How do Humans and Language Models Reason About Creativity? A Comparative Analysis

Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how including example solutions with ratings impact creativity evaluation, using a finegrained annotation protocol where raters were tasked with explaining their originality scores and rating for the facets of remoteness (whether the response is "far" from everyday ideas), uncommonness (whether the response is rare), and cleverness. In Study 1, we analyzed creativity ratings from 72 experts with formal science or engineering training, comparing those who received example solutions with ratings (example) to those who did not (no example). Computational text analysis revealed that, compared to experts with examples, no-example experts used more comparative language (e.g., "better/worse") and emphasized solution uncommonness, suggesting they may have relied more on memory retrieval for comparisons. In Study 2, parallel analyses with state-of-the-art LLMs revealed that models prioritized uncommonness and remoteness of ideas when rating originality, suggesting an evaluative process rooted around the semantic similarity of ideas. In the example condition, while LLM accuracy in predicting the true originality scores improved, the correlations of remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness with originality also increased substantially - to upwards of 0.99 - suggesting a homogenization in the LLMs evaluation of the individual facets. These findings highlight important implications for how humans and AI reason about creativity and suggest diverging preferences for what different populations prioritize when rating.

Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Edits

LLM-based applications are helping people write, and LLM-generated text is making its way into social media, journalism, and our classrooms. However, the differences between LLM-generated and human-written text remain unclear. To explore this, we hired professional writers to edit paragraphs in several creative domains. We first found these writers agree on undesirable idiosyncrasies in LLM-generated text, formalizing it into a seven-category taxonomy (e.g. cliches, unnecessary exposition). Second, we curated the LAMP corpus: 1,057 LLM-generated paragraphs edited by professional writers according to our taxonomy. Analysis of LAMP reveals that none of the LLMs used in our study (GPT4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1-70b) outperform each other in terms of writing quality, revealing common limitations across model families. Third, we explored automatic editing methods to improve LLM-generated text. A large-scale preference annotation confirms that although experts largely prefer text edited by other experts, automatic editing methods show promise in improving alignment between LLM-generated and human-written text.

Connecting the Dots: Evaluating Abstract Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs Using the New York Times Connections Word Game

The New York Times Connections game has emerged as a popular and challenging pursuit for word puzzle enthusiasts. We collect 200 Connections games to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against expert and novice human players. Our results show that even the best-performing LLM, GPT-4o, which has otherwise shown impressive reasoning abilities on a wide variety of benchmarks, can only fully solve 8% of the games. Compared to GPT-4o, novice and expert players perform better, with expert human players significantly outperforming GPT-4o. To deepen our understanding we create a taxonomy of the knowledge types required to successfully categorize words in the Connections game, revealing that LLMs struggle with associative, encyclopedic, and linguistic knowledge. Our findings establish the New York Times Connections game as a challenging benchmark for evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities in humans and AI systems.

V-FLUTE: Visual Figurative Language Understanding with Textual Explanations

Large Vision-Language models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities in tasks requiring a fine-grained understanding of literal images and text, such as visual question-answering or visual entailment. However, there has been little exploration of these models' capabilities when presented with images and captions containing figurative phenomena such as metaphors or humor, the meaning of which is often implicit. To close this gap, we propose a new task and a high-quality dataset: Visual Figurative Language Understanding with Textual Explanations (V-FLUTE). We frame the visual figurative language understanding problem as an explainable visual entailment task, where the model has to predict whether the image (premise) entails a claim (hypothesis) and justify the predicted label with a textual explanation. Using a human-AI collaboration framework, we build a high-quality dataset, V-FLUTE, that contains 6,027 <image, claim, label, explanation> instances spanning five diverse multimodal figurative phenomena: metaphors, similes, idioms, sarcasm, and humor. The figurative phenomena can be present either in the image, the caption, or both. We further conduct both automatic and human evaluations to assess current VLMs' capabilities in understanding figurative phenomena.

Identifying Self-Disclosures of Use, Misuse and Addiction in Community-based Social Media Posts

In the last decade, the United States has lost more than 500,000 people from an overdose involving prescription and illicit opioids (https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html) making it a national public health emergency (USDHHS, 2017). To more effectively prevent unintentional opioid overdoses, medical practitioners require robust and timely tools that can effectively identify at-risk patients. Community-based social media platforms such as Reddit allow self-disclosure for users to discuss otherwise sensitive drug-related behaviors, often acting as indicators for opioid use disorder. Towards this, we present a moderate size corpus of 2500 opioid-related posts from various subreddits spanning 6 different phases of opioid use: Medical Use, Misuse, Addiction, Recovery, Relapse, Not Using. For every post, we annotate span-level extractive explanations and crucially study their role both in annotation quality and model development. We evaluate several state-of-the-art models in a supervised, few-shot, or zero-shot setting. Experimental results and error analysis show that identifying the phases of opioid use disorder is highly contextual and challenging. However, we find that using explanations during modeling leads to a significant boost in classification accuracy demonstrating their beneficial role in a high-stakes domain such as studying the opioid use disorder continuum. The dataset will be made available for research on Github in the formal version.

