Creativity is often framed as the production of novelty, yet many cultural works emerge through transformation of earlier artifacts and not through isolated invention. Drawing on theories of imitation by Gabriel Tarde and James Mark Baldwin, this paper models creativity as selective transformation across multiple levels of textual representation. We introduce a multi-level framework that compares literary texts across lexical, semantic, conceptual, structural, and narrative dimensions using directional alignment and control calibrated similarity measures. Applying the model to historically documented literary relationships, we show that different pairs preserve source structure at different representational levels while diverging in others. These transformation profiles provide a quantitative method for characterizing how imitation persists and where creative divergence occurs within literary works.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for creative tasks such as literary translation. Yet translational creativity remains underexplored and is rarely evaluated at scale, while source-text comprehension is typically studied in isolation, despite the fact that, in professional translation, comprehension and creativity are tightly intertwined. We address these gaps with a paired-task framework applied to literary excerpts from 11 books. Task 1 assesses source-text comprehension, and Task 2 evaluates translational creativity through Units of Creative Potential (UCPs), such as metaphors and wordplay. Using a scalable evaluation setup that combines expert human annotations with UCP-based automatic scoring, we benchmark 23 models and four creativity-oriented prompts. Our findings show that strong comprehension does not translate into human-level creativity: models often produce literal or contextually inappropriate renderings, with particularly large gaps for the more distant English-Chinese language pair. Creativity-oriented prompts yield only modest gains, and only one model, Mistral-Large, comes close to human-level creativity (0.167 vs. 0.246). Across all model-prompt combinations, only three exceed a creativity score of 0.1, while the rest remain at or near zero.
This article investigates the performance of automatic evaluation metrics (AEMs) and LLM-as-a-judge evaluation on literary translation across multiple languages, genres, and translation modalities. The aim is to assess how well these tools align with professionals when evaluating translation, creativity (creative shifts & errors), and see if they can substitute laborious manual annotations. A dataset of literary translations across three modalities (human translation, machine translation, and post-editing), three genres and three language pairs was created and annotated in detail for creativity by experienced professional literary translators. The results show that both AEMs and LLM-as-a-judge evaluations correlate poorly with professional evaluations on creativity, with LLM-as-a-judge showing a systematic bias in favour of machine-translated texts and penalising creative and culturally appropriate solutions. Moreover, performance is consistently worse for more literary genres such as poetry. This highlights fundamental limitations of current automatic evaluation tools for literary translation and the need to create new tools that do not frequently consider out of routine translations as errors.
Measuring the creativity of large language models (LLMs) is essential for designing methods that can improve creativity and for enhancing our scientific understanding of this ability. To accomplish this, it has become common in recent years to administer tests of human creativity to LLMs. Although these tests provide a convenient and fully automated way to score "creativity," their validity as measures of machine creativity has not been established, and these tests already have limited validity as predictors of human creativity. To address this problem, we conduct the first large-scale, systematic study assessing the effectiveness of human creativity tests for predicting the creative achievement of LLMs across three target constructs: creative writing, divergent thinking, and scientific ideation. We find that the Divergent Association Task (DAT) and the Conditional DAT are the best predictors of creative writing and divergent thinking, respectively, but that test effectiveness varies significantly by construct, and no single test predicts all constructs well. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, no existing test reliably predicts scientific ideation ability. Motivated by this problem, we introduce the Divergent Remote Association Test (DRAT), a vocabulary-space test that assesses both convergent and divergent thinking in a single instrument. The DRAT is the first and only creativity test for LLMs that is a significant predictor of scientific ideation ability, demonstrating robustness across major design choices. Furthermore, the performance gain of the DRAT is not recoverable from any linear combination of the Divergent Association Task and the Remote Associates Test, indicating that assessing divergent and convergent thinking in the same test is essential to reliably predicting scientific ideation ability.