As foundation models enter creative industries, understanding their aesthetic preferences becomes an important step toward AI-assisted creative decision making. In this work, we investigate how foundation models evaluate creative content and characterize their ``machine taste'' using K-pop songs and music videos as a testbed. We formulate aesthetic evaluation as a pairwise ranking problem and systematically examine pairwise inter-model agreement, group-level consensus, and cross-modal preference alignment. Our results reveal stronger pairwise inter-model agreement and group-level consensus in visual evaluation than in audio evaluation, while preferences across the two modalities remain weakly aligned. We further examine how visual consensus rankings relate to real-world popularity using historical YouTube viewership data, finding positive but varying correlations across artist groups. These findings provide initial insights into machine aesthetic preferences and lay the groundwork for future AI-assisted creative decision making that considers creative content, artist identity, audience preferences, and market dynamics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our study of machine taste in K-pop. ALMs and VLMs perform pairwise aesthetic evaluations of songs and music videos, respectively. The resulting rankings are analyzed to examine inter-model agreement, group-level consensus, and cross-modal preference alignment.
Group
# Audio
# Video
RED VELVET
30
28
TWICE
30
30
BLACKPINK
30
30
I-DLE
30
25
ITZY
30
26
AESPA
30
23
Table 1: Statistics of the K-pop evaluation dataset across 14 artist groups. The audio collection includes up to 30 songs per group, while the video collection contains the subset with eligible official music videos.
Group
Kendall’s W
p -value
RED VELVET
0.334
<0.001
TWICE
0.240
0.043
BLACKPINK
0.319
<0.001
I-DLE
0.356
<0.001
ITZY
0.272
0.010
AESPA
0.263
0.015
Table 2: Group-level aesthetic consensus among ALMs. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W is computed from the rankings of all six model configurations for each artist group in the audio-based evaluation.
Figure 2: Pairwise ranking agreement between ALMs. Each cell reports the mean Spearman rank correlation across 14 artist groups. Inst and Think denote Instruct and Thinking configurations, respectively; Qwen refers to Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B.
Group
Kendall’s W
p -value
RED VELVET
0.656
<0.001
TWICE
0.649
<0.001
BLACKPINK
0.769
<0.001
I-DLE
0.681
<0.001
ITZY
0.516
<0.001
AESPA
0.584
<0.001
Table 3: Group-level aesthetic consensus among VLMs. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance W is computed from the rankings of all 28 model configurations for each artist group in the music-video setting.
Figure 3: Pairwise ranking agreement between VLMs. Each cell reports the mean Spearman rank correlation across 14 artist groups in the music-video setting. Models are grouped by family, showing strong within-family agreement and substantial cross-family correlations.
Group
Spearman ρ
p -value
Red Velvet
0.023
0.905
TWICE
0.475
0.007
BLACKPINK
0.178
0.344
I-DLE
0.377
0.064
ITZY
0.356
0.074
AESPA
0.006
0.977
Table 4: Cross-modal consensus alignment between audio and visual evaluations. Spearman rank correlation is computed between the audio and visual consensus rankings for each artist group, using only songs shared by both modalities.
Figure 4: Cross-modal ranking agreement between ALMs and VLMs. Each cell reports the mean Spearman rank correlation across 14 artist groups, computed using only songs shared by both evaluation sets.
Artist
# MVs
Spearman ρ
p -value
AESPA
19/23
0.661
0.002
IVE
19/23
0.363
0.127
TWICE
26/30
0.406
0.040
Table 5: Association between VLM consensus rankings and early YouTube viewership. Historical view counts are collected approximately seven days after release ( ±2 days). We report within-group Spearman correlations and two-sided p -values.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
MOSS-4B-Inst
MOSS-4B-Think
MOSS-8B-Inst
MOSS-8B-Think
Qwen-Inst
Qwen-Think
MOSS-4B-Inst
–
0.018
0.091
0.176
0.106
-0.043
MOSS-4B-Think
–
0.276
0.425
0.320
-0.063
MOSS-8B-Inst
–
0.433
0.354
-0.029
MOSS-8B-Think
–
0.526
-0.144
Qwen-Inst
–
-0.086
Qwen-Think
–
Appendix
Table 6: Pairwise ranking agreement between ALMs. Each cell reports the mean Spearman rank correlation across 14 artist groups. Higher values indicate stronger agreement between model rankings.
