Assessing the Creativity of Large Language Models: Testing, Limits, and New Frontiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13450v1
• Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 12:46:05 GMT
• Title: Assessing the Creativity of Large Language Models: Testing, Limits, and New Frontiers
• Abstract summary: It has become common in recent years to administer tests of human creativity to large language models (LLMs)<n>These tests provide a convenient and fully automated way to score "creativity," but their validity as measures of machine creativity has not been established.<n>We conduct the first large-scale, systematic study assessing the effectiveness of human creativity tests for predicting the creative achievement of LLMs.
• Score: 39.942029670113115
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Measuring the creativity of large language models (LLMs) is essential for designing methods that can improve creativity and for enhancing our scientific understanding of this ability. To accomplish this, it has become common in recent years to administer tests of human creativity to LLMs. Although these tests provide a convenient and fully automated way to score "creativity," their validity as measures of machine creativity has not been established, and these tests already have limited validity as predictors of human creativity. To address this problem, we conduct the first large-scale, systematic study assessing the effectiveness of human creativity tests for predicting the creative achievement of LLMs across three target constructs: creative writing, divergent thinking, and scientific ideation. We find that the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and the Conditional DAT are the best predictors of creative writing and divergent thinking, respectively, but that test effectiveness varies significantly by construct, and no single test predicts all constructs well. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, no existing test reliably predicts scientific ideation ability. Motivated by this problem, we introduce the Divergent Remote Association Test (DRAT), a vocabulary-space test that assesses both convergent and divergent thinking in a single instrument. The DRAT is the first and only creativity test for LLMs that is a significant predictor of scientific ideation ability, demonstrating robustness across major design choices. Furthermore, the performance gain of the DRAT is not recoverable from any linear combination of the Divergent Association Task and the Remote Associates Test, indicating that assessing divergent and convergent thinking in the same test is essential to reliably predicting scientific ideation ability.

Related papers

• CreativityNeuro: Steering Language Model Weights to Improve Divergent Thinking and Reduce Mode Collapse [16.388226447545566]
  We introduce CreativityNeuro, a data-free method for enhancing divergent thinking in large language models (LLMs)<n>On the Divergent Association Task ( DAT), CreativityNeuro improves performance by up to 14 human percentile points.<n>In a large-scale human evaluation (N=720), CreativityNeuro achieves significant improvements in originality, surprise, and creativity, transferring to longer-form and more open-ended tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T19:54:39Z)
• Automated Creativity Evaluation of Language Models Across Open-Ended Tasks [3.6948012022450776]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation.<n>We introduce an automated, domain-agnostic framework for quantifying LLM creativity across open-ended tasks.<n>Our approach separates the measurement apparatus from the creative task itself, enabling scalable, task-agnostic assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T07:37:06Z)
• Beyond Divergent Creativity: A Human-Based Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models [6.036586911740041]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in verbal creative tasks.<n>The widely used Divergent Association Task ( DAT) focuses on novelty, ignoring appropriateness.<n>We evaluate a range of state-of-the-art LLMs on DAT and show that their scores on the task are lower than those of two baselines that do not possess any creative abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T12:41:32Z)
• CreativityPrism: A Holistic Benchmark for Large Language Model Creativity [64.18257552903151]
  Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence.<n>There is still no holistic framework to evaluate their creativity across diverse scenarios.<n>We propose CreativityPrism, an evaluation analysis framework that decomposes creativity into three dimensions: quality, novelty, and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T00:22:10Z)
• Rethinking Creativity Evaluation: A Critical Analysis of Existing Creativity Evaluations [48.57816792550401]
  We examine creativity measures including the creativity index, perplexity, syntactic templates, and LLM-as-a-Judge.<n>Our analyses reveal that these metrics exhibit limited consistency, capturing different dimensions of creativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T15:11:48Z)
• Automated Creativity Evaluation for Large Language Models: A Reference-Based Approach [32.654673913638426]
  We propose an automated evaluation method based on the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW), which evaluates creativity as product.<n>Our method employs a reference-based Likert-style approach, scoring generated creative texts relative to high-quality reference texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T10:52:23Z)
• LiveIdeaBench: Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context [13.967898012303325]
  We introduce LiveIdeaBench, a benchmark evaluating Large Language Models' scientific idea generation.<n>Our benchmark employs a dynamic panel of state-of-the-art LLMs to assess generated ideas across five key dimensions: originality, feasibility, fluency, flexibility, and clarity.<n>Our results demonstrate that models like QwQ-32B-preview achieve creative performance comparable to top-tier models such as claude-3.7-sonnet:thinking, despite significant gaps in their general intelligence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:13:44Z)
• Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers [90.26363107905344]
  Large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery. No evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T08:25:03Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Can AI Be as Creative as Humans? [84.43873277557852]
  We prove in theory that AI can be as creative as humans under the condition that it can properly fit the data generated by human creators. The debate on AI's creativity is reduced into the question of its ability to fit a sufficient amount of data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-03T08:49:12Z)
• Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity [53.04834589006685]
  We propose the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) to evaluate creativity as a product. TTCW consists of 14 binary tests organized into the original dimensions of Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration. Our analysis shows that LLM-generated stories pass 3-10X less TTCW tests than stories written by professionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T22:02:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.