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: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.
By Prerna Luthra
arXiv:2510. 20091v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence.
By Zhaoyi Joey Hou, Bowei Alvin Zhang, Yining Lu, Bhiman Kumar Baghel, Anneliese Brei, Ximing Lu, Meng Jiang, Faeze Brahman, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Haw-Shiuan Chang, Daniel Khashabi, Xiang Lorraine Li
arXiv:2606. 09587v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: People are increasingly using AI for creative tasks such as writing.
By Muhammad Haris Khan, Joel wester
The paper introduces CreaEval, an automated creativity evaluator designed for complex multi-step tasks (CGPST). It separates the evaluation process into two phases: a memory‑augmented analysis that transforms responses into structured evidence, and an evidence‑based judging step that scores without seeing raw outputs. Experiments show CreaEval outperforms existing baselines by an average of 22.74% across CGPST and two simpler creativity tasks.
By Xiangyu Wang, Jin Wu, Xiaoyu Li, Chanjin Zheng, Yifeng Zhou
arXiv:2606. 12086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage).
By Mingjia Li, Jin Wu, Hong Qian, Wenhao Huang, Yiyang Huang, Yiwen Zhang, Chanjin Zheng, Xiangfeng Wang, Aimin Zhou, Jiajun Guo
arXiv:2608. 07243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative models are often evaluated through singular artifacts, whereas human creativity typically emerges through iterative generation, appraisal, and refinement.
By Rens Anderson, Tessa Verhoef, Amirhossein Zohrehvand
arXiv:2606. 11762v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential.
By Min Sen Tan, Zachary Kit Chun Choy, Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff, Nadya Yuki Wangsajaya, Mohor Banerjee, Swaagat Bikash Saikia, Alvin Chan
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential. Realizing this potential requires systematic and scalable methods for evaluating creativity across diverse tasks.
arXiv:2608. 19437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many benchmarks track Large Language Model (LLM) performance on tasks with verifiable answers, but less is known about how LLM performance is evolving on open-ended tasks, where creativity, originality and diversity may matter as much as quality.
By Nirav Patel, Josiah Crossman, Eva Aggarwal, Emily Wenger
arXiv:2605. 10574v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly.
By Shray Mathur, J. Anibal Boscoboinik, Esther H. R. Tsai, Kevin G. Yager
arXiv:2603. 11863v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The saturation of high-quality pre-training data has shifted research focus toward evolutionary systems capable of continuously generating novel artifacts, leading to the success of AlphaEvolve.
By Zi-Han Wang, Lam Nguyen, Zhengyang Zhao, Mengyue Yang, Chengwei Qin, Yujiu Yang, Linyi Yang