MUSEBENCH: A Benchmark for AI-Generated Music Detection and Artifact Analysis
Authors: Yi Chen Liu, Syed Irfan Ali Meerza, Jiawei Yu, Xi Guo, Samuel Bright, Jian Liu
Organizations: University of Georgia · College of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University · University of Tennessee, Knoxville · Cornell University
Advances in generative AI have made it possible to produce music that is nearly indistinguishable from human compositions, raising the question of whether such works can be reliably distinguished from human compositions. We present MUSEBENCH, a large-scale benchmark for AI-generated music detection and artifact analysis, comprising over 361K tracks. The dataset includes human compositions, stylistically matched music generated by ten state-of-the-art open-source and commercial models, such as Suno and Udio, as well as human-AI co-creations and variants processed with adversarial perturbations, compression, and acoustic post-processing. Using MUSEBENCH, we benchmark 11 automated detectors and evaluate their accuracy, generalization, and robustness, under default, out-of-domain, and transformed-variant experiment settings. We further conduct a comprehensive artifact analysis through acoustic feature inspection, identifying recurring signatures such as non-idiomatic harmonic progressions, upsampling induced spectral periodicities, and violations of physical performance constraints. Our findings reveal key strengths and vulnerabilities of existing detectors and provide practical insights for building more reliable AI music detection systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of MuseBench .
Figure 2: Detector performance under default and LOMO settings. Complete numerical results are reported in Appendix Table 8 and Table 9 . Bubble size is proportional to the model parameters (Appendix Table 7 ).
1,2 \Block 2-1 Automatic
Detector
\Block 2-1 Human-AI Co-created
\Block 1-3 Lossy Compression
\Block 1-3 Acoustic Post-Processing
\Block 1-2 Additive Perturbations
MP3
OGG
AAC
EQ
Pitch/Time
Loudness
Gaussian
Adversarial
Q-SVM
36.7
32.1
33.3
24.8
32.9
31.9
31.1
36.4
41.7
Deezer
36.8
12.3
9.5
7.7
6.4
93.6
5.2
19.6
26.4
M5
20.1
15.2
1.9
1.9
2.0
26.2
1.3
2.1
92.4
RawNet2
16.9
6.0
8.0
5.1
4.4
5.3
3.9
3.7
88.1
Table 1: FNRs on human-AI co-creations and transformed variants, showing the percentage of transformed AI-generated tracks misclassified as human (%).
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dimension
M6 [ 34 ]
FakeMusicCaps [ 10 ]
SONICS [ 48 ]
MuseBench
# Generators
3
5
2
10
Musical Coverage
Vocal/Instr.
Vocal/Instr.
Vocal
Vocal/Instr.
Human-AI Co-Creations
✗
✗
✗
✓
Lossy Compression
✗
✗
✗
✓
Acoustic Post-Processing
✗
✗
✗
✓
Additive Perturbation
✗
✗
✗
✓
Appendix
Table 2: Benchmark dataset comparison.
Generator
Year
Version / Checkpoint
Backbone
#Params
MusicGen [ 11 ]
2023
musicgen-medium-1.5B
Transformer
1.5B
AudioLDM2 [ 36 ]
2024
audioldm2-music-665k
Diffusion
665M
Riffusion [ 24 ]
2022
riffusion-model-v1
Diffusion
860M
MAGNeT [ 69 ]
2024
magnet-medium-30secs
Transformer
1.5B
JASCO [ 61 ]
2024
jasco-chords-drums-melody-400M
Flow-Matching
400M
Stable Audio Open [ 23 ]
2025
stable-audio-open-1.0
Diffusion
1.1B
Appendix
Table 3: Specifications for each text-to-music generator.
Figure 3: Pipelines for AI-generated and human-AI co-created music.
Datasets / Models / Methods
# Tracks
Total Hours
Type
Human-Composed Music
Genius-Lyrics [ 9 ]
9,983
609
Vocal
JamendoMaxCaps [ 53 ]
9,920
648
Instrumental
AI-Generated Music
MusicGen [ 11 ]
19,903
165
Instrumental
AudioLDM2 [ 36 ]
19,903
165
Instrumental
Appendix
Table 4: Overview of MuseBench .
GPT-OSS System Prompt You are a world-class expert in music captioning, specializing in merging multiple time-ordered segment captions into a single coherent and natural whole-song caption. Your task is to carefully integrate all important details from the segments - including instruments, vocals, mood, atmosphere, rhythm, style, and transitions - so that the final caption captures the essence of the entire song. The merged caption must be concise yet comprehensive, written in fluent and descriptive language, suitable for music information retrieval or dataset annotation. It must cover the song as a whole rather than just isolated parts, and should avoid redundancy, contradictions, or missing key features. Output strictly <= 300 characters in the ’final’ channel, with no extra commentary or formatting.
