Creativity

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

This article addresses the combinatorial complexity inherent in modern high-tech system design by presenting automation-in-design (AiD) as a transformative paradigm. We propose computational design synthesis (CDS), a framework utilising deep learning and generative AI to automate the creation of novel systems. Two case studies (e-drive system design and spatial dimensioning problem) serve as proof-points for this approach. The AI-driven methods used in the case studies represent a fundamental shift in engineering, advancing from simulation-based optimisation towards autonomous design with minimal human supervision.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in supporting engineering design tasks, including computer-aided design (CAD) automation. However, most existing LLM-based 3D CAD generation approaches primarily focus on geometric precision and instruction-following performance, often overlooking the fundamental aspect of creative design exploration. This study presents a TRIZ-inspired text-to-CAD framework that leverages LLMs to generate high-quality, editable CAD models while systematically exploring creative design alternatives. The framework integrates the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)-embedding deep human insights from extensive patent records-into LLM prompting strategies, enabling autonomous generation of innovative CAD variants that address technical contradictions. Through a comprehensive three-stage pipeline of design generation, enhancement, and optimization, the framework produces structurally diverse CAD models from well-crafted prompts. The present study implements and evaluates the first two stages, while positioning the design optimization stage as future work. A product design case study (chair) demonstrates that the TRIZ-inspired text-to-CAD framework generates multiple creative design alternatives by systematically applying TRIZ inventive principles such as segmentation, anti-weight, dynamics, and composite materials, achieving 4.0-14.7% mass reduction across all enhanced designs while maintaining structural integrity. The key findings suggest that integrating systematic innovation methodologies with LLM-based 3D CAD generation bridges the gap between precision-focused synthesis and creativity-focused exploration, advancing toward autonomous design systems where AI makes design decisions independently, supporting human decision-making in human-AI collaborative design for engineering applications.

Artificial intelligence has driven rapid progress in medical imaging research, producing increasingly sophisticated algorithms and steady improvements on benchmark tasks. However, this algorithm-centric trajectory has also revealed a growing imbalance: while computational methods advance rapidly, the conceptual foundations that define imaging tasks, evaluation metrics, and clinical meaning sometimes remain underexamined. In this Perspective, we distinguish algorithmic innovation, which focuses on improving computational implementations and performance within a fixed problem definition, from conceptual innovation, which reframes what problems are posed, how success is measured, and why an approach is clinically relevant. We argue that prevailing incentive structures, training pathways, and publication norms disproportionately reward algorithmic novelty, particularly for early-career researchers, while at times undervaluing conceptual contributions that are essential for scientific maturation and clinical translation. Through representative examples from medical imaging AI, we show how insufficient conceptual grounding can lead to misaligned objectives, fragile generalization, and limited real-world impact. We conclude with actionable recommendations for researchers, mentors, reviewers, and journals to better recognize, support, and integrate conceptual innovation alongside algorithmic advances.

Generative AI has made content creation increasingly accessible, but many AI-generated videos lack narrative coherence and creative direction, issues that become more substantial at longer durations. Unlike coding, where AI generation benefits from reliable feedback and techniques such as recurrent self-improvement, video generation requires subjective feedback about plot, scenes, and narrative, which naturally motivates approaches that incorporate human creative direction. We introduce CHIEF, a human-AI co-creation video generation framework that places the creator at the center of human-in-the-loop iterative video refinement, and supports them by providing automatic subjective feedback. The creator incorporates their creative direction by driving each iteration, while their revisions are incorporated by a specialized refiner agent. The feedback loop is generated by persona-conditioned multimodal LLMs that watch generated videos and produce subjective critique from the audience perspectives, providing feedback that self-evaluation alone cannot capture. To test the effectiveness of our proposed framework, we work with high school and college students with no prior filmmaking experience to create videos, from short 1-minute videos to a complete short 10-minute film with a complicated plot.

This paper investigates the creative process of automated design and artistic evaluation using an evolutionary system. We consider how a multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) model can communicate and guide a combined generative and evolutionary computational system. This creates a framework for the evolution of aesthetically pleasing complex 3D organic forms by integrating genetic algorithms with the visual reasoning capabilities of large-scale AI foundation models. The framework shifts the artist role from that of intensive direct selection to one of system design; transferring detailed step-by-step curation to an AI agent capable of multimodal aesthetic judgement. This framework enables the human artist/designer to rapidly traverse large areas of multi-dimensional evolutionary parameter space to find creative outcomes based on their semantic targets. Detailed audit trails of the AI's aesthetic reasoning are generated for each experiment. Interactive visualisation tools, together with AI-generated summaries and evolutionary narratives, enable deep exploration into each evolutionary experiment and providing a transparent insight into the AI-guided process.

Activation steering has emerged as a powerful tool for shaping the behaviour of large language models at inference time, yet most prior work injects a \emph{single} semantic direction into the residual stream. We study the richer setting in which two semantically opposing steering vectors are superimposed -- a regime we call \textbf{Creative Collision}. Concretely, we construct directorial persona vectors for Steven Spielberg (optimistic, redemptive moral valence) and Martin Scorsese (dark, morally ambiguous) via mean-difference activation contrast on curated screenplay-derived corpora, then interpolate between them with a scalar mixing parameter $α\in [0,1]$ and a steering coefficient $λ$. Across five evaluation axes -- moral valence, generation coherence, surface style, directional dominance, and vector geometry -- three principal findings emerge: (i)~Spielberg's representational signature exhibits robust \emph{directional dominance}, suppressing Scorsese's moral influence across almost the entire interpolation range; (ii)~intermediate collision points paradoxically \emph{improve} generation coherence relative to pure single-director steering at high $λ$; and (iii)both personas localise maximally to layer28 of a 40-layer decoder-only transformer, revealing a shared \emph{moral-tone substrate}. These results illuminate the geometry of competing semantic directions in transformer residual streams and have direct implications for controllable creative generation and value-aligned narrative synthesis.

