Computational Creativity

Mainstream creativity support design prioritizes compliant AI for seamless writing interactions, but concerns over inappropriate AI reliance highlight the need for designs fostering reflection on balanced AI and non-AI resource use. Theoretically, intentional AI non-compliance, refusals (saying ``no'' to requests), could introduce such reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions. Practically, refusal content/language characteristics lead to nuanced reactions. However, little research empirically focuses on nuances beyond mandatory ethical/technical constraints, on turning refusals into strategic friction for `innocuous' requests. We address this through a qualitative study with 22 creative writers, exploring reactions to refusals to common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing). Findings suggest that reflective potential depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational (e.g., convergent/divergent thinking phases), cognitive (e.g., domain beliefs), and relational (e.g., AI roles) dimensions. We discuss implications for creativity support, broader issues (e.g., AI addiction), and frictional/seamful AI design (e.g., integrating different compliance levels).

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate pictures, texts, music, videos, and other works that have traditionally required human creativity. LLM-generated artifacts are often rated better than human-generated works in controlled studies. At the same time, they can come across as generic and hollow. We propose to resolve this tension by arguing that LLMs systematically generate kitsch, and that this is a consequence of the way in which they are trained. We also show empirically that readers perceive LLM-generated stories as kitschier, if we control for their definition of "kitsch". We discuss implications for the design of future studies and for creative tasks such as research and coding.

This paper introduces Calligraphy Writing Score Representation (CWSR) and proposes Shu Dao as a framework that interprets East Asian calligraphy as a performative art rather than a static visual artifact. Inspired by traditions such as Japanese Shodō and embodied cultural practices such as Chadao , the framework models calligraphy as a structured performance analogous to musical notation. Instead of representing characters as fixed images, the proposed approach encodes each brush stroke as an ordered and executable action, forming a calligraphy score. Characters are organized within a structured spatial grid, and strokes are annotated with attributes including stroke type, execution order, spatial coordinates, trajectory, compositional role, and dynamic properties such as brush pressure and pacing. This representation captures temporal and expressive aspects of calligraphic writing that are typically absent from image-based representations. The paper makes three main contributions. First, it introduces CWSR as a structured notation system for representing calligraphy across multiple levels, including strokes, character structures, and compositional organization (e.g., layout and zhangfa), together with their rhythmic and performative dynamics. Second, it conceptualizes Shu Dao as a score-mediated framework that models calligraphy as structured performance. Third, it establishes a computational foundation for the analysis, visualization, and executable generation of calligraphic works by AI-based calligraphic agents. Together, these contributions bridge calligraphy, musical notation, and performative cultural practices, supporting human--AI co-creation in computational calligraphy and digital humanities research.

Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large language models (LLMs) in the same way? We asked human participants and seven LLMs to design products by drawing inspiration from a random source or addressing an unmet user need. Humans reliably benefited from cross-domain mappings, while LLMs generated more original ideas than humans but showed no overall benefit from the intervention, though this changed with semantic distance. More distant source-target pairings produced more original ideas in both humans and LLMs. Humans benefited at nearly any distance, while only the highest-rated LLMs benefited when the source was sufficiently remote. Humans and LLMs also used sources differently: humans tended to transfer surface features, while LLMs transferred structural and functional properties. These findings reveal the generative role of remote associations and systematic differences in how humans and AI respond to the same creativity intervention.

This paper is the second one in a series of work on the mathematical creativity of LLM. In the first paper, the authors proposed three criteria for evaluating the mathematical creativity of LLM and constructed a benchmark dataset to measure it. This paper further explores the mathematical creativity of LLM, with a focus on investigating whether LLM can generate valuable and cutting-edge mathematical research problems. We develop an agent to generate unknown problems and produced 665 research problems in differential geometry. Through human verification, we find that many of these mathematical problems are unknown to experts and possess unique research value.