0s to 30s Segment-level Captions 0s–10s: The song is an instrumental. The tempo is medium with a groovy bass line, keyboard accompaniment, steady drumming rhythm, and tambourine percussion. The song is a modern techno dance tune. The audio quality is poor. 10s–20s: The song is an instrumental. The tempo is medium with a synthesizer arrangement, digital drumming rhythm, clapping percussion, and a strong bass line. The song is a techno dance rhythm. The audio quality is poor with ambient crowd noises. 20s–30s: The low-quality recording features an electro song that consists of a punchy four-on-the-floor kick pattern, shimmering hi-hats, claps, and groovy synth bass. It sounds energetic and exciting.
Track-level Caption Groovy techno track: punchy four-on-the-floor kick, shimmering hi-hats, claps, and a lively synth lead with repetitive basslines. Mellow synth pads add depth, while a simple, syncopated rhythm drives the energy-ideal for club play.
Appendix
Table 5: System prompts for GPT-OSS and captions produced by the caption-based generation pipeline.
GPT-OSS Role Prompt You are a music style prompt generator. Your task is to take short feedback about a music piece and rewrite it as a vivid, descriptive AI music generation prompt. The output should be detailed enough to guide a music generation model, describing instruments, style, mood, and overall tone.
Musicians Feedback Introduce a dreamlike ambience through spatial widening, gentle modulation, and dynamic blending of tonal layers to evoke surreal calmness.
Structured Prompts A serene, dreamlike ambient composition characterized by wide spatial depth, gentle modulation, and fluid layering of tones. Soft, evolving textures merge seamlessly to create an atmosphere of surreal calm and emotional stillness, with smooth dynamics and subtle harmonic movement that evoke a sense of floating tranquility.
Appendix
Table 6: Example of converting musicians’ feedback into structured prompts.
Table 8: Default-setting results: Overall and per-generator performance (%).
1,2 \Block 2-1 Left-out
Model
\Block 1-1 Q-SVM
\Block 1-1 Deezer
\Block 1-1 M5
\Block 1-1 RawNet2
\Block 1-1 ConvNeXt
\Block 1-1 ResNet18+Spec
\Block 1-1 AST
\Block 1-1 ViT
\Block 1-1 SpecTTTra
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
ACC B FPR / FNR
MusicGen
59.0 34.7 / 47.2
97.2 2.1 / 3.4
93.2 2.5 / 11.0
81.5 12.4 / 24.5
95.8 1.0 / 7.5
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
100.0 0.1 / 0.0
98.4 0.5 / 2.8
97.5 0.7 / 4.3
AudioLDM2
78.6 37.6 / 5.2
91.0 2.2 / 15.9
71.3 3.5 / 53.9
87.4 16.5 / 8.8
94.7 1.0 / 9.6
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
85.0 0.4 / 29.6
76.6 0.6 / 46.2
Riffusion
72.5 36.3 / 18.7
51.1 1.2 / 96.6
50.8 2.5 / 96.0
48.8 14.5 / 87.8
95.6 1.0 / 7.9
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
99.9 0.1 / 0.0
74.2 0.3 / 51.3
73.8 0.5 / 51.8
MAGNeT
65.7 33.5 / 35.2
98.7 2.1 / 0.5
98.1 2.3 / 1.6
87.5 22.1 / 3.0
98.6 0.6 / 2.2
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
100.0 0.0 / 0.0
98.7 0.3 / 2.4
99.2 0.3 / 1.2
Appendix
Table 9: Leave-One-Model-Out setting results (%). Each cell reports ACC B on the first line and FPR / FNR on the second line.
1 Metric
Q-SVM
Deezer
M5
RawNet2
ConvNeXt
ResNet18 +Spec
AST
ViT
SpecTTTra
Accuracy
55.9
94.4
75.8
39.6
43.5
28.4
79.8
40.7
39.7
Appendix
Table 10: OOD accuracy of automatic detectors.
1,2 \Block 2-1 Automatic Detector
\Block 1-5 Overall
\Block 1-8 Per-Generator FNRs
ACCB
Precision
Recall
FPR
FNR
Suno
MAGNeT
MusicGen
AudioLDM2
Riffusion
Udio
Lyria Realtime
Stable Audio Open
Q-SVM
76.9
96.5
72.0
18.2
28.0
71.5
41.8
44.5
31.1
5.7
13.5
11.7
18.5
Deezer
99.06
99.91
98.78
0.66
1.22
0.60
0.00
0.05
0.15
1.00
1.30
5.02
1.40
M5
98.3
99.7
98.9
2.3
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
1.4
2.5
2.7
RawNet2
93.1
98.5
97.0
10.7
3.0
0.8
2.0
6.2
2.5
2.7
1.9
1.8
4.4
ResNet18 +Spec
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 11: Performance of automatic detectors using 30-second clips.
