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.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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:2510. 20091v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence.
arXiv:2607. 23696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Ad creative optimization is increasingly constrained by evaluation rather than generation.
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: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.
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.