Text-to-image (T2I) models have substantially improved image fidelity and prompt adherence, yet their creativity remains constrained by reliance on discrete natural language prompts. When presented with fuzzy prompts such as a creative vinyl record-inspired skyscraper'', these models often fail to infer the underlying creative intent, leaving creative ideation and prompt design largely to human users. Recent reasoning- or agent-driven approaches iteratively augment prompts but incur high computational and monetary costs, as their instance-specific generation makes creativity'' costly and non-reusable, requiring repeated queries or reasoning for subsequent generations. To address this, we introduce CAT, a framework for Creative Agent Tokenization that encapsulates agents' intrinsic understanding of ``creativity'' through a Creative Tokenizer. Given the embeddings of fuzzy prompts, the tokenizer generates a reusable token template that can be directly concatenated with them to inject creative semantics into T2I models without repeated reasoning or prompt augmentation. To enable this, the tokenizer is trained via creative semantic disentanglement, leveraging relations among partially overlapping concept pairs to capture the agent's latent creative representations. Extensive experiments on Architecture Design, Furniture Design, and Nature Mixture tasks demonstrate that CAT provides a scalable and effective paradigm for enhancing creativity in T2I generation, achieving a $3.7\times$ speedup and a $4.8\times$ reduction in computational cost, while producing images with superior human preference and text-image alignment compared to state-of-the-art T2I models and creative generation methods.

Despite interdisciplinary research leading to larger and longer-term impact, most work remains confined to single-domain academic silos. Recent AI-based approaches to scientific discovery show promise for interdisciplinary research, but many prioritize rapidly designing experiments and solutions, bypassing the exploratory, collaborative reasoning processes that drive creative interdisciplinary breakthroughs. As a result, prior efforts largely prioritize automating scientific discovery rather than augmenting the reasoning processes that underlie scientific disruption. We present Idea-Catalyst, a novel framework that systematically identifies interdisciplinary insights to support creative reasoning in both humans and large language models. Starting from an abstract research goal, Idea-Catalyst is designed to assist the brainstorming stage, explicitly avoiding premature anchoring on specific solutions. The framework embodies key metacognitive features of interdisciplinary reasoning: (a) defining and assessing research goals, (b) awareness of a domain's opportunities and unresolved challenges, and (c) strategic exploration of interdisciplinary ideas based on impact potential. Concretely, Idea-Catalyst decomposes an abstract goal (e.g., improving human-AI collaboration) into core target-domain research questions that guide the analysis of progress and open challenges within that domain. These challenges are reformulated as domain-agnostic conceptual problems, enabling retrieval from external disciplines (e.g., Psychology, Sociology) that address analogous issues. By synthesizing and recontextualizing insights from these domains back into the target domain, Idea-Catalyst ranks source domains by their interdisciplinary potential. Empirically, this targeted integration improves average novelty by 21% and insightfulness by 16%, while remaining grounded in the original research problem.

Amidst the emergence of powerful intelligent technologies such as LLMs and text-to-image AIs that promise to enhance creative processes, designers face the challenges of remaining empowered and creative while working with these foreign digital partners. While generative AIs offer versatile, informative, and occasionally poetic outcomes, their lack of embodied knowledge presents an even greater challenge to designers in gaining fruitful outcomes, such as in the field of Digital Craftsmanship. In this project, three designers embarked on a three-month experimental journey with an intention to co-create with Google's LLM as a potential intelligent partner to investigate how it will influence the designers' creativity. We found that a power dynamic of agencies exists between the LLM and the designer, in which the designer can easily lose their creative agency. Regaining the designer's creative agency involves introspection into their own creative process, a structural understanding of the specific emerging technology involved, and deliberate adjustments to the dynamics of the human-technology relationship. We propose paying attention to the designer's inner world and parties of agencies when engaging with emerging intelligent technologies through three aspects: the sensitivity towards a creative process as cognitive activities; the active investigation into specific technology's capability; and the adjustment towards an appropriate working relationship between the designer and the emerging technology.