Abbreviation
Model
G-N / G-T
GLM-4.6V-Flash, non-thinking / thinking
I1-N / I1-T
InternVL3.5-1B, non-thinking / thinking
I2-N / I2-T
InternVL3.5-2B, non-thinking / thinking
I4-N / I4-T
InternVL3.5-4B, non-thinking / thinking
I8-N / I8-T
InternVL3.5-8B, non-thinking / thinking
I14-N / I14-T
InternVL3.5-14B, non-thinking / thinking
Appendix
Table 7: Abbreviations used for VLMs in Table 14 .
Song
M4-I
M4-T
M8-I
M8-T
Q-I
Q-T
Consensus
Savage
10
2
2
1
6
16
1
Welcome To MY World
7
3
1
5
5
24
2
Drama
5
14
8
2
3
23
3
Count On Me
15
10
16
6
15
6
6
Spicy
9
25
10
2
2
24
8
Next Level
27
4
6
9
12
27
13
Appendix
Table 8: Song-level audio rankings of all 30 AESPA songs across six ALM configurations. M4, M8, and Q denote MOSS-Audio-4B, MOSS-Audio-8B, and Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B, respectively; I and T indicate Instruct and Thinking. Consensus rankings are obtained by averaging the six model rankings and re-ranking the songs. Lower ranks indicate stronger preferences.
Song
Mean Rank
Rank SD
Consensus
HEYA
2.54
1.82
1
I AM
4.50
2.79
2
ELEVEN
4.55
3.62
3
BLACKHOLE
5.39
4.49
4
LOVE DIVE
5.71
2.82
5
BANG BANG
7.46
4.02
6
Appendix
Table 9: Selected IVE songs illustrating visual consensus among 28 VLM configurations over 23 music videos. Mean Rank and Rank SD denote the mean and sample standard deviation of model rankings, respectively. Consensus is obtained by re-ranking the mean ranks. Lower ranks indicate stronger preferences, while smaller SD values indicate greater agreement.
Song
Audio Rank
Visual Rank
Fancy
2
2
Feel Special
5
5
Celebrate
3
6
Heart Shaker
17
17
TT
25
24
Cheer Up
30
29
Appendix
Table 10: Selected TWICE songs illustrating cross-modal preference alignment. Audio and visual consensus rankings are obtained from six ALM and 28 VLM configurations, respectively, using the same 30 songs with official music videos. Lower ranks indicate stronger preferences.
Setting
AESPA
IVE
TWICE
Day 7 ( ±2 days)
0.661 (19)
0.363 (19)
0.406 (26)
Day 7 ( ±1 day)
0.704 (15)
0.354 (14)
0.423 (22)
Day 30 ( ±3 days)
0.782 (11)
0.423 (13)
0.367 (22)
Appendix
Table 11: Robustness analysis of the association between VLM consensus rankings and historical YouTube viewership across different observation windows. Each cell reports Spearman’s ρ , with the number of available music videos indicated in parentheses.
Group
Songs
AESPA
Lemonade; Switchblade (Feat. Ty Dolla $ign); Supernova; Kiss N Tell; WDA (Whole Different Animal); Whiplash; Dirty Work; Drama; Live My Life; Armageddon; Rich Man; Spicy; Hot Mess; Better Things; Welcome To My World (Feat. Nævis); Life’s Too Short (English Ver.); Savage; Next Level; Dreams Come True; Girls; Black Mamba; Forever; Hold On Tight; Count On Me; ’Til We Die; Aenergy; Yeppi Yeppi; Can’t Help Myself; Just Another Girl; Prologue.
IVE
Eleven; Love Dive; After Like; Kitsch; I Am; Wave; I Want; Either Way; Off The Record; Baddie; All Night (Feat. Saweetie); Heya; Accendio; Summer Festa; Crush; Rebel Heart; Attitude; XOXZ; Bang Bang; Blackhole; Supernova Love; Lucid Dream; Be Alright; Take It; Royal; Blue Blood; Holy Moly; OTT; Payback; Ice Queen.
