Code-based agents can operate creative software, but mixing requests often describe an intended sound without specifying the edits needed to achieve it. We present TOMORI, a code-based mixing-agent harness for native digital audio workstation (DAW) control. Custom plugins provide REAPER project inspection, optional audio measurement, and execution of model-generated Lua code. All observations return as text; delivery includes an editable project and rendered audio. TOMORI-BENCH pairs 110 human-reviewed reference edits with three instruction forms and evaluates native DAW execution end to end through operation structure, parameter precision, and rendered-audio outcomes. Across 990 cases from three primary models, explicit instructions yield high reference agreement, while abstract requests reduce project agreement and audio improvement. Paired ablations show that the full workflow improves explicit execution over a single submission. Prompted audio measurement succeeds in all 28 selected abstract cases but yields no clear overall improvement on the reference-based metrics and increases tool calls. These results expose the gap between executable DAW control and precise realization of perceptual mixing goals.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sequence diagram of Tomori . Within the loop, the model selects project inspection, audio analysis, or code-based project editing ( alt ), then uses returned results to decide whether to continue ( loop ). The editing code modifies the current REAPER project; delivery includes the editable project and rendered audio.
Figure 2: Data construction. Audio supports reference-edit construction, while real mixing requests inform the instructions. The reference mix endpoint and instructions are reviewed by humans.
Form
Step 2: English translations of the archived Chinese instructions
IF0
On the left main microphone’s ReaEQ, raise band 2 (around 950 Hz) by 1.0 dB.
IF1
The left main microphone’s EQ was cut too much around 950 Hz; bring a little back.
IF2
The left main microphone sounds too hollow in the middle; restore some body.
Table 1: One repair transition expressed in three forms. The common reference moves band-2 gain from −5.4 to −4.4 dB. The latter two instructions do not uniquely specify that numerical target.
Graph F1 ↑
Param. MAE ↓
Error reduction ↑ (%)
Edits in range ↑
Excess change ↓ (%)
MR-STFT (%)
MERT (%)
kimi-k3
IF0
1.0000
0.0352
83.8
95.2
95.2
2.9
IF1
0.9508
0.0811
47.1
57.7
56.7
21.2
IF2
0.8011
0.1112
33.9
49.0
45.2
28.8
claude-fable-5
Table 2: Results by instruction form. Graph F1 pools matched edit nodes and changed chain links; node matching requires joint agreement in edit kind, operation/control, track, and all required parameter directions. Param. MAE averages finite observed normalized-control errors; missing controls receive no tolerance-match credit. Error reduction is the mean percentage of MR-STFT error relative to the reference removed by editing, compared with leaving the project unchanged; negative reductions are set to zero. Edits in range is the percentage of cases whose change along the reference direction is 0.5–1.5 times the reference change, estimated separately with MR-STFT and MERT. Excess change is the percentage exceeding 1.5 times the reference change under MR-STFT. Both progress estimates use the same 104 cases per form whose reference edit changes the scored audio ( ai≥10−3 ). Scores use final selected deliveries; see Appendix C.5 for the DeepSeek audio exception.
Condition
Form
Graph F1 ↑
Param. match ↑ (%)
Error reduction ↑ (%)
MERT dir. ↑
Same 36 reference steps
Full workflow
IF0
1.000
97.7
85.4
0.894
Single submission (S)
IF0
0.875
72.1
61.3
0.711
Full workflow
IF2
0.701
20.9
30.2
0.753
Single submission (S)
IF2
0.657
16.3
28.7
0.640
No analysis (A)
IF2
0.754
20.9
36.7
0.744
Table 3: Same-case ablations with DeepSeek v4 Pro. S allows one Lua edit submission with no returned readback or subsequent tools; A and L prohibit audio access and analysis. M prompts measurement before editing; all 28 cases execute measurements. Graph F1 uses joint direction matching; parameter tolerance is 0.01; error reduction uses MR-STFT; MERT direction is edit-displacement cosine similarity.
Model
Graph F1 ↑
Param. match ↑ (%)
Error reduction ↑ (%)
K3
0.870
57.0
58.4
Claude
0.878
52.3
55.0
Pro
0.851
59.3
57.8
Flash
0.851
60.5
58.6
k2.6
0.838
47.7
49.5
Table 4: Five-model comparison on 36 steps, pooling IF0 and IF2. Parameter tolerance: 0.01; error reduction: MR-STFT. Per-form results: Appendix F .
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Operation family
Steps
EQ
50
Gain/pan
29
Reverb
14
Compression
11
Gate
6
Stereo width
4
Appendix
Table 5: Reference operation-family coverage. Counts overlap: five steps cover two families. Each step is tested at three instruction forms.
Graph F1 ↑
Param. MAE ↓
Param. match ↑ (%)
Error reduction ↑ (%)
MERT dir. ↑
Seconds ↓
kimi-k3
IF0
1.0000
0.0413
93.0
80.3
0.868
145.5
IF2
0.7399
0.1253
20.9
36.6
0.739
154.3
claude-fable-5
IF0
0.9931
0.0853
79.1
75.7
0.841
157.0
IF2
0.7630
0.1271
25.6
34.3
0.745
116.3
Appendix
Table 6: Same-case subset comparison: each model is evaluated under IF0 and IF2 on the same 36 steps. The first three models reuse existing deliveries; Flash and k2.6 add 72 cases each. All Graph F1 scores use joint node and direction matching. Parameter match uses tolerance 0.01; error reduction uses MR-STFT; MERT direction is the cosine between reference and model edit displacements. Seconds average the selected final attempt, including API waiting but excluding earlier failed attempts; they do not measure total inference cost.
