The paper proposes that creativity in large language models can be measured by performance on the long tail of a reference input-output distribution, using n‑gram absence from pretraining data as a novelty proxy. Across 15 benchmarks and 26 open‑weight models, the authors find that creativity benchmarks occupy further tail regions than standard benchmarks and that higher‑tail subsets better align with human creativity judgments. They introduce a new diagnostic, q@Tail(α), to assess mean task quality on the tail fraction of existing benchmarks, revealing significant potential for improving LLM creativity through stronger tail performance.
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:2510. 20091v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
arXiv:2608.30754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating creativity in large language model (LLM) outputs remains challenging because creativity is multidimensional and human-centered. We examine h...
arXiv:2608. 07460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While post-training improves the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), it generally lowers their output diversity and creativity, negatively impacting tasks that explicitly require creativity (e.
Evaluating creativity in large language model (LLM) outputs remains challenging because creativity is multidimensional and human-centered. We examine how reliably LLMs evaluate short literary text in...
arXiv:2608.30047v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent AI systems promise autonomous scientific discovery, claiming to discover algorithms and produce research papers, yet understanding whether they...
arXiv:2605. 10574v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly.
arXiv:2607. 01433v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Divergent thinking is a crucial aspect of creativity, yet large language models (LLMs) tend to consistently generate similar responses to open-ended questions, in what has been termed the artificial hivemind effect.