Skip to content

Training dataset

AI Jam Sessions ships an MCP server. It also ships jam-actions-v0 — a public training dataset built from the same library, with the same tools, that teaches an LLM to do grounded tool-use over symbolic music rather than text generation alone.

Each record in jam-actions-v0 pairs:

  • A phrase window. Typically 4 measures of real classical piano MIDI from one of 8 source compositions.
  • An annotated teaching target. A specific musical claim about that phrase — a melodic contour, an interval relationship, a hand-balance observation, a pitch-class count — that an LLM should be able to verify by reading the MIDI.
  • A target trace. A turn-by-turn record of an assistant using the MCP inspector tools (get_events_in_measure, get_events_in_hand, count_distinct_pitch_classes, count_notes_with_pitch_class, count_beat_1_onsets, get_pitch_at, get_hand_balance, find_highest_pitch, find_lowest_pitch) to read the phrase, gather evidence, and either confirm or correct the claim.

The training signal is not “generate text about music.” It is “call the right tool, read the right cell of the MIDI, and let the evidence decide.”

Records (public subset)115
Canonical baseline16 records (post-repair E3)
Compositions8 classical piano works
ComposersBach, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, Mozart, Schumann
Source MIDIpiano-midi.de — Bernd Krueger arrangements
LicenseCC-BY-SA-3.0-DE
Version0.5.0 (2026-07-11) — Bach BWV 846 correction release, errata 001 + 002
Schemarelease-gate-assessment/2.0.0
Repo test suite2930 passing (includes the dataset packagers, eval harnesses, and release-gate validator)

Does it actually train anything? — the fine-tuning receipts

Section titled “Does it actually train anything? — the fine-tuning receipts”

The dataset’s claims were tested the hard way: preregistered fine-tunes of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, scored against sealed baselines, with the statistics and the honesty rules frozen before any training run. Three arcs, all fully receipted in the repo:

ArcWhat ranPrimary result (tool-grounded QA)Verdict (preregistered wording)
v05 seeds trained on the 78 jam traces alone; sealed 16-record cohort0.661 → 0.601 (Δ −0.061, 0/5 seeds above baseline)Honest negative — not better than the prompted baseline
v15 seeds trained on 494 examples: the human traces + user-turn paraphrases (tool calls frozen), 310 execution-verified grounding-QA items over the 9-tool inspector surface, and a small self-rehearsal slice; same sealed cohort0.661 → 0.863 (Δ +0.202, permutation p = 0.0043, all 5 seeds above baseline, the one unseen song +0.433)Directionally better, underpowered — 12/16 paired wins missed the frozen ≥13/16 victory bar by one; no adapter published
B-1No training — the frozen v1 seeds (sha-pinned before the cohort existed), one sealed eval each against a fresh baseline on the v0.5.0 records, over a preregistered 36-record cohort (all 12 never-trained clair-de-lune records + the 15 sealed-history records + 9 seeded-blind new ones)0.678 → 0.890 (Δ +0.212, 29/36 paired wins vs the ex-ante 24/34 bar, sign p = 0.000039, song-cluster CI excludes zero, never-trained stratum 10/12 on its own)Powered win — v1’s miss was a power artifact, not a ceiling

Four things worth noticing:

  • The negative is a feature. v0 proved the sealed-baseline discipline has teeth: five seeds, no cherry-picking, and a result reported exactly as it landed. The v1 design came directly out of v0’s diagnosis (one narrow trace family taught itself and taxed its neighbors).
  • The near-miss stayed a near-miss until the power existed. v1’s +0.202 with p ≈ 0.004 would read as a win almost anywhere — but the bar was 13/16 wins and the run produced 12 plus a tie, so nothing shipped. B-1 answered the open question the honest way: freeze the artifacts, preregister a bigger cohort and a new bar, evaluate once. The win that ships is the powered one.
  • The pipeline audits the dataset back. v1’s execution-verification gate (every frozen tool call replayed against the live MCP server) caught a real defect in the published Bach records — the final window overshot BWV 846’s actual 62 measures — fixed as revisions r001/r002 with public errata and shipped in v0.5.0, where execution verification is now a standing packaging gate.
  • What did not improve is reported with equal weight. Across all three arcs the prose-only surfaces stay below baseline (B-1: text_only −0.074, full −0.083) — the fine-tunes get better by inspecting, not by recalling. The published claim stops at the tool-grounded surface.

The five seed adapters are published at mcp-tool-shop/jam-ft-v1-qwen25 with the claim tied to the all-seeds mean (per-seed numbers disclosed on the card; no best-of-seeds).

