arXiv Computation and Language

GENIE: A Fine-Grained Measure for Novelty

The paper introduces GENIE, a fine‑grained metric designed to assess the novelty of responses generated by large language models on a task‑specific basis. Unlike holistic metrics, GENIE evaluates novelty across multiple features, revealing which aspects of model outputs are truly novel. The authors also apply GENIE to evaluate mitigation methods aimed at enhancing creativity, showing where such methods succeed or fall short.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

Evaluating LLM Creativity through Long-Tail Performance

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.

By Yichen Wang, Tenghao Huang, Vishakh Padmakumar, Mina Lee
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Think-Probe-Respond: Improving Large Language Models as Judges of Research Idea Novelty

The paper introduces Think‑Probe‑Respond (TPR), a lightweight method to improve large language models’ ability to judge the novelty of research ideas. It identifies a systematic bias where models tend to label ideas as "medium novel" despite generating human‑like rationales, and shows that probing hidden states during reasoning and conditioning the final response on these probes boosts novelty judgment accuracy by 22.30%. TPR effectively reduces the medium‑novelty bias across strong baseline models.

By Tim Schopf, Tobias Schreieder, Akiko Aizawa