Graph F1
Param. match (pp)
Error reduction (pp)
Flash – Pro
IF0
-0.006
-2.3
-2.1
IF2
+0.007
+4.7
+3.9
Pooled
+0.001
+1.2
+0.9
k2.6 – K3
IF0
-0.028
-9.3
-10.0
Appendix
Table 7: Paired differences, first model minus second; pooled rows combine IF0 and IF2. Exploratory bootstrap analysis with 10,000 step draws supports the pooled decreases in parameter matching and error reduction for k2.6, while its Graph F1 difference and the differences on the reference-based metrics between Flash and Pro remain uncertain. Comparisons concern the selected subset and are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.
Table 8: Diagnostics by instruction form. Node F1 uses joint edit identity and direction matching; Link F1 compares changed chain links. Graph F1 pools their match counts and denominators, rather than averaging these two scores. Opp., Invalid, Unch., and Unmat. count required parameters changed in the opposite direction, set to out-of-range or non-finite values, left unchanged, or not matched to a control. [email protected] is the share of normalized parameters within 0.01 of the target.
Condition
Form
Graph F1 ↑
Param. match ↑ (%)
Error reduction ↑ (%)
MERT dir. ↑
Core signal-dependent tasks (12 cases)
Full workflow
IF2
0.592
29.2
10.8
0.410
No analysis (L)
IF2
0.672
20.8
11.5
0.441
Forced measurement (M)
IF2
0.585
33.3
10.0
0.492
Secondary signal-dependent tasks (15 cases)
Full workflow
IF2
0.828
50.0
26.1
0.787
Appendix
Table 9: Stratified audio-access and forced-measurement comparisons with DeepSeek v4 Pro. The first two strata use reference operations; the last two use historical analysis behavior and overlap. Historical-analysis subgroups are exploratory.
Almost every piece of recorded music you have ever heard was modified before it reached you; commercial releases rarely spring fully formed from a musician's mind. Despite the promise of music generation models for one-shot output, such fine-grained iterative refinement workflows are a complementary problem and largely out of their reach. There is also a gap for musicians: while they can express what they want to hear, not all have the facility with studio production tools to implement the complex set of actions needed to realize these intuitions. We formalize this task as agentic post-production, wherein individual aspects of a track are targeted, refined, and combined into a final version. We argue the bottleneck is data: existing corpora do not reflect how realistic post-production chains map onto the vocabulary musicians and engineers actually use. We observe that there is a language for modifying recorded music that is dense, consistent, and learnable. To leverage this, we introduce the Rule-based Instructions for Music Editing (RIME) framework, which generates realistic paired edit-instruction data from any baseline music dataset grounded in canonical methods, design patterns, and constraints derived from real production workflows. RIME leverages POEMS, a toolkit that combines stem separation, mixing, and common studio effects for use by multimodal agents. We use POEMS and RIME to generate 15,000 pairs of edit instructions and ground-truth audio, then use this data to evaluate existing multimodal LLMs as agents on this task, revealing persistent limitations in current models. We also demonstrate RIME's ability to improve post-production agent performance via supervised fine-tuning on synthetic data. We see RIME as a step towards iterative musical agents, collaborative systems that could transform music production much as interactive coding agents have reshaped software engineering.
Digital audio workstations expose rich effect chains, yet a semantic gap remains between perceptual user intent and low-level signal-processing parameters. We study retrieval-grounded audio effect control, where the output is an editable plugin configuration rather than a finalized waveform. Our focus is Texture Resonance Retrieval (TRR), an audio representation built from Gram matrices of projected mid-level Wav2Vec2 activations. This design preserves texture-relevant co-activation structure. We evaluate TRR on a guitar-effects benchmark with 1,063 candidate presets and 204 queries. The evaluation follows Protocol-A, a cross-validation scheme that prevents train-test leakage. We compare TRR against CLAP and internal retrieval baselines (Wav2Vec-RAG, Text-RAG, FeatureNN-RAG), using min-max normalized metrics grounded in physical DSP parameter ranges. Ablation studies validate TRR's core design choices: projection dimensionality, layer selection, and projection type. A near-duplicate sensitivity analysis confirms that results are robust to trivial knowledge-base matches. TRR achieves the lowest normalized parameter error among evaluated methods. A multiple-stimulus listening study with 26 participants provides complementary perceptual evidence. We interpret these results as benchmark evidence that texture-aware retrieval is useful for editable audio effect control, while broader personalization and real-audio robustness claims remain outside the verified evidence presented here.
Shihao He, Yihan Xia, Fang Liu +2
College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China
Automatic music mixing aims to combine multitrack recordings into a balanced and coherent musical piece. Because the content of different songs and the subjective preferences of mixing engineers jointly shape the final outcome, a practical system should deliver well-balanced mixes while allowing for controllable stylistic variation. However, most existing methods treat automatic mixing and mixing style control as separate tasks, making it difficult for a single system to produce high-quality mixes while remaining editable and style-aware. To address this limitation, this paper presents Diff2Mix, a generative automatic mixing system based on diffusion models and a differentiable mixing console. This system offers two levels of optional user control: a reference audio enables overall production style control, and the differentiable mixing console provides explicit audio effects parameters for interpretability and fine-grained optimization. We demonstrate our system's competitive performance through both objective and subjective evaluations in terms of mixing quality and control ability. We provide code and audio samples at our project page https://zys711.github.io/Diff2Mix .
Yisu Zong, Jinjie Shi, Joshua Reiss
Centre for Digital Music, Queen Mary University of London, UK