Variant
Trainable Params
PAM Mean SRCC
MusicEval SRCC
MusicArena Acc
CMI-Pref Mean Acc
Small
8.3M
0.540
0.816
0.680
0.744
Base
38M
0.578
0.811
0.729
0.746
Large
102M
0.589
0.848
0.719
0.765
Appendix
Table 15: Model size scaling of the trainable reward head.
Metric
Arena T
Arena T+L
CMI T
CMI T+L
CMI T+L+A
CMI T+A
Δ Acc.
+2.7%
-1.4%
-4.0%
0.0%
-7.2%
-6.8%
Appendix
Table 16: Accuracy change from replacing the default text encoder with Flan-T5-Large. T/L/A denote text, lyrics, and audio conditions.
Datasets
PAM
MusicEval
Music Arena
CMI-Pref
Metrics ↑
Mean SRCC
SRCC
ACC
Mean ACC
None
0.5069
0.4659
73.73%
75.3%
Tanh
0.6024
0.4702
73.8%
74.8%
Linear
0.4595
0.4691
73.58%
74.40%
Ordinal
0.6079
0.4665
72.31%
75.80%
Appendix
Table 17: Aggregated results on mapping ablations
Duration (s), Acc (%)
Metric
Variant
[10,30)
[30,60)
[60,120)
[120,500]
Music Arena
n
119
88
531
600
first 10
72.3
53.4
64.2
59.5
mean 10
75.6
48.9
75.7
67.0
first 120
75.6
53.4
81.1
67.3
CMI-Pref Musicality
n
196
77
73
154
Appendix
Table 18: Accuracy (%) by audio duration across inference variants. Highest per bin is bold .
Pair
[10,30)
[30,60)
[60,120)
[120,500]
Overall
n = 1311
n = 824
n = 346
n = 1639
n = 4120
RMSE
f10 vs f120
0.3022
0.3960
0.5465
0.7734
0.5687
m10 vs f120
0.2289
0.2067
0.4292
0.5014
0.3751
f10 vs m10
0.2836
0.3583
0.3485
0.4478
0.3758
LCC
Appendix
Table 19: Effect of inference duration on predicted Musicality (RMSE & LCC between three configurations). Statistics for first 120 is shown
Pair
[10,30)
[30,60)
[60,120)
[120,500]
Overall
n = 1311
n = 824
n = 346
n = 1639
n = 4120
RMSE
f10 vs f120
0.2726
0.3104
0.4164
0.6110
0.4539
m10 vs f120
0.2084
0.1777
0.3082
0.3410
0.2727
f10 vs m10
0.2568
0.2922
0.2928
0.4022
0.3311
LCC
Appendix
Table 20: Effect of inference duration on predicted Text-Music Alignment (RMSE & LCC between three configurations). Statistics for first 120 is shown
Method
Accuracy (%)
AUC
MSE
Single Metric Threshold (Threshold = 0)
Musicality Diff
73.4
0.8001
0.1884
Alignment Diff
69.7
0.7714
0.2031
Mus + Ali Diff (Equal)
72.6
0.7962
0.1851
Regression Models (5-fold CV)
Logistic Regression
73.1
0.7991
0.1845
Appendix
Table 21: Regression analysis of overall human preference on Music Arena using predicted Musicality (Mus) and Alignment (Ali) scores. The results indicate that general user preference is predominantly driven by musicality.
Prompt Modality
w/ Condition Acc (%)
w/o Condition Acc (%)
Δ
Text + Audio + Lyrics
82.40
68.80
+13.60
Text + Audio w/o Lyrics
79.20
68.80
+10.40
Text + Lyrics w/o Audio
72.00
76.00
-4.00
Text only
68.80
67.20
+1.60
Overall ( N=500 )
75.60
70.20
+5.40
Appendix
Table 22: Ablation study on prompt conditions for Musicality prediction on CMI-Pref. We compare models trained and evaluated with and without compositional conditions across different prompt modalities ( n=125 for each subset).
Backbone / Comparison
Ordering
p -value
Stable Audio
GT > Top-10
0.003
MusicGen
GT > Top-1
0.0001
Stable Audio
GT > Top-1
0.0001
MusicGen
Top-10 > Top-3
0.016
MusicGen
Top-3 > Top-1
0.101
Stable Audio
Top-10 > Top-3
0.890
Appendix
Table 23: Significance checks for human listening results in test-time scaling.
Model
Total
Time Period (Month)
Data Type
(%)
Jul-Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Instru
Vocal
PAM score
63.13
69.13
75.41
58.56
53.14
55.27
56.84
68.35
audiobox-CE
64.25
67.79
73.77
63.36
60.14
55.27
64.25
64.25
audiobox-CU
67.76
71.36
77.0
66.78
60.14
60.73
68.04
67.53
audiobox-PC
58.73
63.75
70.49
55.82
54.54
48.00
52.88
63.57
audiobox-PQ
67.54
68.01
74.86
67.47
65.04
63.27
68.04
67.12
Appendix
Table 24: Benchmark Musicality ACC Results on Music Arena (Time & Data Type Analysis).
Musicality
Total
Confidence Level
Data Type
(500)
Conf <3 (66)
Conf =3 (128)
Conf >3 (306)
Instru (250)
Vocal (250)
PAM score
65.40%
63.64%
64.84%
66.01%
67.60%
63.20%
audiobox-CE
71.80%
63.64%
72.66%
73.20%
70.80%
72.80%
audiobox-CU
71.40%
66.67%
71.88%
72.22%
68.80%
74.00%
audiobox-PC
59.00%
46.97%
54.69%
63.40%
60.00%
58.00%
audiobox-PQ
73.80%
74.24%
78.13%
71.90%
73.20%
74.40%
Appendix
Table 25: Benchmark Musicality ACC Results on CMI-Pref (Ablation Analysis).
