The Human Creativity Benchmark

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.

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.

Creative AI systems are typically evaluated at the level of individual utility, yet creative outputs are consumed in populations: an idea loses value when many others produce similar ones. This creates an evaluation blind spot, as AI can improve individual outputs while increasing population-level crowding. We introduce a human-relative framework for benchmarking AI-induced human diversity collapse without requiring human-AI interaction data, providing an ex ante protocol to estimate crowding risk from model-only generations and matched unaided human baselines. By modeling ideas as congestible resources, we show that source-level crowding is identifiable from within-distribution comparisons, yielding an excess-crowding coefficient $Δ$ and a human-relative diversity ratio $ρ$. We show that $ρ\ge1$ is the no-excess-crowding parity condition and connect $Δ$ to an adoption game with exposure-dependent redundancy costs. Across short stories, marketing slogans, and alternative-uses tasks, three frontier LLMs fall below parity across crowding kernels. Estimates stabilize with feasible model-only sample sizes. Importantly, generation-protocol variants show that crowding can be reduced through targeted design, making diversity collapse an actionable, development-time evaluation target for population-aware creative AI.