It is shown that rankings alone can guide generation under limited conditions, while transferable criterion inference remains constrained by the foundation model's ability to recognize, reason about, and verbalize musical attributes.
Abstract
Adapting a generative music system to an individual's taste requires learning what that listener values. Listeners can rank pieces, but their underlying criteria may be tacit and difficult to articulate. We ask whether and under what conditions a large language model (LLM) can adapt symbolic music generation from rankings alone and construct transferable natural-language descriptions of value criteria. In our iterative in-context learning framework, the LLM formulates hypotheses, generates candidate pieces in ABC notation, receives a ranking, and periodically infers and verbalizes value criteria from history to guide later generation. We evaluate the framework against 16 simulated raters in 480 adaptation runs using mixed-effects modeling, an ablation, and transfer tests on unseen music. Overall, the framework did not outperform a feedback-free diverse-generation baseline, but did so for two value functions with targets difficult to reach through simple sampling. How atypical the target was relative to the LLM's feedback-free generation tendencies predicted adaptation difficulty. Moreover, higher value during adaptation did not imply identification of the criterion as a general rule. On unseen music, acquired descriptions and histories improved generation for more value functions than they improved preference prediction, which remained near chance. Some gains were associated with acoustic proximity to music in the context, but others were not. These findings show that rankings alone can guide generation under limited conditions, while transferable criterion inference remains constrained by the foundation model's ability to recognize, reason about, and verbalize musical attributes.
The RecSys Challenge 2026 Music-CRS (TalkPlay) task formalizes this as two coupled sub-problems: given dialogue history and user context, retrieve a ranked list of the top-20 tracks from the full, unrestricted catalog, and generate a response that justifies the recommendation while sustaining conversational coherence.
Simran Sundrani, Mohan Bhambhani· Proceedings of the Workshop...· 1 citation· ⚡1
It is argued that a third, largely untapped signal is both richer and more principled: critical adjacency, the pairwise relation established when an expert critic explicitly links two artists in long-form prose, which offers both a scalable cold-start discovery mechanism and a sociological grounded approach to MIR and...
This work presents team FPMs_UMONS’s system for RecSys Challenge 2026 — hybrid four-channel retrieval, LLM reranking, and conversation-grounded response generation — and the lessons, negative results included, learned building it.
Maxime Manderlier, Fabian Lecron· Proceedings of the Workshop...· 1 citation
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 et al.· 0 citations
MusicRLVR is introduced, which trains a language model with group relative policy optimisation (GRPO) on verifier rewards alone, needing no human annotation, reward model or music-domain supervised fine-tuning, and generalises to unseen property combinations, out-of-range parameters and more constraints than any traini...
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.