The saturation of high-quality pre-training data has shifted research focus toward evolutionary systems capable of continuously generating novel artifacts, leading to the success of AlphaEvolve. However, the progress of such systems is hindered by the lack of rigorous, quantitative evaluation. To tackle this challenge, we introduce CreativeBench, a benchmark for evaluating machine creativity in code generation, grounded in a classical cognitive framework. Comprising two subsets -- CreativeBench-Combo and CreativeBench-Explore -- the benchmark targets combinatorial and exploratory creativity through an automated pipeline utilizing reverse engineering and self-play. By leveraging executable code, CreativeBench objectively distinguishes creativity from hallucination via a unified metric defined as the product of quality and novelty. Our analysis of state-of-the-art models reveals distinct behaviors: (1) scaling significantly improves combinatorial creativity but yields diminishing returns for exploration; (2) larger models exhibit ``convergence-by-scaling,'' becoming more correct but less divergent; and (3) reasoning capabilities primarily benefit constrained exploration rather than combination. Finally, we propose EvoRePE, a plug-and-play inference-time steering strategy that internalizes evolutionary search patterns to consistently enhance machine creativity.

We propose a fully automated AI system that produces short comedic videos similar to sketch shows such as Saturday Night Live. Starting from character references, the system employs a population of agents loosely modeled on roles in real production studios and structured to optimize the quality and diversity of ideas and outputs through iterative competition, evaluation, and refinement. A key contribution is the introduction of LLM-based critics aligned with real viewer preferences through the analysis of a corpus of comedy videos on YouTube, enabling automatic evaluation of humor. We further propose multi-island relativistic evolution for script improvement, along with script-conditioned rendering critics that perform shot- and video-level tournaments. In both human and automated evaluations, COMIC receives higher scores than agentic and video generation baselines.

A key component of creativity is associative reasoning: the ability to draw novel yet meaningful connections between concepts. We introduce CREATE, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' capacity for creative associative reasoning. CREATE requires models to generate sets of paths connecting concepts in a model's parametric knowledge. Paths should have high specificity (distinctiveness and closeness of the concept connection) and high diversity (dissimilarity from other paths), and models are scored more highly if they produce a larger set of strong, diverse paths. This task shares demands of real creativity tasks like hypothesis generation, including an extremely large search space, but enables collection of a sizable benchmark with objective answer grading. Evaluation of frontier models shows that the strongest models achieve higher creative utility than others, with the high multiplicity of answers and complexity of the search making benchmark saturation difficult to achieve. Furthermore, our results illustrate that thinking models are not always more effective on our task, even with high token budgets. Recent approaches for creative prompting give some but limited additional improvement. CREATE provides a sandbox for developing new methods to improve models' capacity for associative creativity.

LLMs offer new creative possibilities for writers but also raise concerns about authenticity and reader trust, particularly when AI involvement is disclosed. Prior research has largely framed this as an issue of transparency and provenance, emphasizing the disclosure of human-AI interaction traces that account for how much the AI wrote and what the human did. Yet such audit-oriented disclosures may risk reducing creative collaboration to quantification and surveillance. In this position paper, we argue for a different lens by exploring how human-AI interaction traces might instead function as expressive artifacts that foreground the meaning-making inherent in human-AI collaboration. Drawing inspiration from blackout poetry, we frame AI-generated text as found material through which writers' acts of curation and reinterpretation become inscribed atop the AI's original output. In this way, we suggest that designing interaction traces as aesthetic artifacts may help readers better appreciate and trust writers' creative contributions in AI-assisted writing.

Creativity support tools (CSTs) typically frame search as information retrieval, yet in practices like electronic dance music production, search serves as a creative medium for collage-style composition. To address this gap, we present LoopLens, a research probe for loop-based music composition that visualizes audio search results to support creative foraging and assembling. We evaluated LoopLens in a within-subject user study with 16 participants of diverse musical domain expertise, performing both open-ended (divergent) and goal-directed (convergent) tasks. Our results reveal a clear behavioral split: participants with domain expertise leveraged multimodal cues to quickly exploit a narrow set of loops, while those without domain knowledge relied primarily on audio impressions, engaging in broad exploration often constrained by limited musical vocabulary for query formulation. This behavioral dichotomy provides a new lens for understanding the balance between exploration and exploitation in creative search and offers clear design implications for supporting vocabulary-independent discovery in future CSTs.

