arXiv Computation and Language

When Reasoning Supervision Hurts: TTCW-Based Long-Form Literary Review Generation

arXiv AI
Jun 4

POLARIS: Guiding Small Models to Write Long Stories

arXiv:2606. 04095v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight models struggle at long-form creative writing: their generated stories either fall far short of the requested length, or their quality significantly degrades as length increases, especially when compared to frontier models.

By Rishanth Rajendhran, Jenna Russell, Mohit Iyyer, John Frederick Wieting
arXiv AI
Aug 26

The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models

The paper examines whether existing automatic methods can reliably assess creativity in text produced by large language models (LLMs). By collecting human ratings on 11 creativity dimensions for both human and AI short stories, the authors compare these judgments with automated metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The results show a significant misalignment: automated metrics and LLM judges favor AI-generated stories and show near-zero correlation with human assessments, revealing fundamental limitations in current computational approaches to evaluating creative text.

By Alessandro Tutone, Giorgio Franceschelli, Mirco Musolesi
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

Generating Constructive Feedback on Stories via Reinforcement Learning

The paper introduces a reinforcement learning method to improve the quality of feedback generated by large language models for creative writers. By training with group relative policy optimization and a multi‑component reward that emphasizes tailored, actionable, and critical‑issue‑focused feedback, the authors demonstrate that their approach outperforms existing LLMs and baselines on three story corpora. The study shows that actionable suggestions are the key factor driving constructive feedback.

By Maja Stahl, Timon Ziegenbein, Henning Wachsmuth
arXiv AI
Aug 28

A Multi-Framework Comparison of Outline Stages in Long-Form Generation with LLMs

The paper presents a benchmark that compares seven long‑form generation frameworks across three granularities—single chapter, multi‑chapter, and whole book—using an anchor‑based LLM‑as‑a‑judge protocol to evaluate outlines directly. Results show no single framework dominates across all settings; performance depends on how well a framework’s output form matches the target granularity, with SuperWriter excelling in length‑constrained single‑chapter mode but losing advantage in whole‑book mode. The study finds only moderate correlation between outline and writing quality, supporting the idea that these two stages should be evaluated separately.

By Yifan Song
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
arXiv AI
Jul 22

PlotTwist: A Creative Plot Generation Framework with Small Language Models

arXiv:2603. 16410v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Creative plot generation presents a fundamental challenge for language models: transforming a concise premise into a coherent narrative that sustains global coherence, character development, pacing, tone consistency, and emotional progression.

By Abhinav Thorat, Ravi Kolla, Jyotin Goel, Madhav Kataria, Niranjan Pedanekar