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Fashion sketching is a cornerstone of design workflows, allowing rapid visualization of creative concepts prior to physical prototyping. Yet, progress in sketch-based fashion image synthesis has been hindered by the absence of large-scale, high-quality paired resources. To bridge this gap, we present GarmentSketch, a novel dataset comprising 26,249 fashion sketches across 21 garment categories, each paired with detailed textual descriptions. Captions were produced through a multi-stage pipeline that integrates multiple multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with human-in-the-loop refinement, ensuring both semantic accuracy and descriptive richness. We benchmark GarmentSketch on state-of-the-art generative models, providing baseline performance for sketch-guided text-to-image generation. Our experiments reveal both the promise and the current limitations of existing methods. By offering a comprehensive and richly annotated resource, GarmentSketch establishes a foundation for advancing sketch understanding, fine-grained fashion image generation, and creative human-AI collaboration in design. The dataset will be available at: https://khangbdd.github.io/garmentsketch.

"Integrative" solutions are widely praised but rarely defined: we lack an operational way to tell a genuine integration -- one that makes the world cheaper to describe -- from a tidy re-description. Building on the lineage that treats creativity and intelligence as compression, we give such a criterion for creative integration (CI): the resolution of a real conflict between A and B is CI if and only if, under a fixed description language, the description length strictly shrinks (C = L_pre/L_post > 1), with the reduction located in the conflict itself. We make the judgment decidable through four binary, conjunctive gates, and we fix its extension through a taxonomy of pseudo-integration that names and rejects the look-alikes. We back the criterion with a curated, multi-domain corpus and -- crucially -- validate it not by human inter-rater agreement but by four falsifiable tests it could fail: an independent computational check, discrimination against hard negatives, out-of-sample prediction, and description-language robustness; all pass with margin. The contribution is not "creativity is compression" but its decidability, discrimination, and corpus: on this account, what makes a move genuinely creative -- rather than merely novel -- is that it compresses a conflict, with novelty and value as downstream symptoms; whether all creativity is so constituted we state as an explicit conjecture. We claim only the sign of C-1; we judge, not generate. The result is a citable primitive for a broader program.

Computational creativity in Interactive Fiction faces a fundamental tension: Large Language Models (LLM) may produce creative narratives but struggle with world coherence, while symbolic systems ensure consistency but lack creative flexibility. We present IVIE (Incremental & Validated Interactive Experiences), a neuro-symbolic approach to generating complete and playable interactive fiction worlds from scratch. Building upon PAYADOR's neuro-symbolic framework, IVIE implements a four-stage incremental generation pipeline that delegates creative decisions--setting and character creation, puzzle design--to LLMs while grounding the world state through symbolic validation. The system generates worlds with interconnected locations, functional items, non-player characters, and coherent puzzles, all structured around a central goal-oriented architecture. Human evaluation shows the approach generates immersive, thematically coherent worlds with high player engagement. Results seem to indicate that the neuro-symbolic approach successfully balances flexibility with narrative coherence: symbolic validation grounds LLM generation without eliminating generative freedom. However, challenges remain: LLM inconsistencies occasionally bypass puzzle constraints, and objective validation gaps allow some structurally impossible goals. We identify key design considerations for future neurosymbolic interactive storytelling systems, particularly regarding LLM capabilities and their limitations.

Recent AI systems can generate texts, software architectures, hypotheses, designs, and scientific workflows that appear creative. This paper asks under what conditions a machine can be called genuinely creative, and how human agency can be preserved within shared cognitive and creative environments. It develops a requirement framework derived from Designics, the science of meaning-bearing intentional change. The paper argues that genuine machine creativity should not be defined by output novelty, current performance, or transient architecture alone. Instead, creativity is understood as the structural transformation of incomplete situations through recursive intervention dynamics. On this view, it depends on ten requirements: environment representation, scoped perception, conflict identification, intervention capability, consequence observation, knowledge and environment update, rescoping, local-to-global unfolding, value-based scoping, and human-AI co-living. These are organized through the three laws of Designics: perception, conflict, and capability. The paper illustrates the computational tractability of these requirements through selected cyber-physical and cyber-biological studies, including recursive element extraction, autonomous mesh generation, and neurophysiological and workload analysis. It then treats open-ended systems, automated discovery frameworks, self-modifying agents, foundation models, and agentic workflows as pressure cases: they demonstrate powerful generative means but do not by themselves establish genuine machine creativity. Finally, the paper argues that proactive AI ethics is internal to genuine machine creativity rather than an after-the-fact filter. Value-based scoping and human-AI co-living must shape how creative machines perceive environments, identify conflicts, select interventions, observe consequences, update knowledge, and rescope future action.

This paper introduces YeasierAgent, an application-building paradigm based on symbiotic agents, narrative worlds, and scene-aware interaction. It challenges the conventional device-coupled model of software by redefining applications as collaborative spaces among users, agents, and worlds. We present a system architecture that achieves two primary contributions: (1) enabling the rapid, cross-platform construction of agent-native applications by utilizing platform-agnostic interactive units (agents, scenes, dialogue) rather than fixed graphical layouts; and (2) unifying the emotional companionship and practical tool execution attributes of intelligent agents within a single experiential sandbox. By integrating automated generation, user-created worlds, and spatial multi-agent collaboration, YeasierAgent formalizes the category of Symbiotic Agent-Native Applications, demonstrating a shift from isolated, tool-specific chatbots toward cohesive, socially embedded computational environments.

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.

