Creative Integration: A Decidable Criterion of Creativity

Creativity research has debated whether creativity is domain-specific (e.g., visual, writing, science), and if it is psychometrically separable from general intelligence. Both questions now apply to LLMs, but a unified benchmark of AI creativity remains elusive. We introduce AGC-Bench, an artificial general creativity benchmark built from a systematic review of the AI creativity literature (3,101 papers screened, 497 benchmarks identified), paired with an agentic harness that converts idiosyncratic codebases into HELM-standardized benchmarks. The first release covers 78 datasets spanning brainstorming, problem solving, STEM, narrative, figurative language, and humor. To address bias in LLM-as-judge, we apply Judge Response Theory -- a psychometric calibration of judge leniency/severity; we then fine-tune Qwen3-30B on the bias-corrected ratings of three frontier LLMs to produce AGC-Judge, an open-weight model that robustly scores new creativity benchmarks it was not trained on. Results reveal frontier models at the top of the AGC-Bench leaderboard, with open models close behind. LLMs show different creative strengths, ranking higher on some domains (e.g., writing) than others (e.g., scientific ideation). Extensive experiments yield three main findings. First, applying factor analysis across 83 LLMs, we recover a single creativity factor 'c', analogous to the 'g' factor of general intelligence, that explains 81.5% of variance, related to but separable from general knowledge/reasoning. Second, we show that prompting models to "be creative" boosts their performance far more than enabling reasoning, evidence that the benchmark tracks creativity over general ability. Third, on a human-matched subset, we find the top human still leads the top LLM on creativity. We release AGC-Bench with a public leaderboard, AGC-Judge, and human data as open infrastructure for measuring AI creativity at scale.

Large Language Models have consistently demonstrated a lack of creativity and diversity across tasks. Prior work has focused on addressing whether models are capable of generating creative outputs. Here, we aim to consider novelty and investigate what makes model-generated content novel or not novel in a task-specific manner. We propose a fine-grained evaluation metric GENIE to measure the novelty of responses along task-specific features with respect to a population of responses. We show that unlike GENIE, holistic metrics struggle to capture the high-dimensionality of novelty and do not provide insight on which properties they target. Finally, we use GENIE to measure the effectiveness of mitigation methods that address creativity to better understand where these methods can improve novelty.

Modern AI evaluation frameworks treat evaluator disagreement as noise to be resolved. In creative domains, professional disagreement reflects genuine differences in taste, not measurement error. We argue that evaluating creative AI requires preserving two distinct signals: convergence, where professionals align around shared best practices, and divergence, where individual taste legitimately varies. We present the Human Creativity Benchmark (HCB), a benchmark that operationalizes this separation by collecting pairwise preferences, scalar ratings on prompt adherence, usability, and visual appeal, and qualitative rationale from domain professionals. Across 15,000 professional judgments spanning five creative domains and three workflow phases (ideation, mockup, refinement), we find that convergence concentrates on verifiable dimensions like technical correctness and visual hierarchy, while divergence concentrates on taste-driven dimensions like aesthetic direction and conceptual risk. No model excels uniformly across all phases. Collapsing these signals into a single quality metric discards the most actionable information: where models must be correct versus where they should remain steerable.