Analyzing creative activity traces requires capturing activity at appropriate granularity and interpreting it in ways that reflect the structure of creative practice. However, existing approaches record state changes without preserving the intent or relationships that define higher-level creative moves. This decoupling manifests differently across domains: GenAI tools lose non-linear exploration structure, visualization authoring obscures representational intent, and programmatic environments flatten interaction boundaries. We present three complementary approaches: a node-based interface for stateful GenAI artifact management, a vocabulary of visual cues as higher-level creative moves in visualization authoring, and a programming model that embeds semantic histories directly into interaction state.

Large Language Models show promise for AI-assisted storytelling, yet current tools often generate predictable, unoriginal narratives. To address this limitation, we present NarrativeLoom, a multi-persona co-creative system grounded in Campbell's Blind Variation and Selective Retention theory. NarrativeLoom deploys specialized AI personas to generate diverse narrative options (blind variation), while users act as creative directors to select and refine them (selective retention). We designed a controlled study with 50 participants and found that stories co-authored with NarrativeLoom were not only perceived by users as more novel and diverse but were also objectively rated by experts as significantly better across all Torrance Test creativity dimensions: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Stories are significantly longer with richer settings and more dialogue. Writing expertise emerged as a moderator: novices benefited more from structured scaffolding. This demonstrates the value of theory-informed co-creative systems and the importance of adapting them to varying user expertise.

Creatively translating complex gameplay ideas into executable artifacts (e.g., games as Unity projects and code) remains a central challenge in computational game creativity. Gameplay design patterns provide a structured representation for describing gameplay phenomena, enabling designers to decompose high-level ideas into entities, constraints, and rule-driven dynamics. Among them, goal patterns formalize common player-objective relationships. Goal Playable Concepts (GPCs) operationalize these abstractions as playable Unity engine implementations, supporting experiential exploration and compositional gameplay design. We frame scalable playable pattern realization as a problem of constrained executable creative synthesis: generated artifacts must satisfy Unity's syntactic and architectural requirements while preserving the semantic gameplay meanings encoded in goal patterns. This dual constraint limits scalability. Therefore, we investigate whether contemporary large language models (LLMs) can perform such synthesis under engine-level structural constraints and generate Unity code (as games) structured and conditioned by goal playable patterns. Using 26 goal pattern instantiations, we compare a direct generation baseline (natural language -> C# -> Unity) with pipelines conditioned on a human-authored Unity-specific intermediate representation (IR), across three IR configurations and two open-source models (DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct). Compilation success is evaluated via automated Unity replay. We propose grounding and hygiene failure modes, identifying structural and project-level grounding as primary bottlenecks.

Creativity and strategic foresight have been extensively studied through descriptive theories -- Koestler's bisociation (1964), de Bono's lateral thinking (1967), and Ansoff's weak signals (1975) explain why creative and strategic insights occur, but offer limited guidance on how to produce them on demand. This paper presents two executable protocols that bridge this theory-practice gap: GHOSTY COLLIDER, a 5-step protocol for cross-domain creative emergence through structural de-labeling and collision, and PRECOG PROTOCOL, a 5-step protocol for signal-based strategic foresight with multi-axis timing judgment. We formalize established theories into repeatable, step-by-step procedures with explicit quality criteria, anti-pattern detection, and measurable outputs. We evaluate the protocols through three complementary methods: (1) five detailed case studies across distinct domains, (2) controlled comparisons against standard methods using identical inputs, and (3) a batch experiment across eight random domain pairings (N=8, success rate 87.5%, failure rate 12.5%) with one blind evaluation. Preliminary evidence suggests that protocol-driven outputs exhibit greater structural novelty, higher parameter specificity, and qualitatively distinct creative directions compared to outputs from standard methods. The blind evaluation confirmed the direction of author assessments (protocol output scored 74/80 vs. brainstorming 49/80). These results, while limited by single-operator execution, indicate that the theory-to-protocol translation preserves and potentially enhances the generative power of the underlying theories. The protocols, updated to version 2 incorporating lessons from failure case analysis, are released as open-access documents under CC BY-NC 4.0 at https://github.com/GhostyAI-HA/ghosty-collider.