LE SSERAFIM
Hot; Crazy; Made My Night; Fearless; Perfect Night; Unforgiven; Smart; Antifragile; Boompala; Impurities; Celebration; Different; Easy; Come Over; Spaghetti; Eve, Psyche & The Bluebeard’s Wife; Kawaii; Sour Grapes; Blue Flame; The Great Mermaid; No Celestial; Good Parts (When The Quality Is Bad But I Am); Fire In The Belly; 1-800-Hot-N-Fun; Pierrot; Crazier; Ash; So Cynical (Badum); Iffy Iffy; Trust Exercise.
NEWJEANS
Attention; Hype Boy; Hurt; Cookie; Ditto; OMG; Zero; New Jeans; Super Shy; Cool With You (Side A); ETA; Bubble Gum; How Sweet; Right Now; Supernatural; ASAP; Get Up; Gods; Beautiful Restriction; Our Night Is More Beautiful Than Your Day.
I-DLE
Nxde; Tomboy; Mono; I Want That; Queencard; Oh My God; Gimme Dat Love; Good Thing; Girlfriend; Crow; Lion; Klaxon; Super Lady; Hwaa; Wife; Latata; Senorita; Uh-Oh; Hann (Alone); Allergy; Dumdi Dumdi; Revenge; I Do; Last Dance; Blow Your Mind; My Bag; Fate; I’m The Trend; Bloom; Nightmare.
TWICE
This Is For; Strategy; What Is Love?; The Feels; Fancy; Feel Special; Talk That Talk; I Got You; Set Me Free; One Spark; I Can’t Stop Me; Alcohol-Free; Me+You; More & More; Scientist; TT; Knock Knock; Yes Or Yes; Dance The Night Away; Likey; Cheer Up; Like Ooh-Ahh; Heart Shaker; Signal; Doughnut; Perfect World; Kura Kura; Celebrate; Hare Hare; Moonlight Sunrise.
Appendix
Table 12: Complete list of audio tracks included in the audio evaluation (373 items across 14 K-pop groups).
Group
Songs
AESPA
Lemonade; Switchblade (Feat. Ty Dolla $ign); Supernova; Kiss N Tell; WDA (Whole Different Animal); Whiplash; Dirty Work; Drama; Live My Life; Armageddon; Rich Man; Spicy; Hot Mess; Better Things; Welcome To My World (Feat. Nævis); Life’s Too Short (English Ver.); Savage; Next Level; Dreams Come True; Girls; Black Mamba; Forever; Hold On Tight.
IVE
Eleven; Love Dive; After Like; Kitsch; I Am; Wave; I Want; Either Way; Off The Record; Baddie; All Night (Feat. Saweetie); Heya; Accendio; Summer Festa; Crush; Rebel Heart; Attitude; XOXZ; Bang Bang; Blackhole; Supernova Love; Lucid Dream; Be Alright.
LE SSERAFIM
Hot; Crazy; Made My Night; Fearless; Perfect Night; Unforgiven; Smart; Antifragile; Boompala; Impurities; Celebration; Different; Easy; Come Over; Spaghetti; Eve, Psyche & The Bluebeard’s Wife; Kawaii.
NEWJEANS
Attention; Hype Boy; Hurt; Cookie; Ditto; OMG; Zero; New Jeans; Super Shy; Cool With You (Side A); ETA; Bubble Gum; How Sweet; Right Now; Supernatural; ASAP.
I-DLE
Nxde; Tomboy; Mono; I Want That; Queencard; Oh My God; Gimme Dat Love; Good Thing; Girlfriend; Crow; Lion; Klaxon; Super Lady; Hwaa; Wife; Latata; Senorita; Uh-Oh; Hann (Alone); Allergy; Dumdi Dumdi; Revenge; I Do; Last Dance; Blow Your Mind.