Learning to Follow Object-Centric Image Editing Instructions Faithfully

Natural language instructions are a powerful interface for editing the outputs of text-to-image diffusion models. However, several challenges need to be addressed: 1) underspecification (the need to model the implicit meaning of instructions) 2) grounding (the need to localize where the edit has to be performed), 3) faithfulness (the need to preserve the elements of the image not affected by the edit instruction). Current approaches focusing on image editing with natural language instructions rely on automatically generated paired data, which, as shown in our investigation, is noisy and sometimes nonsensical, exacerbating the above issues. Building on recent advances in segmentation, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and visual question answering, we significantly improve the quality of the paired data. In addition, we enhance the supervision signal by highlighting parts of the image that need to be changed by the instruction. The model fine-tuned on the improved data is capable of performing fine-grained object-centric edits better than state-of-the-art baselines, mitigating the problems outlined above, as shown by automatic and human evaluations. Moreover, our model is capable of generalizing to domains unseen during training, such as visual metaphors.

Creativity Support in the Age of Large Language Models: An Empirical Study Involving Emerging Writers

The development of large language models (LLMs) capable of following instructions and engaging in conversational interactions sparked increased interest in their utilization across various support tools. We investigate the utility of modern LLMs in assisting professional writers via an empirical user study (n=30). The design of our collaborative writing interface is grounded in the cognitive process model of writing that views writing as a goal-oriented thinking process encompassing non-linear cognitive activities: planning, translating, and reviewing. Participants are asked to submit a post-completion survey to provide feedback on the potential and pitfalls of LLMs as writing collaborators. Upon analyzing the writer-LLM interactions, we find that while writers seek LLM's help across all three types of cognitive activities, they find LLMs more helpful in translation and reviewing. Our findings from analyzing both the interactions and the survey responses highlight future research directions in creative writing assistance using LLMs.

Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity

Researchers have argued that large language models (LLMs) exhibit high-quality writing capabilities from blogs to stories. However, evaluating objectively the creativity of a piece of writing is challenging. Inspired by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which measures creativity as a process, we use the Consensual Assessment Technique [3] and 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. We recruit 10 creative writers and implement a human assessment of 48 stories written either by professional authors or LLMs using TTCW. Our analysis shows that LLM-generated stories pass 3-10X less TTCW tests than stories written by professionals. In addition, we explore the use of LLMs as assessors to automate the TTCW evaluation, revealing that none of the LLMs positively correlate with the expert assessments.

I Spy a Metaphor: Large Language Models and Diffusion Models Co-Create Visual Metaphors

Visual metaphors are powerful rhetorical devices used to persuade or communicate creative ideas through images. Similar to linguistic metaphors, they convey meaning implicitly through symbolism and juxtaposition of the symbols. We propose a new task of generating visual metaphors from linguistic metaphors. This is a challenging task for diffusion-based text-to-image models, such as DALL$\cdot$E 2, since it requires the ability to model implicit meaning and compositionality. We propose to solve the task through the collaboration between Large Language Models (LLMs) and Diffusion Models: Instruct GPT-3 (davinci-002) with Chain-of-Thought prompting generates text that represents a visual elaboration of the linguistic metaphor containing the implicit meaning and relevant objects, which is then used as input to the diffusion-based text-to-image models.Using a human-AI collaboration framework, where humans interact both with the LLM and the top-performing diffusion model, we create a high-quality dataset containing 6,476 visual metaphors for 1,540 linguistic metaphors and their associated visual elaborations. Evaluation by professional illustrators shows the promise of LLM-Diffusion Model collaboration for this task.To evaluate the utility of our Human-AI collaboration framework and the quality of our dataset, we perform both an intrinsic human-based evaluation and an extrinsic evaluation using visual entailment as a downstream task.

Multitask Instruction-based Prompting for Fallacy Recognition

Fallacies are used as seemingly valid arguments to support a position and persuade the audience about its validity. Recognizing fallacies is an intrinsically difficult task both for humans and machines. Moreover, a big challenge for computational models lies in the fact that fallacies are formulated differently across the datasets with differences in the input format (e.g., question-answer pair, sentence with fallacy fragment), genre (e.g., social media, dialogue, news), as well as types and number of fallacies (from 5 to 18 types per dataset). To move towards solving the fallacy recognition task, we approach these differences across datasets as multiple tasks and show how instruction-based prompting in a multitask setup based on the T5 model improves the results against approaches built for a specific dataset such as T5, BERT or GPT-3. We show the ability of this multitask prompting approach to recognize 28 unique fallacies across domains and genres and study the effect of model size and prompt choice by analyzing the per-class (i.e., fallacy type) results. Finally, we analyze the effect of annotation quality on model performance, and the feasibility of complementing this approach with external knowledge.