How can we design a market of human-generated content for use in training AI models that both enables technological progress and preserves individual incentives for high-quality content creation? Existing approaches take polar positions: a "free-for-all" model based on fair use and a "strong intellectual property rights" model. We show that both fail: Free-for-all does not compensate creators, and -- by modeling as a static Stackelberg game -- strong intellectual property rights also underpower creative incentives. We find this especially true for more innovative creators, a phenomenon we term the "originality penalty." Extending this insight to a dynamic model, we find another market failure undermining AI model performance, even for an initially good model: Such a model induces greater reliance by humans on AI-assisted creation, resulting in homogenized content feeding back into training, which degrades the model performance -- a "curse of precision." We further propose a market design with a data intermediary internalizing cross-creator externalities and subsidizing innovative contributions, thereby restoring efficiency.

Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage). Meanwhile, in the age of generative AI, creative problem solving increasingly occurs in tool-mediated and human--AI interactive environments, making fully static assessment less aligned with contemporary creative practice. To address these issues, this paper proposes IntElicit, a framework for eliciting and assessing contextualized creativity via dialogue policy optimization. IntElicit functions as a constrained adaptive AI Interviewer: it provides non-directive knowledge and agency scaffolds in multi-turn interaction to reduce non-creative confounders, while preserving participants' responsibility for generating the creative content being evaluated. Specifically, to tackle sparse rewards and potential reward hacking (e.g., answer dictation) in open-ended educational dialogue, IntElicit introduces a decomposed process reward mechanism. This mechanism aligns the policy with pedagogical elicitation, rewarding prompts that draw out participant reasoning rather than producing optimal answers on their behalf. Extensive experiments, including participant simulation and a human subject study (N=64), show that IntElicit improves elicited creative outcomes over expert-designed baselines. Together, the results suggest that interactive elicitation can reveal creative potential that static FPSP-style assessment may miss, providing a formative and diagnostic lens for contextualized creativity assessment in AI-mediated learning contexts.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in language understanding, reasoning, and generation, sparking growing interest in their creative potential. Realizing this potential requires systematic and scalable methods for evaluating creativity across diverse tasks. However, most existing creativity metrics are tightly coupled to specific tasks, embedding domain assumptions into the evaluation process, and limiting scalability and generality. To address this gap, we introduce an automated, domain-agnostic framework for quantifying LLM creativity across open-ended tasks. Our approach separates the measurement apparatus from the creative task itself, enabling scalable, task-agnostic assessment. Divergent creativity is measured using semantic entropy, a reference-free and robust metric for novelty and diversity, validated against human annotations, LLM-based novelty judgments and baseline diversity measures. Convergent creativity is assessed via a novel retrieval-based multi-agent judge framework that delivers context-sensitive evaluation of task fulfilment with over 60% improved efficiency. We validate our framework in three qualitatively distinct domains: problem-solving (MacGyver), research ideation (HypoGen), and creative writing (BookMIA), using a broad suite of LLMs. Empirical results show that our framework reliably captures key facets of creativity, including novelty, diversity, and task fulfilment, and reveal how model properties, such as size, temperature, recency, and reasoning, impact creative performance. Our work establishes a reproducible and generalizable standard for automated LLM creativity evaluation, paving the way for scalable benchmarking and accelerating progress in creative AI.

This study addresses the challenges composers and sound designers face in creating and refining tools to achieve their musical goals. Using evolutionary processes to promote diversity and foster serendipitous discoveries, we automate the search through uncharted sonic spaces for sound discovery, arguing that diversity-promoting algorithms can bridge the gap between the theoretical realisation and practical accessibility of sounds. We describe a system for generative sound synthesis combining Quality Diversity (QD) algorithms with a supervised discriminative model, inspired by the Innovation Engine algorithm, and explore different configurations and the interplay between the chosen synthesis approach and the discriminative model. We examine the interaction between Compositional Pattern Producing Networks (CPPNs) and Digital Signal Processing (DSP) graphs, introducing a novel approach that uses multiple specialised CPPNs for different frequency ranges; this yields simpler networks while maintaining performance comparable to single-CPPN setups. We also investigate evolutionary stepping stones by analysing goal switches between musical and non-musical contexts, revealing how lineages traverse unlikely paths to current elites. Expanding the behaviour space of a previous study to include various sound durations, we uncover specialisation within temporal niches. Results indicate that CPPN and DSP graphs coupled with a Multi-dimensional Archive of Phenotypic Elites (MAP-Elites) and a deep learning classifier can generate a substantial variety of synthetic sounds, diverse and innovative across temporal and contextual dimensions. We present the generated sound objects through an online explorer and as rendered sound files, and, in the context of music composition, an experimental application that showcases their creative potential across various durations and contexts.

People are increasingly using AI for creative tasks such as writing. While adoption continues to grow, this form of use risks undermining individual creativity locally and reducing the heterogeneity of creative output at scale. In response, we introduce the Semantic Repulsion Technique (SRT) and evaluate it both computationally and through a study with 16 participants who regularly use AI for creative tasks. Our computational assessment reveals that SRT increases semantic diversity by 85--167% while reducing consensus phrases by 43--95% across task modes. In the user study, SRT outputs received higher usefulness ($p = .019$, $W = .208$) and coherence ratings ( $p = .006$, $W = .260$); 68.8% of participants were willing to use SRT-Strong for multiple tasks versus 18.8% for baselines. Originality and coherence ratings were positively correlated across all systems ($ρ= +.40$ to $+.67$), suggesting that divergence need not compromise readability. Taken together, these preliminary findings can inform the design of AI systems that aim to support everyday creativity without contributing to homogenization.

