The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23705v2
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 07:20:10 GMT
• Title: The Limits of Automatic Evaluation of Creativity in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of generating text that challenges human performance in domains requiring creativity.<n>We investigate whether current automatic evaluation methods can reliably capture human judgments of creativity.<n>Our experiments reveal substantial misalignment between automatic evaluations and human assessments.
• Score: 46.669028290459856
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of generating text that challenges human performance in domains requiring creativity, yet evaluating creativity in LLM-generated content remains a significant challenge. Here, we investigate whether current automatic evaluation methods can reliably capture human judgments of creativity. We collect human evaluations of human- and AI-generated short stories from the WritingPrompts dataset across 11 dimensions of creativity, and compare these judgments with automated objective metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. Our experiments reveal substantial misalignment between automatic evaluations and human assessments. In particular, LLM-based judges exhibit a systematic preference for AI-generated stories, consistently favoring their stylistic characteristics over the unpredictability and other qualities of human-authored texts. Furthermore, correlation analyses show that widely used automatic metrics exhibit near-zero alignment with human judgments across both human- and AI-generated stories, suggesting that they fail to capture important dimensions of creativity. These findings highlight fundamental limitations in current approaches to the automatic evaluation of creative text and underscore the difficulty of reducing the multidimensional and subjective nature of creativity to computational metrics.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluating Text Creativity across Diverse Domains: A Dataset and Large Language Model Evaluator [26.89750429841565]
  Creativity evaluation remains a challenging frontier for large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose a novel pairwise-comparison framework for assessing textual creativity, leveraging shared contextual instructions to improve consistency.<n>Through training on CreataSet, we develop an LLM-based evaluator named CrEval. CrEval demonstrates remarkable superiority over existing methods in alignment with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T17:25:23Z)
• 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)
• AI-generated Essays: Characteristics and Implications on Automated Scoring and Academic Integrity [13.371946973050845]
  We examine and benchmark the characteristics and quality of essays generated by popular large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings highlight limitations in existing automated scoring systems, and identify areas for improvement.<n>Despite concerns that the increasing variety of LLMs may undermine the feasibility of detecting AI-generated essays, our results show that detectors trained on essays generated from one model can often identify texts from others with high accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:30:58Z)
• Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [52.76508734756661]
  Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• What Makes a Good Story and How Can We Measure It? A Comprehensive Survey of Story Evaluation [57.550045763103334]
  evaluating a story can be more challenging than other generation evaluation tasks. We first summarize existing storytelling tasks, including text-to-text, visual-to-text, and text-to-visual. We propose a taxonomy to organize evaluation metrics that have been developed or can be adopted for story evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T20:35:42Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Automated Evaluation of Personalized Text Generation using Large Language Models [38.2211640679274]
  We present AuPEL, a novel evaluation method that distills three major semantic aspects of the generated text: personalization, quality and relevance, and automatically measures these aspects. We find that, compared to existing evaluation metrics, AuPEL not only distinguishes and ranks models based on their personalization abilities more accurately, but also presents commendable consistency and efficiency for this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T21:35:06Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.