PainterBench: A Figural Divergent-Thinking Benchmark for Tool-Using Language Models

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.

Recent image-generation models and multimodal agents can produce high-quality visuals for increasingly complex visual communication tasks. Yet their raster outputs remain difficult to use directly because meaningful content and relationships are flattened into pixels, preventing users from inspecting, modifying, rearranging, or reusing individual components. We formulate image-to-editable reconstruction, which recovers a structured, directly manipulable artifact from a raster image while preserving its visual and semantic content. The central challenge is to jointly satisfy Fidelity and Editability, which often trade off in practice. To study this task, we introduce DrawAI, comprising an agentic benchmark, DrawAI-Bench, and a reconstruction workflow, DrawAI-Flow. DrawAI-Bench spans scientific figures, presentation slides, posters, and diagrams, combining real and AI-generated images to reflect practical visual-creation scenarios. It evaluates Fidelity and Editability through a hybrid protocol of 39 criteria: deterministic rule-based metrics measure properties with direct correspondences, while asset-specific vision-language rubrics capture semantic and perceptual qualities for which exact matching is misleading. Besides, we propose DrawAI-Flow, a two-stage agentic workflow in which a Parser Agent turns extracted elements evidence into an explicit reconstruction plan, and a Reconstruction Agent realizes the plan as executable graphics code through an iterative code-render-validate-revise loop. On DrawAI-Bench, we systematically evaluate thirteen models across five agent harnesses to study the effects of model capability, harness choice, and workflow design. The results show that reconstruction quality and costs vary substantially across model-harness configurations, while DrawAI-Flow consistently improves editable structure.

Divergent thinking is a core dimension of creativity, yet existing evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) treat them as single-turn text generations, failing to capture how an agent reasons through iterative interaction. To address this, we introduce MUTATE, an interactive benchmark designed to evaluate agentic divergent thinking at two levels: path-level, where an agent discovers multiple alternative paths to the same goal, and action-level, where individual actions require non-typical, mechanism-shifting object uses. Unlike success-only evaluations, MUTATE scores both completed paths and off-path attempts, capturing divergent reasoning that conventional success rates discard. Our experiments with frontier LLMs reveal a structural blind spot in existing frameworks: when exposed to immediate convergence pressure, they tend to fall into immediate action fixation, failing to improve action-level divergence. To overcome this, we propose ReDNA, which separates unconstrained divergent candidate generation from convergent constraint selection. ReDNA significantly outperforms prior methods across both divergence levels and generalizes effectively to an external creativity environment. We also confirm its success stems from a qualitative enhancement of resilient divergent reasoning rather than simple environmental exploration.