Creativity is a complex cognitive ability that relies on knowledge organisation and retrieval from semantic memory. Yet most research uses a single task to measure it, capturing only a fraction of this complexity. This study investigates multiplex networks - layered semantic networks obtained from six cognitive tasks - as a more comprehensive approach to modelling the associative knowledge underlying creativity. We collected data from N=518 individuals from four countries (Austria, USA, Singapore, Italy). From their responses to verbal fluency, sentence-chain, free association, and narrative writing tasks, we constructed semantic networks and assembled them in a multiplex structure. AI persona-based responses provided a comparison baseline. Structural reducibility analyses showed that different task layers captured distinct, non-redundant information about semantic organisation, supporting the use of multiple tasks over any single one. The networks from high- and low-creative groups remained structurally distinct, while AI-generated networks showed near-identical structures regardless of creativity group. Finally, we used 12 features (network measures, emotional scores, and spreading activation simulations) in a machine learning model using ridge regression to predict individual creativity scores. The combination of structurally similar layers, as identified in the previous stage, improved a proof-of-concept prediction accuracy by 50%. Structural measures showed the highest feature importance, with spreading activation dynamics providing additional predictive power. Together, these findings indicate that multiplex semantic networks capture a richer, cross-cultural picture of associative knowledge underlying creativity. We also release our diverse dataset and code to foster diverse computational approaches within the creativity community.

Generating novel, feasible, and high-quality research ideas is an important yet challenging task in scientific discovery. Recent Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often ground idea generation with retrieved literature, but the retrieved evidence is usually provided as flat text, such as titles, abstracts, or summaries. Such flat contexts may contain redundant or weakly relevant information, while making cross-paper relations among problems, methods, mechanisms, and findings difficult to identify and trace. To address this challenge, we propose Graph2Idea, a knowledge graph-guided framework for retrieval-augmented scientific idea generation.Graph2Idea first retrieves papers according to the input topic, transforms them into structured knowledge triples, and dynamically constructs a target-centered knowledge graph to make literature relations explicit. It then extracts compact graph-derived contexts that retain target-relevant relational evidence while reducing noisy textual input. Based on these contexts, a two-stage generation process first identifies promising research directions and then guides the LLM to synthesize candidate ideas from graph-grounded evidence. Experiments on a scientific idea generation benchmark show that Graph2Idea outperforms representative baselines under the automatic evaluation protocol. Compared with the strongest baseline scores, it improves Novelty from 0.45 to 0.52, Quality from 0.24 to 0.29, and Feasibility from 0.22 to 0.28. These results suggest that graph-structured evidence helps LLMs generate research ideas through more explicit, compact, and traceable recombination of prior scientific knowledge.

Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes human-centered AIED across three dimensions: education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally-aware AIED that fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration while widening participation by dissolving disciplinary silos between social work and computational science.

Human creativity has emerged as a critical competency in the era of large language models. Assessing creativity in complex, open-ended environments is a grand challenge in data mining, currently hindered by a reliance on standardized simple tasks and the scarcity of fine-grained expert data. As an ecologically valid assessment context, debate reflects multiple dimensions of creativity, encompassing both divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Moreover, debate is a data-rich domain, with a large volume of publicly accessible materials. Current mainstream automated scoring methods are poorly suited to complex settings such as debate, and therefore still rely on costly human evaluation. To this end, this paper proposes DEFINED, a data-efficient computational framework for fine-grained creativity assessment in debate scenarios. DEFINED operationalizes debate creativity through a hierarchical eight-dimensional metric system, implemented via a pre-trained autoregressive language model with a hierarchical scoring head that supports both fine-grained and coarse-grained evaluation. Statements and their associated expert scores were obtained from authentic debate competitions, and a constrained data augmentation strategy was employed to address the elite bias inherent in the original data. DEFINED adopts a mixed-granularity training strategy enabling robust learning from limited fine-grained supervision annotated by trained graduate experts. To rigorously validate ecological validity beyond synthetic benchmarks, we incorporate an empirical study with debate-naive participants, utilizing these authentic data to serve as a qualitative case study for mid-to-low proficiency populations. Across our evaluation protocol, our scoring model achieves accurate and stable scoring, outperforming prompt-based large language model evaluators and existing debate scoring methods.

Recent studies reveal a paradox: AI enhances individual creative outputs while reducing collective diversity. Current explanations -- cognitive offloading and over-reliance -- identify symptoms but not mechanisms. We propose selective metacognitive adaptation: routine AI use redistributes rather than uniformly diminishes metacognitive effort. Some capacities are amplified (partner modeling, surface control), while others are systematically under-supported (originality evaluation, reflective integration). This redistribution explains both individual satisfaction and collective convergence. We present a taxonomy of six metacognitive capacities organized by temporal phase, characterize their tendencies under routine AI use, and show how individually rational adaptation produces emergent social costs. The framework generates specific predictions for researchers and design principles for practitioners seeking to preserve both individual creative satisfaction and collective creative diversity.

The rapid pace of scientific publishing has made the identification and synthesis of high-impact work an increasingly urgent challenge. We introduce MIRAI (Multi-year Inference of Research trends and Academic Impact), a deep learning framework that predicts paper impact using only it's title, abstract, and publication date. We train MIRAI on the arXiv academic graph to predict 5-year PageRank and citation counts, achieving Spearman's $ρ$ of 0.4686 on PageRank prediction and 0.6192 on citation prediction for papers published in 2021. We propose a research ideation pipeline built on top of MIRAI that produces research ideas oriented towards high impact. These ideas were judged as more impactful than a baseline without MIRAI by an unbiased LLM judge at a 4:3 ratio. We make the 5-year citation prediction model publicly available at https://predict-paper-impact.vercel.app.