Text-Music Alignment
Total
Confidence Level
Data Type
(250)
Conf <3 (47)
Conf =3 (58)
Conf >3 (145)
Instru (125)
Vocal (125)
audiobox-CE
60.00%
45.95%
63.64%
61.90%
56.80%
63.20%
audiobox-CU
59.60%
54.05%
63.64%
59.18%
53.60%
65.60%
audiobox-PC
56.00%
35.13%
59.09%
59.86%
55.20%
56.80%
audiobox-PQ
59.60%
54.05%
65.15%
58.50%
55.20%
64.00%
CLAP score
62.40%
51.35%
59.09%
66.67%
60.80%
64.00%
Appendix
Table 26: Benchmark Text-Music Alignment ACC Results on CMI-Pref(Ablation Analysis).
Instrumental
Song
Model
w/ audio
w/o audio
w/ audio
w/o audio
suno-v5
212
221
213
288
mureka-o2
0
0
15
163
suno-v4.5-plus
214
221
216
288
mureka-v7.5
7
117
8
211
minimax-music-2
0
0
27
429
Appendix
Table 28: Generation counts per model by modality
Inst. (w/ audio)
Inst. (w/o audio)
Song (w/ audio)
Song (w/o audio)
Model
Alignment
Musicality
Alignment
Musicality
Alignment
Musicality
Alignment
Musicality
suno-v5
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
mureka-o2
-
-
-
-
2
1
4
1
suno-v4.5-plus
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
5
mureka-v7.5
6
4
2
1
7
6
5
2
minimax-music-2.0
-
-
-
-
1
2
1
4
Appendix
Table 29: Per-column ranks (1=best). Inst. refers to instrumental music generation, Song referes to song generation, w/audio indicates if an audio prompt is used. Unavailable modalities are left out.
We introduce TuneJury, an open, instance-level pairwise reward model for text-to-music that predicts a music preference score from a text prompt and an audio clip. The released checkpoint is trained on publicly available human-preference labels covering arena-style (A vs. B) votes, metric-alignment preference pairs, crowdsourced pairwise comparisons, and expert aesthetic ratings. The predicted score margin between two clips is well calibrated on our held-out test split, supporting data filtering via a simple score threshold. TuneJury generalizes to both held-out test pairs and out-of-distribution benchmarks, remaining competitive with prior baselines on the latter. For generators released after training, we introduce anchor calibration, a post-hoc, per-system Bradley-Terry calibration that recovers agreement at substantially better data efficiency than from-scratch retraining. The same frozen reward drives consistent reward-axis gains across three downstream applications: inference-time best-of-N selection, DITTO-style latent optimization, and expert-iteration post-training. TuneJury is available at https://github.com/yonghyunk1m/TuneJury.
Long-form song generation models continue to improve in duration, structural coherence, and acoustic complexity, increasing the need for reliable aesthetic rewards aligned with human preferences. However, reward models for complete songs remain limited, and existing evaluators typically predict scores in a single forward pass without readable explanations. To this end, we introduce MuseCritic, a semi-scalar reward model that generates a natural-language critique covering five aesthetic dimensions and uses it as an intermediate representation to predict continuous reward scores. MuseCritic follows a two-stage training pipeline: a teacher model first provides high-quality critiques for supervised fine-tuning, then the fine-tuned model generates its own critiques for reward learning, mitigating training-inference distribution shift. On an in-domain test set of 200 SongEval songs, MuseCritic reduces macro-averaged mean squared error from 0.2875 to 0.2316 and improves macro-averaged LCC, SRCC, and Kendall's tau to 0.9068, 0.8838, and 0.7178, respectively. On the out-of-domain Music Arena benchmark with 733 preference pairs, it achieves 71.35% accuracy and remains competitive with strong music-specific reward models. Using MuseCritic with GRPO also improves Muse-0.6B on all nine aesthetic metrics from SongEval and Audiobox Aesthetics. These results show that critique-conditioned reward modeling reduces scoring error and provides an effective optimization signal for song generation. The project repository is available at https://github.com/WuqnEl/MuseCritic.
Post-training text-to-music generation requires reward signals that capture multiple aspects of musical quality beyond what any single automatic metric can measure. We study structured, rubric-based rewards from pretrained audio-language models (ALMs) as training signals for both autoregressive and diffusion-based music generators. An ALM scores each generated clip against the rubric; we rank candidates generated for the same text prompt by their scores and convert these rankings into preference pairs for DPO on both MusicGen-small and ACE-Step v1, and additionally use the rubric scores directly as scalar rewards for DiffusionNFT on ACE-Step v1. On MusicCaps, rubric-based optimization improves CLAP, SongEval, and Audiobox-Aesthetics simultaneously, with the strongest gains obtained by DiffusionNFT on ACE-Step. By contrast, on MusicGen-small, building preferences from any one of these automatic evaluators produces clear cross-metric trade-offs: the targeted evaluator improves while other independent evaluators deteriorate. We further study tempo, key, and instrumentation, where precise objective rewards are available. Directly optimizing these specialized rewards reliably improves the target attributes, whereas ALM rubrics provide only partial transfer for tempo and instrumentation and no measurable improvement for key. Together, these results suggest a practical division of labor: ALM rubrics are effective for broad perceptual qualities that are difficult to formalize, while specialized objective rewards remain preferable when reliable measurements are available.
Ping Wang, Guang Yang, Shao-Rong Su +3
Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington · Allen Institute for AI