This study explores artificial visual creativity, focusing on ChatGPT's ability to generate new images intentionally pastiching original artworks such as paintings, drawings, sculptures and installations. The process involved twelve artists from Romania, Bulgaria, France, Austria, and the United Kingdom, each invited to contribute with three of their artworks and to grade and comment on the AI-generated versions. The analysis combines human evaluation with computational methods aimed at detecting visual and stylistic similarities or divergences between the original works and their AI-produced renditions. The results point to a significant gap between color and texture-based similarity and compositional, conceptual, and perceptual one. Consequently, we advocate for the use of a "style transfer dashboard" of complementary metrics to evaluate the similarity between pastiches and originals, rather than using a single style metric. The artists' comments revealed limitations of ChatGPT's pastiches after contemporary artworks, which were perceived by the authors of the originals as lacking dimensionality, context, and intentional sense, and seeming more of a paraphrase or an approximate quotation rather than as a valuable, emotion-evoking artwork.

As AI enters creative practice, audiences face growing uncertainty in judging authenticity and value. This study examines the Struggle Premium, the added value attributed to perceived human effort, by analyzing how visible effort cues influence evaluations of human- and AI-generated creative works. We surveyed 70 university students, focusing on process videos, time documentation, written explanations, and imperfections. Process-oriented cues, especially videos and time spent, most strongly shaped authenticity and value judgments, while imperfections had limited impact. Participants showed a clear preference for human-made works, with 72.9% willing to pay more. Notably, effort cues also improved perceptions of AI-generated content, suggesting that process transparency can partially bridge authenticity gaps. These findings extend the effort heuristic to algorithmic creativity and inform the design of transparent human-AI creative systems.

Can a machine write good poetry? Any positive answer raises fundamental questions about the nature and value of art. We report a seven-month poetry workshop in which a large language model was shaped into a digital poet through iterative in-context expert feedback, without retraining. Across sessions, the model developed a distinctive style and a coherent corpus, supported by quantitative and qualitative analyses, and it produced a pen name and author image. In a blinded authorship test with 50 humanities students and graduates (three AI poems and three poems by well-known poets each), judgments were at chance: human poems were labeled human 54% of the time and AI poems 52%, with 95% confidence intervals including 50%. After the workshop, a commercial publisher released a poetry collection authored by the model. These results show that workshop-style prompting can support long-horizon creative shaping and renew debates on creativity and authorship.

We argue that uncertainty is a key and understudied limitation of LLMs' performance in creative writing, which is often characterized as trite and cliché-ridden. Literary theory identifies uncertainty as a necessary condition for creative expression, while current alignment strategies steer models away from uncertain outputs to ensure factuality and reduce hallucination. We formalize this tension by quantifying the ``uncertainty gap'' between human-authored stories and model-generated continuations. Through a controlled information-theoretic analysis of 28 LLMs on high-quality storytelling datasets, we demonstrate that human writing consistently exhibits significantly higher uncertainty than model outputs. We find that instruction-tuned and reasoning models exacerbate this trend compared to their base counterparts; furthermore, the gap is more pronounced in creative writing than in functional domains, and shows a consistent correlation with writing quality. Achieving human-level creativity requires new uncertainty-aware alignment paradigms that can distinguish between destructive hallucinations and the constructive ambiguity required for literary richness.

Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning have improved conventional problem solving, but creative reasoning remains comparatively underexplored. Inspired by cognitive science, we formalize combinational, exploratory, and transformational creativity as executable computational operators over structured problem and solution spaces, specifying how each mode combines, explores, or transforms those spaces. Combinational reasoning transfers ideas across domains to form unfamiliar combinations; exploratory reasoning searches for new solutions within an existing conceptual space; and transformational reasoning modifies the rules or constraints that define that space. This formalization yields distinct algorithmic procedures, which we instantiate in Universe of Thoughts (UoT), an LLM reasoning framework. Existing creativity benchmarks emphasize either open-ended ideation or highly constrained problem solving. We therefore introduce three novel creative-reasoning tasks requiring concrete solutions in low-constraint settings. Across 10 generations per method and task, T-UoT with GPT-4o performs strongest on the low-constraint, high-objective-specificity Bridge and Electricity tasks, while C-UoT shows its strongest relative performance on the low-constraint, lower-objective-specificity Society task. In addition, we evaluate UoT on HypoArena, an independent scientific hypothesis-generation benchmark with 100 tasks across biomedical, machine-learning, and social-science domains. With Qwen3-14B, Exploratory UoT ranks first among seven reasoning methods, achieving a 32.7% pairwise win rate compared with 25.5% for the next-best method. Our results suggest distinct performance patterns across task structures: T-UoT is strongest in low-constraint, high-specificity settings, E-UoT in more constrained, high-specificity settings, and C-UoT in low-constraint, lower-specificity settings.

Creativity is often seen as a hallmark of human intelligence. While large language models(LLMs) are increasingly perceived as generating creative text, there is still no cross-domain and scalable framework to evaluate their creativity across diverse scenarios. Existing methods of LLM creativity evaluation either heavily rely on humans, limiting speed and scalability, or are fragmented across different domains and different definitions of creativity. To address this gap, we propose CreativityPrism, an evaluation and analysis framework that consolidates eight tasks from three domains: divergent thinking, creative writing, and logical reasoning, into a taxonomy of creativity that emphasizes three dimensions: quality, novelty, and diversity of LLM generations. The framework is designed to be scalable with reliable automatic evaluation judges that have been validated against human annotations. We evaluate 17 state-of-the-art (SoTA) LLMs on CreativityPrism and find that while frontier-scale LLMs dominate creative writing and logical reasoning tasks by a .10 (or 15%) lead over locally-deployable open models, they offer no significant advantage in divergent thinking, a domain much less explored in existing post-training regimes. Our analysis also shows that high performance in one creative dimension or domain rarely generalizes to others; specifically, novelty metrics often show weak or negative correlations with other metrics. This fragmentation confirms that a cross-domain, multi-dimensional framework like CreativityPrism is essential for any meaningful assessment of LLM creativity.

Combinatorial creativity, the process of combining familiar ideas in unfamiliar ways, is one of the foremost engines of scientific, technological, and artistic progress. This work introduces Kombine, an LLM benchmark for combinatorial creativity tasking models to discover surprising, original, and useful associations, analogies, and blends between unrelated entities, and to use those analogies and blends to invent novel concepts by re-combining the parts of existing ones. In a large-scale study across 35 LLMs, we find that: (1) LLMs are 10-16 percentage points better at discovering associations and analogies than blends, and (2) exhibit an abstraction bottleneck on blending, in which even frontier LLMs struggle to find a shared abstraction between inputs and instantiate a coherent blended space. (3) LLMs also exhibit inventive homogeneity, in which one in five concepts invented for a given item reuses properties invented by another model. Moreover, (4) models are $14\times$ more likely to reuse other invented properties on blends than analogies, and (5) models from the same provider are $2.3\times$ more likely to reuse properties than those from different providers. Next, in a comparative study involving 75 humans on the same tasks, we find that (6) humans score below nearly every LLM on each task and (7) both humans and LLMs find blending most difficult, but association is easier than analogy for LLMs, while analogy is easier than association for humans. Lastly, (8) humans and LLMs access distinct regions of semantic space on each task, suggesting that combinatorial creativity could benefit from systematic human-AI collaboration to enhance conceptual diversity. In summary, we provide a framework to assess progress towards LLMs, AI systems, and human-AI collaborations more broadly, that can elicit combinatorial creativity in a setting relevant to scientific and technological innovation.