Full reports: finetune-arc-eval-report.md (v0), finetune-arc-v1-eval-report.md (v1), and finetune-arc-v2-b1-eval-report.md (B-1), with preregistration locks, amendments, per-seed receipts, and replayable statistics under experiments/.

The dataset is the product of 25 iteratively named slices (numbered with a .5 for in-arc corrections):

SliceTheme
7–10Initial corpus draft + pilot run
10.5–11Public packager + first packaging pass
12–14Eval harness + multi-run aggregation
15Cohort review + autonomous-commit doctrine correction
16–18MIDI inspector surface + tool-use harness
18.5Off-by-one repair (annotation_grounding beat alignment)
19Fair E3 baseline (post-repair)
20Release-gate validator (7 axes)
21Schumann remediation (R6-aware rewrite)
22RC-gate revision (axes 2 + 6 ceiling-saturated)
23Operator-aloneness audit
23.5Reproducibility cleanup (Windows-safe checksums)
24Publication dry-run dossier
24.5HuggingFace dataset card polish
25Publication execution — Zenodo DOI minted (10.5281/zenodo.20279919)

Every slice has a semantic git tag (jam-actions-v0-<theme>-<date>), and every claim in the release-gate assessment is reproducible from a tagged commit.

The gate exists to answer a specific question: is this dataset PASSING because the evidence is real, or because the task is trivial?

AxisWhat it measuresBlocking?
1Absolute floor — minimum acceptable score across all conditionsYes
2Margin compound — the tool-inspected condition must beat the text-only condition by a margin (with a ceiling-saturated bucket for trivial wins)Yes
3Tool-use rate — the assistant must actually call the inspector toolsYes
4Correct-after-tool — once tools are called, the answer must be rightYes
5Misinterpretation rate — wrong-tool calls must stay at or below the threshold (20% by default)Yes
6Stratum floor — every stratum (easy / medium / hard) must clear its floor (with the same ceiling-saturated relief)Yes
7Enriched-vs-non reporting — comparison of enriched vs non-enriched recordsInformational only

Axes 2 and 6 admit a ceiling_saturated_pass bucket — a record where text-only ≥ 0.90 AND tool-inspected ≥ 0.90 AND random-MIDI ≥ 0.90 AND misinterpretation_count == 0 passes even with no margin, because there is nowhere to improve. This was Slice 22’s contribution: without it, ceiling-effect records pulled the gate FAIL for the wrong reason.

Current canonical verdict: the Slice 22 baseline PASSES. The Slice 19 baseline still FAILS — kept on purpose as a regression diagnostic so the gate has demonstrable teeth.

Every trace in the dataset is grounded by these tools. They are deterministic, side-effect-free, and operate on the same MIDI the server plays:

ToolReturns
get_events_in_measure(song, measure)Note-on events in that measure, both hands
get_events_in_hand(song, measure, hand)Notes for one hand only (right or left)
count_distinct_pitch_classes(song, measure)Cardinality of the pitch-class set in the measure
count_notes_with_pitch_class(song, measure, pc)Count of notes with a specific pitch class (added Slice 18 to close a wrong-tool gap)
count_beat_1_onsets(song, measure)Notes that start on beat 1
get_pitch_at(song, measure, beat, hand)Pitch at a specific measure/beat in a specific hand
get_hand_balance(song, measure)Right-hand note count vs left-hand note count
find_highest_pitch(song, measure, hand?)Highest MIDI pitch in scope
find_lowest_pitch(song, measure, hand?)Lowest MIDI pitch in scope

Beats are 0-indexed throughout. Slice 18.5 removed a +1 shift in annotation-grounding.ts:756 that had been corrupting every annotation-grounding question on every prior record — a single-character bug that affected the entire prior arc.

Reproducibility — under a minute on any platform

Section titled “Reproducibility — under a minute on any platform”

A fresh contributor cloning the repo on Windows native, macOS, Linux, or WSL can verify the package and reproduce the canonical PASS verdict without operator handholding:

