REVIEW 3 cited by
Automated Creativity Evaluation for Large Language Models: A Reference-Based Approach
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Creative writing is a key capability of Large Language Models (LLMs), with potential applications in literature, storytelling, and various creative domains. However, evaluating the creativity of machine-generated texts remains a significant challenge, as existing methods either rely on costly manual annotations or fail to align closely with human assessments. In this paper, we propose an effective automated evaluation method based on the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW), which evaluates creativity as product. Our method employs a reference-based Likert-style approach, scoring generated creative texts relative to high-quality reference texts across various tests. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly improves the alignment between LLM evaluations and human assessments, achieving a pairwise accuracy of 0.75 (+15\%).
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Style Wins, Substance Loses: A Diagnosis of LLM-as-Judge in Idea Generation
LLM judges of scientific ideas are measurably swayed by writing style; a style-detecting module reduces but does not remove the bias.
-
ProactiveEval: A Unified Evaluation Framework for Proactive Dialogue Agents
A unified evaluation framework for proactive dialogue agents, built with 328 synthetic environments across six domains, shows that thinking modes improve target planning but not dialogue guidance in a 22-model comparison.
-
LitBench: A Benchmark and Dataset for Reliable Evaluation of Creative Writing
Small reward models trained on LitBench reach 78% agreement with upvote-derived human preferences in creative writing, beating all zero-shot LLM judges tested.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.