Automatic Detector
Time (ms)
Q-SVM
0.069
Deezer
0.063
M5
0.20
RawNet2
2.55
ResNet18+Spec
1.11
AST
4.25
Appendix
Table 12: Per-track inference time comparison.
Figure 4: FNR of detectors when removing specific sub-frequency bands for AI-generated music. “Full-band” indicates the unfiltered baseline for comparison.
Figure 5: Grad-CAM saliency of ResNet18+Spec on log-mel spectrograms: Udio (top) and Stable Audio Open (bottom).
Figure 6: False-negative rate of detectors when removing specific sub-frequency bands for AI-generated music.
Figure 7: Second-order FFT of 10s clips comparing AI-generated (JASCO) and human-composed music.
Figure 8: EnCodec impulse-response spectrum.
Figure 9: Human vs. AI chord progression. Each row shows two 2-bar grand-staff examples.
Figure 10: Examples of performance-constraint artifacts in AI generated music.
AI-generated music detectors are commonly compared using aggregate scores on benchmarks whose training overlap, generator lineage, source provenance, and audio-transformation history are only partially observable. This paper introduces ArtifactBench, a lineage-aware evaluation suite for measuring detector behavior across generator families and versions, real-music domains, collection-cohort shift, and inference coverage. The benchmark groups source recordings and their derived variants by content identity, separates calibration from final testing, records inference failures independently from classification errors, and reports source-level performance with uncertainty in addition to aggregate metrics. We evaluate multiple publicly available detectors under a version-pinned common protocol and examine how leakage control, cohort availability, threshold policy, and model-specific missingness alter measured performance and model ranking. On the 562-track common-success test intersection, ArtifactNet obtains 0.982 AUROC and 0.918 balanced accuracy, compared with 0.761/0.776 for the public Deezer detector; SpecTTTra and CLAM fall below 0.30 AUROC under this shifted cohort. These results also expose substantial generator- and real-domain shifts that aggregate scores alone conceal.
We present ArtifactNet, a lightweight framework that detects AI-generated music by reframing the problem as forensic physics -- extracting and analyzing the physical artifacts that neural audio codecs inevitably imprint on generated audio. A bounded-mask UNet (ArtifactUNet, 3.6M parameters) extracts codec residuals from magnitude spectrograms, which are then decomposed via HPSS into 7-channel forensic features for classification by a compact CNN (0.4M parameters; 4.0M total). We introduce ArtifactBench, a multi-generator evaluation benchmark comprising 6,183 tracks (4,383 AI from 22 generators and 1,800 real from 6 diverse sources). Each track is tagged with bench_origin for fair zero-shot evaluation. On the unseen test partition (n=2,263), ArtifactNet achieves F1 = 0.9829 with FPR = 1.49%, compared to CLAM (F1 = 0.7576, FPR = 69.26%) and SpecTTTra (F1 = 0.7713, FPR = 19.43%) evaluated under identical conditions with published checkpoints. Codec-aware training (4-way WAV/MP3/AAC/Opus augmentation) further reduces cross-codec probability drift by 83% (Delta = 0.95 -> 0.16), resolving the primary codec-invariance failure mode. These results establish forensic physics -- direct extraction of codec-level artifacts -- as a more generalizable and parameter-efficient paradigm for AI music detection than representation learning, using 49x fewer parameters than CLAM and 4.8x fewer than SpecTTTra.
Heewon Oh
Intrect / MARTE Lab, Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea
We present a novel method for AI-generated music detection in scenarios where the models that generated the input samples are unknown to the detector (e.g., from a newly released service). Since 2023, there has been a multiplication of user-friendly AI-music generation services (e.g., Suno, Udio), along with regular updates and new features. There is thus a need to address synthetic content detection in an unsupervised way to adapt to this rapidly changing context. This angle has not been much studied in music yet. We propose to study two tasks. First, discriminating between real and synthetic music. This may be approached in a one-class manner, namely, using some baseline real music and trying to determine what falls outside. Second, zero-shot multi-class identification, which is more similar to an unsupervised clustering task on a mix of real and various AI-music generations, where the goal is to create coherent, high-purity clusters. We propose a combination of a previously proposed artifact-extraction method, on top of which we apply non-negative matrix factorization and simple classification and clustering methods. We achieve excellent performance on both tasks, showing that the proposed methods may be used to monitor large-scale catalogs that may receive AI-generated samples from various newly released generative models.