Terminal window
git clone https://github.com/mcp-tool-shop-org/ai-jam-sessions.git
cd ai-jam-sessions
git checkout jam-actions-v0-0.5.0-cut-2026-07-11 # the v0.5.0 cut state (or stay on main)
pnpm install
# Step 1: verify the package (274 entries, ~2 seconds).
pnpm exec tsx scripts/verify-public-package-checksums.ts
# Step 2: re-run the standing execution gate — every unique frozen tool call
# in the package replays against the live MCP server (needs an audio device).
pnpm build
pnpm exec tsx scripts/verify-public-package-execution.ts
# Step 3: reproduce the v0.5.0 RC-gate PASS verdict. The sealed E3 baseline it
# reads was measured on v0.4.3 records and ships in the v0.4.3 deposit, not in
# the v0.5.0 package — restore its sealed bytes from git history first:
git show jam-actions-v0-feature-marketed-2026-05-19:datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/evals/slice21-fair-e3-baseline-results.json > /tmp/slice21-baseline.json
pnpm exec tsx scripts/check-release-gate.ts /tmp/slice21-baseline.json

Expected: every command exits 0; the execution gate prints VERDICT: PASS (230 unique calls, 0 failures), and the release-gate CLI prints Aggregate: PASS with RC gate PASS (all 6 blocking axes cleared; reporting declared).

What makes this reliable on Windows. Slice 23.5 added .gitattributes pinning LF line endings for *.sha256 and the entire datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/** tree, so Git on Windows doesn’t silently CRLF-convert your checkout. The verifier itself is also CRLF-tolerant (parseChecksumsManifest strips trailing \r) as defense in depth, in case someone forks without the gitattributes.

What makes the gate CLI strict. scripts/check-release-gate.ts rejects unknown positional arguments and multiple positionals — a fresh contributor cannot silently mis-invoke it and get a misleading PASS.

Provenance — what is and is not in the public subset

Section titled “Provenance — what is and is not in the public subset”
CompositionComposerSourceIn public subset?
Prelude in C major, BWV 846 (WTC I)Bachpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 16 records
Für EliseBeethovenpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 13 records
Pathétique mvt. 2Beethovenpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 16 records
Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2Chopinpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 18 records
Prelude in E minor, Op. 28 No. 4Chopinpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 12 records
Clair de luneDebussypiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 12 records (held-out test split)
Sonata K545 mvt. 1Mozartpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 16 records
Kinderszenen No. 7 (Träumerei)Schumannpiano-midi.de (Krueger)Yes — 12 records
Gymnopédie No. 1Satiepiano-midi.deNo — Slice 2.5 URL verification failed
Arabesque No. 1Debussypiano-midi.deNo — Slice 2.5 URL verification failed

The two excluded songs were almost included. The honest call was to leave them out: provenance against piano-midi.de could not be verified during URL audit, and rather than ship the dataset on faith we shipped what could be defended.

The compositions are public domain. The MIDI arrangements are by Bernd Krueger (piano-midi.de), licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE. The annotations, traces, eval artifacts, and tooling are by the AI Jam Sessions team, released under the same license to preserve the share-alike chain.

If you build on this dataset and redistribute your work, your downstream artifact inherits the share-alike obligation.

Use the Citation File Format file shipped with the dataset:

Terminal window
cat datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/CITATION.cff

Or a plain-text form:

mcp-tool-shop-org & Krueger, B. (2026). AI Jam Sessions — Tool-Use Traces v0 (Public Subset), Version 0.5.0. Zenodo. CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20279918

The concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20279918 always resolves to the latest published version and is the canonical citation handle recorded in CITATION.cff. v0.5.0 is published with version DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21313954 (2026-07-11); the prior release v0.4.3 has version DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20279919 (2026-05-19).

ArtifactPath
HF-format dataset carddatasets/jam-actions-v0-public/README.md
Zenodo deposition metadatadatasets/jam-actions-v0-public/zenodo-metadata.json
Citation File Formatdatasets/jam-actions-v0-public/CITATION.cff
Release notes (per version)datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/RELEASE_NOTES.md
Attribution detaildatasets/jam-actions-v0-public/ATTRIBUTION.md
Canonical PASS verdict (v0.5.0)datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/evals/v0.5.0-release-gate-assessment.json
Execution-verification receipt (v0.5.0)datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/evals/v0.5.0-execution-verification.json
Sealed E3 baseline (measured on v0.4.3 records)v0.4.3 deposit + git history (git show jam-actions-v0-feature-marketed-2026-05-19:datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/evals/slice21-fair-e3-baseline-results.json)
Records (JSONL)datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/records.jsonl
Records (per-file JSON)datasets/jam-actions-v0-public/records/
Piano-roll SVGsdatasets/jam-actions-v0-public/pianoroll/
24-slice build arc docsdocs/jam-actions-v0-slice*.md

The dataset card is also the published HuggingFace card — the YAML frontmatter at the top (license, language, task_categories, tags, configs) is what HF reads to register the dataset on its platform.