AImoclips: A Benchmark for Evaluating Emotion Conveyance in Text-to-Music Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in text-to-music (TTM) generation have enabled controllable and expressive music creation using natural language prompts. However, the emotional fidelity of TTM systems remains largely underexplored compared to human preference or text alignment. In this study, we introduce AImoclips, a benchmark for evaluating how well TTM systems convey intended emotions to human listeners, covering both open-source and commercial models. We selected 12 emotion intents spanning four quadrants of the valence-arousal space, and used six state-of-the-art TTM systems to generate over 1,000 music clips. A total of 111 participants rated the perceived valence and arousal of each clip on a 9-point Likert scale. Our results show that commercial systems tend to produce music perceived as more pleasant than intended, while open-source systems tend to perform the opposite. Emotions are more accurately conveyed under high-arousal conditions across all models. Additionally, all systems exhibit a bias toward emotional neutrality, highlighting a key limitation in affective controllability. This benchmark offers valuable insights into model-specific emotion rendering characteristics and supports future development of emotionally aligned TTM systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".