Reference-free evaluation of large language model (LLM) creativity relies on perplexity, entropy, and top-1 margin. We show that a much stronger signal lives one step earlier in the pipeline: in how sampling temperature \emph{reshapes} the model's token distribution before the next token is drawn. On Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct generations of 500 open-ended creative prompts at $T \in \{0.3, 0.8, 1.5\}$, a single per-token feature derived from this reshaping predicts the within-prompt creativity rank at Spearman $ρ{=}0.918$ against an averaged gpt-4o,/,gemini-2.5-pro judge ($n{=}500$) and $ρ{=}0.870$ against a three-rater human-majority ranking ($n{=}150$). Each of four standard reference-free baselines (self-perplexity, mean predictive entropy, top-1 margin, gzip compression ratio) tops out at $|ρ|\!\approx\!0.76$ on both ground truths: a gap of $+0.165$ on averaged-LLM and $+0.110$ on human-majority, both far larger than the spread among the baselines themselves. The two ground-truth panels agree with each other at $ρ{=}0.83$, above the inter-human ceiling of $ρ{=}0.77$, so the comparison is not bottlenecked by judge noise. Mechanistically, the win comes from a sharp distributional signature of the incoherence regime: at $T{=}1.5$ the cumulative-mass width $n_{95}(q)$ inflates from $\sim\!1$ to ${\sim}\!131$ tokens and post-temperature mass leaks off the pre-temperature top-$90\%$ plausible set by about $13$ percentage points. The per-token aggregates do not separate $T{=}0.8$ from $T{=}0.3$; discriminating the two coherent regimes is left to sequence-level features.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks involving creative problem solving and idea generation. However, there is a lack of consensus concerning their creative capabilities: some studies report superior performances compared to humans, while others highlight structural limitations such as fixation and the homogenization of outputs. Existing evaluation approaches either rely on narrow, decontextualized tasks that do not capture goal-oriented generation or on broader settings that confound multiple aspects of the creative process, making it difficult to isolate the effects of task formulation, prompting, and evaluation design. Significantly, the role of structured prompting strategies in shaping idea generation remains underexplored. Therefore, we introduce IDEAFix, an evaluation framework for analyzing divergent thinking in open-ended idea generation tasks. We prompt models to generate multiple original solutions to controlled variations of short design scenarios, task attributes, and defixation prompting strategies. This design enables systematic analysis of how structured guidance influences LLMs' idea generation. Our results show that both task formulation and attribute selection significantly affect models' performance, and that simple prompting strategies can boost the originality of solutions. However, we also observe persistent output homogenization across models, confirming inherent limits in their ability to generate diverse solutions. Overall, IDEAFix provides a controlled, extensible framework for studying the mechanisms underlying LLMs' creativity.

Traditional artificial intelligence has largely conceptualized intelligence as isolated computation occurring within bounded agents. Across classical AI, machine learning, and many generative systems, the dominant unit of analysis remains the individual model or autonomous system evaluated through outputs, benchmarks, prediction accuracy, or optimization performance. While these approaches have produced major advances, they often under-theorize the role of interaction in the emergence of intelligence, creativity, meaning, and adaptive behavior. This paper proposes interaction as the primary unit of analysis for co-creative AI and interaction-centered intelligence more broadly. Drawing from distributed cognition, embodied cognition, enaction, participatory sense-making, human-computer interaction, and computational creativity, the paper traces a historical progression toward increasingly relational accounts of intelligence. Building upon prior work in Creative Sense-Making, quantified co-creation, and co-creative systems such as the Drawing Apprentice and AI Drawing Partner, it argues that intelligence emerges through evolving interaction dynamics among agents, environments, and socio-technical systems rather than solely through internal computation. The paper introduces Interaction-Centered Intelligence as a framework for understanding human-AI co-creation, collaborative emergence, adaptive participation, and interactional dynamics. Rather than evaluating intelligence solely through generated outputs, the framework emphasizes interaction trajectories, coordination patterns, participatory engagement, adaptive regulation, and interactional drift unfolding through time. Implications for explainable co-creative AI, hybrid intelligence, enactive AI, and future human-AI systems are discussed.

Generating novel research ideas is fundamental to scientific progress. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in assisting this process, existing approaches often exhibit semantic convergence, resulting in limited diversity and novelty. To address this, we introduce EvoGens, an evolution-inspired framework that recasts scientific idea generation as an evolutionary search over a population of ideas. EvoGens iteratively applies rank-based mutation with differentiated retrieval planning to incorporate external knowledge, and semantic-aware crossover to fuse complementary concepts for conceptual reorganization. A lightweight evaluation signal guides the selection process, encouraging sustained exploration while mitigating premature convergence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EvoGens substantially enhances exploration capabilities compared to state-of-the-art baselines. Specifically, it improves the Novelty from 0.1 to 0.4 and the Diversity from 0.24 to 0.55, while maintaining comparable idea quality under the current automatic evaluation protocol. These findings suggest that evolutionary mechanisms can serve as a useful framework for exploration-oriented research ideation, especially for broadening the novelty and diversity of candidate ideas under a shared automatic evaluation setting.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate candidate-idea pools for creative tasks where broad exploration is valuable. Parallel inference can be attractive in this setting when it broadens the pool while retaining quality and cost efficiency. We study inference-time controls for candidate-pool diversification, asking whether anchorless methods can rival methods that depend on observed seed ideas. Across three creative task families, we compare independent generation and semantic direction stratification with self-, peer-, and representative-anchor baselines, under neutral and population-referential divergent instructions. Population-referential divergence is a strong low-cost baseline, increasing semantic diversity while preserving quality proxies. Semantic direction stratification is stronger: a single planning call organizes generations across broad semantic directions, yielding the best diversity--quality--compute frontier. Anchored regeneration can be strong in final-pool diversity, but its advantage shrinks under full-pipeline token accounting. These results establish practical anchorless baselines for open-ended LLM ideation.

