arXiv AI

Seeing Differently: Modeling Interpretive Perspectives in Computational Creativity using a Four-World Framework

arXiv:2607. 28644v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Creativity in computational systems is often evaluated as an objective property of artifacts, with existing Computational Creativity (CC) frameworks assessing creative merit at the level of outputs or systems rather than interpretive context.

arXiv AI
Jun 30

The Human Creativity Benchmark

arXiv:2606. 30561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern AI evaluation frameworks treat evaluator disagreement as noise to be resolved.

By Aspen Hopkins, Allison Nulty, Alexandria Minetti, Anoop Pakki, Angad Singh
arXiv AI
Aug 28

AesCanvas: A Large-Scale Dataset and Benchmark for Aesthetic Critique and Contextual Suitability

AesCanvas is a new dataset and benchmark that evaluates image aesthetic models on two fronts: CritiqueCanvas, which contains 519,136 instruction–response pairs for long‑form, multi‑dimensional critique across photography, painting, and virtual imagery, and ContextCanvas, which offers 301 expert‑reviewed use scenarios to assess contextual aesthetic suitability. The benchmark tests closed‑source, open‑weight general, and aesthetic‑specific multimodal large language models, revealing that models excel at critique generation but lag in context‑sensitive judgment. The study shows that aesthetic specialization does not reliably transfer to contextual suitability and highlights the need for culturally situated, evidence‑grounded suitability as a distinct objective for aesthetic modeling.

By Xuanwei Hu, Haoyu Dong, Kejun Wu, Tianyi Liu, Jianjun Gao
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