# Transformer VAE

## Summary of an ICASSP 2020 paper about music representation learning

Posted by Ondřej Cífka on August 20, 2020 · 11 mins read

This is the first of a series of blog posts about ICASSP 2020 papers. Today’s paper is Transformer VAE: A Hierarchical Model for Structure-Aware and Interpretable Music Representation Learning by researchers from CMU, NYU Shanghai and Hooktheory.1

The goal of this work is to learn a music representation which is both structure-aware (capturing dependencies at different time scales) and interpretable (in the sense that it can be decomposed into units with easily discernible meanings). More specifically, the authors want to find a ‘concise’ representation of melodies where repeated segments (with possible variations) are encoded by referring to their first occurrence. One possible application is what the authors refer to as context transfer, where we want to develop a given piece of music ‘following the music flow of another piece’.

The work combines two popular approaches – variational autoencoders2 (VAEs) and Transformers3 – to propose the Transformer VAE. VAEs are a type of autoencoder that tries to learn a nicely organized representation space by making some assumptions about the distribution of latent codes. The Transformer, on the other hand, is a powerful type of neural network originally applied to the machine translation task and is known to be capable of capturing dependencies at different time scales, just as the authors want. This post will focus on how the paper combines these two approaches, so to learn more about the individual architectures check the references.

## The model

Probably the best starting point is the original Transformer architecture,3 consisting of an encoder and a decoder. Originally, the input to the encoder would be an English sentence, and the output of the decoder would be its translation into the target language. In this paper, on the other hand, the input is a melody, and because we are in an autoencoding scenario, the model is trained to produce the same melody as its output. And, as with any autoencoder, we are then interested in the representation between the encoder and the decoder (i.e. the output of the last encoder layer) – this representation is called the latent code and denoted $$z$$.

At every layer, Transformers work with sequences of representation vectors where each vector corresponds to a specific position in the input. In this specific application, the Transformer works on the level of bars. To achieve this, every bar is first encoded using a local encoder before being passed to the Transformer encoder, and similarly, every output of the Transformer decoder is passed through a local decoder to generate the corresponding bar.

The Transformer encoder and decoder both have a similar architecture, consisting of self-attention and feed-forward layers. While the feed-forward layers act on each position (bar) independently, the self-attention layers essentially allow every position to fetch information from any other position, creating a representation where each bar is ‘aware’ of its context. The situation in the decoder is possibly a bit confusing because of the interplay between self-attention (attention of a given position to previous positions in the decoder) and inter-attention (attention to positions in the encoder representation), but this is not so important for understanding the paper, so I will gracefully avoid discussing it here.

The model, as it had just been described, would still not learn a particularly interpretable representation. To achieve interpretability, the authors propose two changes to the Transformer architecture:

1. Apply masking to all (self-)attention layers, ensuring that when generating a given bar, the model does not have access to any information about the following bars. (Note: The decoder self-attention is already masked in the original Transformer; the authors of Transformer VAE extend the masking to the rest of the model.)

The motivation for this is that the authors want the content of repeated bars to be fully encoded in the representation of the first occurrence. By preventing both the encoder and the decoder from looking at future positions, we are simply making sure that all the information about a given bar is encoded in positions up to that bar and does not leak into the following positions.

2. The authors also want to reduce redundancy, making sure that the content of repeated bars is encoded only once. Combined with the first constraint, this means that the content should be encoded only in the first occurrence of each repeated bar, and all other occurrences should merely refer to that occurrence. To this end, the authors turn the Transformer into a VAE,2 imposing the assumption that the latent codes $$z$$ follow a Gaussian prior distribution $$p(z)=\mathcal{N}(0,1)$$.

In VAEs, the output of the encoder parameterizes a normal distribution $$q(z|x)=\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)$$, called the posterior, and we have the additional KL term in the loss function: $$D_{KL}\left[q(z|x)\middle\|p(z)\right]$$. The practical effect of this KL term is that it tries to push the posterior $$q(z|x)$$ closer to the prior $$p(x)$$, and this can be interpreted as trying to make the latent code less informative (as opposed to the reconstruction term, which is trying to make it as informative as possible). Therefore, the model should only store each piece of information at a single position, because encoding it repeatedly would result in a higher KL term.

## Context transfer

To show that the Transformer VAE has the desired properties, the authors perform ‘context transfer’: they encode two melodies, $$x^{(1)}$$ and $$x^{(2)}$$ to obtain the respective latent codes $$z^{(1)}$$ and $$z^{(2)}$$, then run the decoder on the sequence $$z^{(1)}_1,z^{(2)}_2,z^{(2)}_3,\ldots,z^{(2)}_T$$, i.e. with the first bar swapped. The result is quite interesting, and indeed does sometimes give the impression of the first bar of $$x^{(1)}$$ being developed in the ‘style’ of $$x^{(2)}$$, as the authors claim:

Other times, the model seems to get a bit confused:

More examples are provided here.

## Conclusion

While the experimental results of the paper are somewhat limited overall, I believe they show a promising direction for music and sequence generation. I hope future work can shed some light on how general the approach is, in particular:

• The approach seems to hinge on the fact that it’s ‘cheaper’ (in terms of the KL term) to encode a repeated segment as a reference to the first occurrence than to encode its content directly. I wonder how the model would behave when trained on longer sequences, where the position may be more expensive to encode.
• Will the approach generalize to more complex musical structures (full scores)? Or will the dependencies between different segments be too complex to encode concisely?
• How about text and other modalities? Would the approach scale to enormous models like GPT-3,4 so that we can, for example, take the first chapter of a novel and develop it in the style of a different book?

By the way, if you are curious how I added the examples to this post, check out html-midi-player.

## References

1. J. Jiang, G. G. Xia, D. B. Carlton, C. N. Anderson and R. H. Miyakawa. “Transformer VAE: a hierarchical model for structure-aware and interpretable music representation learning.” In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP40776.2020.9054554

2. D. P. Kingma, M. Welling. “Auto-encoding variational Bayes.” In The 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2013. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114  2

3. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin. “Attention is all you need.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762  2

4. T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, D. Amodei. “Language models are few-shot learners.” arXiv, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165