In this paper, we present the results of an ethnographic study into the impact of AI and automated tools on music production workflow. Focusing specifically on professional participants who identified as recording engineers, mixers, and producers, we discuss their usage of common AI and automated software, as well as their sentiments on the proliferation of these tools. We discuss tensions that may be created between users and automated tools in key areas such as the need for speed and efficiency, controllability, and maintaining creative agency, and how these tensions may be alleviated through tool design.

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.

Text-to-Image generation has evolved from basic image synthesis into a frequently used core capability in professional creative workflows, where simple text-image alignment can no longer satisfy users' pressing demands for faithful real-world reconstruction and genuine creative expression. Existing benchmarks, however, remain anchored in these foundational criteria and do not yet capture the nuanced capabilities that matter in authentic artistic practice, making it difficult to reliably distinguish state-of-the-art T2I models. To address the gap, we introduce Qwen-Image-Bench, a creator-centric benchmark co-designed with professional artists and grounded in real-world creation scenarios. Qwen-Image-Bench enriches conventional evaluation with two application-driven dimensions: Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation. Drawing on the staged reasoning inherent in professional artistic workflows, we organize these five pillars into a top-down hierarchical taxonomy that further decomposes into 23 second-level sub-capabilities and 56 third-level verifiable rubrics. To ensure broad coverage, we curate 1000 stratified prompts with each prompt jointly exercising more than four fine-grained facets across multiple pillars. We train a unified judge model Q-Judger based on Qwen3.6-27B, supervised by 80 professional annotators from global art academies under blind labeling and triple-review protocols, that scores every image across all 56 verifiable facets, producing fine-grained, rubric-grounded, and fully attributable diagnostics rather than a single opaque score. Empirically, Qwen-Image-Bench reliably distinguishes leading T2I models, achieving the greatest separation on the two application-driven dimensions of Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation where existing benchmarks provide little insight, while also providing a trustworthy optimization signal for production-level T2I development.

AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being applied to increasingly difficult problems and use cases. To navigate their vast solution spaces effectively, LLMs need to be creative. Yet the subjective nature of creativity and the limits of human judgment make training LLMs for creativity especially challenging. As a solution, we train LLMs on Codenames, a word-association game that exercises the two central axes of creativity, divergent and convergent thinking, while yielding objectively verifiable outcomes. This verifiability lets us bypass human judgment and train with Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). We train Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B models and evaluate them on ten creativity and four reasoning benchmarks. We find that the precision-diversity trade-off is scale-dependent: the 8B model prioritizes creativity over precision, while the 1.7B and 4B models gain reasoning precision at the cost of creativity. Concretely, the 8B model shows modest but consistent creativity gains (8 of 10 benchmarks) with only minor reasoning degradation, whereas the smaller models achieve substantial gains on reasoning tasks. Our study presents a scalable and effective solution to train LLMs for creativity.

Hallucination is a central limitation of large language models (LLMs), and substantial effort has been devoted to understanding and mitigating it. Towards this, Kalai and Vempala (STOC 2024) introduced a probabilistic framework formalizing calibration and hallucination, and showed that, with high probability, calibrated LLMs hallucinate roughly at the rate of the "missing mass", a measure of how incomplete the training data is relative to its source. This raises two fundamental questions: (i) what property of a calibrated LLM makes hallucinations unavoidable? and (ii) can hallucinations be avoided by giving up calibration? We answer these questions by introducing a simpler property we call innovation that measures the tendency of a model to produce outputs outside the training data. We show that innovation is implied by the condition for hallucination identified by Kalai and Vempala, and, further, that it is an almost characterization of hallucination: hallucination implies innovation, and conversely, innovation implies hallucination with high probability. We also provide lower bounds on the hallucination rate based on the "innovation rate", and by relating innovation rate back to missing mass, we obtain new hallucination rate lower bounds based on missing mass that extend the results of Kalai and Vempala.

Large language models (LLMs) face a dual challenge in creative capability evaluation: existing benchmarks (e.g., Story Cloze Test, HellaSwag) measure models' discriminative ability over narrative continuation using multiple-choice recognition paradigms, rather than directly measuring creative generation capability; rubric-based scoring and LLM-as-Judge methods rely on subjective dimension assessment or natural language model outputs, and cannot provide objective, automated scoring mechanisms. This paper proposes QUIET (Quality Understanding via Interlocked Evaluation Testing), a diagnostic benchmark for LLM creative capability based on multi-blank cascaded story cloze. QUIET sets N blanks (10-20) in a story with complete structure, with each blank accompanied by an explicit content constraint, and cascade dependency relationships between blanks -- the content filled into earlier blanks constrains the feasible solution space for later blanks. The evaluated model (or human participants) fills all blanks in open-ended generation mode; the results are scored by an information-theoretic automated scoring protocol without human grading. The scoring protocol directly operationalizes the "calibrated surprise" theoretical framework (Zou & Xu, 2026a). For each blank k, a composite score is computed: score = satisfy * (1 + lambda * surprise), where lambda = 1.0. Here, "satisfy" measures how well the blank filling satisfies the content constraint (objective logical reasoning judgment, not subjective aesthetic scoring), and "surprise" measures the degree of surprise given that the constraint is satisfied. Creative answers that do not satisfy the constraint score zero; answers that satisfy the constraint but are mediocre score low; answers that satisfy the constraint and are surprising score high.

We examine the structural transformation of creative industries under generative artificial intelligence, drawing on 374 primary sources spanning policy documents, industry data, creator surveys, and platform analytics. Beginning with the December 2024 release of OpenAI's Sora video model as a watershed event, we trace the historical pattern of creative resistance to technological disruption, then develop an analytical framework -- the Human-AI Agency Continuum for mapping the spectrum of human and machine collaboration in creative work. We present evidence for the "slop ceiling," an audience-imposed quality threshold that constrains AI-generated content to approximately 1--3% of platform streams despite comprising 44% of uploads. Analysis of the UK Government's 2025 consultation on AI and copyright (over 11,500 responses, 88% opposing expanded AI training rights) reveals deep structural tensions between technology firms and creative workers. We investigate how major studios, from Disney's $1 billion OpenAI investment to Netflix's AI-native animation unit, are positioning for an AI-augmented production pipeline. The work covers coordination collapse in creative supply chains, the emergence of new professional roles such as prompt engineers and AI orchestrators, and proposes four principles for navigating the transition: transparency, consent, compensation, and human-centred design. Eight appendices provide quantitative analysis, a glossary, topical bibliography, and deep dives into shadow AI adoption, AI stigma, and algorithmic intent.