TWICE
This Is For; Strategy; What Is Love?; The Feels; Fancy; Feel Special; Talk That Talk; I Got You; Set Me Free; One Spark; I Can’t Stop Me; Alcohol-Free; Me+You; More & More; Scientist; TT; Knock Knock; Yes Or Yes; Dance The Night Away; Likey; Cheer Up; Like Ooh-Ahh; Heart Shaker; Signal; Doughnut; Perfect World; Kura Kura; Celebrate; Hare Hare; Moonlight Sunrise.
Appendix
Table 13: Complete list of music videos included in the mv evaluation (278 items across 14 K-pop groups).
Music popularity prediction has attracted growing research interest, with relevance to artists, platforms, and recommendation systems. However, the explosive rise of AI-generated music platforms has created an entirely new and largely unexplored landscape, where a surge of songs is produced and consumed daily without the traditional markers of artist reputation or label backing. Key, yet unexplored in this pursuit is aesthetic quality. We propose APEX, the first large-scale multi-task learning framework for AI-generated music, trained on over 211k songs (10k hours of audio) from Suno and Udio, that jointly predicts engagement-based popularity signals - streams and likes scores - alongside five perceptual aesthetic quality dimensions from frozen audio embeddings extracted from MERT, a self-supervised music understanding model. Aesthetic quality and popularity capture complementary aspects of music that together prove valuable: in an out-of-distribution evaluation on the Music Arena dataset, comprising pairwise human preference battles across eleven generative music systems unseen during training, including aesthetic features consistently improves preference prediction, demonstrating strong generalisation of the learned representations across generative architectures.
Jaavid Aktar Husain, Dorien Herremans
AMAAI Lab, Singapore University of Technology and Design
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are now routinely deployed for visual understanding, generation, and curation. A substantial fraction of these applications require an explicit aesthetic judgment. Most existing solutions reduce this judgment to predicting a scalar score for a single image. We first ask whether such scores faithfully capture comparative preference: in a controlled study with eight expert annotators, score-derived rankings align poorly with the same annotators' direct comparisons, while direct ranking yields substantially higher inter-annotator agreement on best- and worst-image labels. Motivated by this finding, we introduce the Visual Aesthetic Benchmark (VAB), which casts aesthetic evaluation as comparative selection over candidate sets with matched subject matter. VAB contains 400 tasks and 1,195 images across fine art, photography, and illustration, with labels derived from the consensus of 10 independent expert judges per task. Evaluating 20 frontier MLLMs and six dedicated visual-quality reward models, we find that the strongest system identifies both the best and the worst image correctly across three random permutations of the candidate order in only 26.5% of tasks, far below the 68.9% achieved by human experts. Fine-tuning a 35B-parameter model on 2,000 expert examples brings its accuracy close to that of a 397B-parameter open-weight model, suggesting that the comparative signal in VAB is transferable. Together, these results expose a clear and measurable gap between current multimodal models and expert aesthetic judgment, and VAB provides the first set-based, expert-grounded testbed on which that gap can be tracked and closed.
Text-to-image models now generate graphic design at production scale, yet their supervision still comes primarily from photo-style preference datasets with a single overall verdict per comparison. Designers evaluate designs along several distinct axes (e.g., typography, layout, color harmony) that a single preference label collapses. We release TASTE(Typography, Aesthetics, Spatial, Tone, Etc.), a multi-dimensional preference dataset in which two disjoint cohorts of five professional designers each ranked outputs from four current text-to-image models across nine criteria along with per-image hallucination flags. We pair the dataset with two contributions. First, a criterion-agnostic signal-validation framework based on Kendall's τ, majority-vote probability, and Condorcet cycles against exact iid-uniform nulls; the analysis reveals significant but moderate designer agreement, with every TASTE criterion rejecting the random-rater null. Second, we benchmark preference models on TASTE and find that off-the-shelf VLM judges and dedicated T2I scorers fail to reach majority agreement with the designer panel, while a small MLP head trained directly on TASTE substantially narrows the gap to the single-rater ceiling, setting a baseline for future TASTE-trained preference models.
Haonan Zhu, Elad Hirsch, Alexandria Minetti +3
Lica World, San Francisco, USA. · Contra.Work Inc., Brooklyn, NY, USA.