This benchmark evaluates the factual accuracy and contextual reasoning capabilities of LLMs in music question answering. It specifically probes how well models can retrieve and utilize artist-centric knowledge from a domain-specific database versus relying on parametric memory, comparing zero-shot, RAG, and reranked retrieval strategies. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ArtistMus, TrustMus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill artistmus-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Artistmus Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-artistmus-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: artistmus-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates the factual accuracy and contextual reasoning capabilities of LLMs in music question answering. It specifically probes how well models can retrieve and utilize artist-centric knowledge from a domain-specific database versus relying on parametric memory, comparing zero-shot, RAG, and reranked retrieval strategies. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ArtistMus, TrustMus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2512.05430
bibtex_key: kwon2025artistmus
confidence: high
---
# artistmus-eval
> ArtistMus: A Globally Diverse, Artist-Centric Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Music Question Answering — Kwon et al. (2025) (arXiv:2512.05430, 2025)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates the factual accuracy and contextual reasoning capabilities of LLMs in music question answering. It specifically probes how well models can retrieve and utilize artist-centric knowledge from a domain-specific database versus relying on parametric memory, comparing zero-shot, RAG, and reranked retrieval strategies.
## Datasets
- **ArtistMus** — total 1000; splits: test (1000)
- **TrustMus** — total 500; splits: test (500)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Exact match between the model's predicted option (A, B, C, or D) and the ground-truth correct option. Calculated as the number of correct predictions divided by the total number of questions.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multiple-choice question with four options (A, B, C, D). For RAG experiments, the input also includes retrieved passages from MusWikiDB (top-k based on retriever config and fixed 1024-token budget).
**Output**: A single letter corresponding to the chosen option (A, B, C, or D).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, golds):
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, golds):
if pred.strip().upper() == gold.strip().upper():
correct += 1
return correct / len(golds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Evaluation must be run with temperature=0 to ensure deterministic outputs, as non-deterministic sampling will break exact-match scoring.
- The RAG setup enforces a strict 1024-token budget for retrieved passages, requiring careful adjustment of top-k based on passage size (128, 256, or 512 tokens).
- Accuracy is defined strictly as exact match of the option letter, not semantic similarity or free-text generation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> All evaluations use a multiple-choice QA format, and accuracy (exact match of the predicted option A, B, C, or D) was adopted as the evaluation metric.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{kwon2025artistmus,
title={ArtistMus: A Globally Diverse, Artist-Centric Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Music Question Answering},
author={Kwon et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2512.05430}
}
```
- arXiv: 2512.05430
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!