Automatic evaluation of long-form literary writing remains challenging, as generic LLM-as-Judge approaches may not fully capture creativity-related dimensions such as originality and flexibility. Although the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) provides a structured creativity framework, and prior work has demonstrated reference-based TTCW evaluation at the pairwise level, no large-scale dataset exists for long-form TTCW-based literary review generation. We address this gap by constructing a dataset of 263,911 long-form stories, each annotated with scalar scores and meta-synthesised review comments across 14 TTCW-based dimensions. Using this dataset, we fine-tune Qwen3 models at two scales, 4B and 8B, under two conditions: with and without reasoning content. Results show that non-reasoning fine-tuning achieves stronger and more stable performance, with the best setting reaching an evaluation score of 0.6820. Further analysis shows that reasoning-supervised models are more prone to parse failures, often continuing with irrelevant or repetitive reasoning-style text rather than completing the required 14-metric review report. These results suggest that, for fixed-format rubric-based review generation, reasoning supervision is not straightforwardly beneficial, and precise metric-aligned scoring remains challenging even after task-specific fine-tuning.

Instilling creativity in text-to-image (T2I) generation presents a significant challenge, as it requires synthesized images to exhibit not only visual novelty and surprise, but also artistic value. Current T2I models, however, are largely optimized for literal text-image alignment with their data distribution, and their noise prediction networks constrain the generation to high-probability regions, consequently generating outputs that lack authentic creativity. To address this, we propose a Self-Creative Diffusion (SCDiff) model for meaningful T2I generations featuring two core modules: a learnable spatial weighting (LSW) module and a visual-semantic mixing loss (VSML). The LSW module designs a parametric Kaiser-Bessel window to reinforce central image features, fostering novel and surprising generation. The VSML module introduces a dual loss function: a similarity loss constrains that the new images align with its textual description, while a diversity loss maximizes its distinction from the original image, enhancing both semantic value and visual novelty. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our model substantially improves creativity, semantic alignment, and visual coherence, offering a simple yet powerful framework for generating creative objects.

We present a novel parameterized 4-qubit Eisert-Wilkens-Lewenstein (EWL) quantum game circuit for recommender systems in quadruple helix innovation ecosystems (academia, industry, government, and civil society). The local strategy operators $U_{i} = R_y(θ_{i})$ for each helix actor are directly tuned by normalized dominance weights extracted from real participant funding data (\texit{ecContribution}) in the European Commission CORDIS Horizon Europe database (project COVend, ID 101045956). The circuit employs a multi-qubit EWL entangler followed by parameterized local rotations, inverse entangler, and full measurement, achieving only 22 gates and circuit depth 11 while scaling as $O(n)$ for $n$-round helix communications. Measurement probabilities after the quantum game serve as recommender scores for disruptive versus sustaining innovation trends. These scores are subsequently mapped into the diagonal Dirac potential of a Dirac-Solow-Swan Hamiltonian, enabling time-evolution simulation of capital accumulation and bifurcation dynamics under disruptive innovation. Numerical experiments on real CORDIS quadruple-helix collaboration networks demonstrate the circuit's NISQ compatibility and its ability to forecast disruptive capital trajectories with high fidelity. The proposed framework bridges quantum game theory, parameterized quantum circuits, and relativistic economic growth models, offering a computationally efficient tool for innovation policy and strategic decision-making in complex socio-economic ecosystems. Complexity analysis and reproducibility are provided through open Qiskit implementations.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) now matches or exceeds human performance across numerous cognitive tasks, creativity remains a highly contested frontier. As AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation, it is essential to understand and augment their creativity. Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams not only surpass single agents, but also substantially outperform human teams in creativity (Cohen's d=1.50) across 4,541 multi-agent LLM ideas and 341 human-team ideas on six diverse problem-solving tasks. This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness. To investigate the generative processes in both groups, we represent conversations as paths through semantic space using neural language model representations. Both LLM and human teams produce more creative ideas when conversations range widely rather than staying centered on a single theme (low global coherence). However, the additional patterns that predict creativity differ: LLM teams benefit from efficient exploration (high semantic spread, shorter paths), while human teams benefit from maintaining smooth conversational flow (high local coherence, frequent pivots). Additionally, we identify model choice and discussion structure as orthogonal design levers that together explain 26.8% of variance in LLM conversational dynamics, paving the way for systematic approaches to developing multi-agent systems with augmented creative capabilities.

Creativity is a fundamental aspect of how culture evolves, yet the mechanisms by which groups produce novelty are notoriously difficult to infer from the historical record. Iterated learning experiments have shown that cultural transmission reliably distorts artifacts toward the inductive biases of learners, but most of this work uses linear chains between human participants, leaving open how these dynamics play out in the networked, human-AI systems that increasingly shape cultural production. In this study, we leverage one such system, Artbreeder, which hosts daily "remix parties" where users iteratively build on each other's work from a single seed image, producing branching lineages of human-AI co-created images. We analyze a dataset of 130,882 images from 368 remix parties over 13 months and find that images become simpler and converge toward common thematic "attractors" (e.g., steampunk scenes, alien architecture). We also find that while more novel "parent" images produce more novel and complex "children" that attract more likes, users paradoxically prefer to remix images that are less novel and complex. Finally, larger remix parties produce more novelty at the cost of lower complexity.

