Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

TuneJury: An Open Metric for Improving Music Generation Preference Alignment

Yonghyun Kim, Junwon Lee, Haiwen Xia, Yinghao Ma, Junghyun Koo +3 morePublished Jun 15, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few hours
Fast first run
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

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.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
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.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.

Reproduction risks
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
14
Last push
Jul 29, 2026 (27d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • Low confidence match
Maintenance
Recently updated
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
2
Last push
Jun 23, 2026 (64d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: hours
Last checked: Aug 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX