Markov-switching state space models for uncovering musical interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For concertgoers, musical interpretation is the most important factor in determining whether or not we enjoy a classical performance. Every performance includes mistakes—intonation issues, a lost note, an unpleasant sound—but these are all easily forgotten (or unnoticed) when a performer engages her audience, imbuing a piece with novel emotional content beyond the vague instructions inscribed on the printed page. In this research we use data from the CHARM Mazurka Project—46 professional recordings of Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 68 No. 3 by consummate artists—with the goal of elucidating musically interpretable performance decisions. We focus specifically on each performer’s use of tempo by examining the interonset intervals of the note attacks in the recording. To explain these tempo decisions, we develop a switching state space model and estimate it by maximum likelihood, combined with prior information gained from music theory and performance practice. We use the estimated parameters to quantitatively describe individual performance decisions and compare recordings. These comparisons suggest methods for informing music instruction, discovering listening preferences and analyzing performances.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".