Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22218v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:37:19 GMT
• Title: Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity
• Abstract summary: Despite growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed.<n>We identify the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examine their downstream implications.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six widely used LLMs, we addressed this gap by identifying the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examining their downstream implications. Study 1 showed that LLMs generally relied on a narrower subset of human creativity evaluation standards. Convergence with human standards was strongest in the novelty dimension, whereas divergence was clearest in the contextual dimension, which captures social, market, and reputational information. Moreover, each LLM exhibited distinct, model-specific standards that varied substantially in breadth. These differences in evaluation standards were reflected in actual creativity judgments. Study 2 (N = 1,103 ideas) showed that LLM evaluations were moderately correlated with human evaluations, and individual LLMs with broader standards better distinguished ideas humans judged as more versus less creative. Study 3 (N = 1,195) showed that LLMs were less sensitive to contextual information: such information significantly altered human creativity ratings but left LLM ratings largely unchanged. Together, our findings help explain the mixed evidence on LLM-human alignment, showing that alignment depends on the evidence a judgment demands and the standards each model applies. LLMs may resemble humans when evaluations emphasize intrinsic qualities such as novelty, yet diverge when judgments require contextual information. Selecting an LLM evaluator is therefore a consequential decision: different models, applying different standards, recognize different ideas as creative.

Related papers

• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• A word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in LLMs compared to humans [0.0]
  We present a novel word association network methodology for evaluating implicit biases in Large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method taps into the implicit relational structures encoded in LLMs, providing both quantitative and qualitative assessments of bias.<n>To demonstrate the utility of our methodology, we apply it to both humans and several widely used LLMs to investigate social biases related to gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and political party.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T15:03:18Z)
• SOLAR: Towards Characterizing Subjectivity of Individuals through Modeling Value Conflicts and Trade-offs [19.764066916148007]
  We characterize subjectivity of individuals on social media and infer their moral judgments using Large Language Models.<n>We propose a framework, SOLAR, that observes value conflicts and trade-offs in the user-generated texts to better represent subjective ground of individuals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T04:20:05Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs.<n> aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development.<n>There still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Investigating Context Effects in Similarity Judgements in Large Language Models [6.421776078858197]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionised the capability of AI models in comprehending and generating natural language text. We report an ongoing investigation on alignment of LLMs with human judgements affected by order bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T10:26:02Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks [3.58262772907022]
  We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other's responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion.<n>In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts.<n>Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T19:05:43Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.