Scientific and technological frontiers advance through punctuated dynamics, yet the principles governing these dynamics remain poorly understood. Here we collect and analyze datasets tracking the evolution of frontiers across 9 different domains, spanning materials discovery, structural biology, AI, computational biomedicine, data science, theoretical computer science, Formula-1 racing, and physical wheel building. Analyzing 6.8M solutions to 6.7K tasks, we uncover three universal patterns: (1) waiting times between new frontiers are heavy-tailed, with most attempts concentrated in long stasis; (2) frontier records accumulate at a sublinear rate, faster than logarithmic yet slower than linear growth; (3) record-breaking events are temporally correlated, generating short-term predictability yet long-term unpredictability. Despite the differences in the scale, scope, and definition of the settings, these patterns are remarkably consistent across all domains we study, and are not captured by models from complex systems, record statistics, economics of innovation, and cultural evolution. We trace the missing ingredient to the distinction between radical and incremental innovation, and develop a minimal, analytically solvable model incorporating both radical resets that restructure what is achievable and incremental refinements that exploit the current frontier. The simple model reproduces all three empirical regularities. Remarkably, the leading-order predictions are parameter-independent, identifying a new universality class governing punctuated progress and yielding testable predictions about how openness and access to frontier solutions shape the pace of advance. Overall, these results reveal universal dynamics governing punctuated progress and identify the interplay between radical resets and incremental refinements as the key driver of how scientific and technological frontiers advance.

The latest improvements in artificial intelligence (AI) raise new challenges for intellectual property laws, particularly concerning the inventorship issue in AI-assisted inventions - that is, those in which AI is used in the inventive process. While most jurisdictions allow only a natural person to be considered the inventor, the question of how to deal with AI-assisted inventions remains relevant. Namely, what is the nature and contribution of AI tools in an AI-assisted invention that would prevent a human from being recognized as its inventor? The main challenge in addressing this question is the lack of case law on the issue. It is reasonable to assume that with the development of AI and the growing interest in its use in the inventive process, new cases will naturally arise, which in turn will harmonize and address the inventorship issue in AI-assisted inventions to some extent. However, this process will take significant time and may not keep pace with the rapid development of AI, nor fully address the new problems that arise alongside AI advancements. This research proposes the conditions of an experiment to create relevant case law. This experiment could be initiated by society, involving stakeholders specializing in AI. The article also proposes a methodology for conducting the experiment and selecting cases that best reflect the current state of AI use in the inventive process. Conducting such an approach will help identify the most effective methods for measuring human contribution to AI-assisted inventions when determining inventorship.

What does it mean to create a new concept, rather than retrieve a familiar one? Repeatedly sampling a generative model at the same prompt produces variations with similar styles and typical content. We propose that creativity is the production of stimuli that are unfamiliar to an adaptive observer at first sight, but quickly learnable from a few exposures. We formalize this as a Creator-Appraiser pair: a Creator generates a candidate, an Appraiser adapts to it for a few inner-loop learning steps, and the Appraiser's improvement becomes the reward the Creator optimizes through. We instantiate the framework with diffusion as the Creator, an autoencoder Appraiser on MNIST, and a CLIP Appraiser with a low-rank adapter for natural images. The diffusion model remains frozen with no additional language conditioning; the meta-learning gradient is enough to produce both stylistic variations and concept compositions that the base model does not generate on its own.

Machine learning research increasingly bifurcates into two disconnected modes: benchmark-driven engineering that prioritizes metrics over understanding, and idealized theory that often fails to transfer to modern systems. In this position paper, we argue that the field focuses too heavily on these endpoints, neglecting the central scientific object: the idea. We propose an Ideas First framework in which ideas are valued for the behavioral signatures they predict in modern models, and these signatures are tested through tailored experiments designed to detect the relevant patterns rather than to win leaderboards. This shift not only bridges the gap between theory and practice but also promotes equity by removing the "complexity premium," enabling rigorous scientific contributions from researchers with modest computational, financial, and human resources. Ultimately, we advocate for a research culture centered on ideas, treating benchmarks and theorems as instruments for testing mechanistic hypotheses rather than as ends in themselves.

Research idea generation is the innovation-driving step of automated scientific research. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown potential for automating idea generation at scale. However, existing methods mainly condition LLMs on eliciting idea generation through static retrieval of relevant literature or complex prompt engineering, without discarding the structural relations among references. We propose Graphs of Research (GoR), a supervised fine-tuning method that extracts a 2-hop reference neighborhood for each seed paper, derives the relations among those references from citation position, frequency, predecessor links, and publication time, and organizes them into a paper-evolution directed acyclic graph (DAG). We construct an automated extraction pipeline that draws data from five major ML/NLP venues, comprising 498/50/50 train/validation/test seed papers and approximately 7,600 cited references. Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-1M is fine-tuned on a structured-text prompt that includes the citation graph, edge signals, reference information, and task definition to predict the idea for the seed paper. Across head-to-head LLM-judge tournaments against gpt-4o-driven baselines, GoR-SFT achieves SOTA, demonstrating the effectiveness of citation-evolution graphs as supervision signal for LLM-based idea generation. We hope that this reduces the barrier for citation evolution graphs as a supervision, accelerating automated scientific innovation.

The creativity of diffusion models refers to their ability to generate highly realistic images that are different from their training data. Creativity is somewhat surprising since it is known that if the denoiser used in the diffusion model is the Bayes optimal denoiser for a given training set, then the model will simply copy the training samples. In this paper we present empirical and theoretical results that suggest that creativity in diffusion models is due to an interaction between the denoiser architecture and the target distribution. Theoretically, we give explicit forms for the distribution of generated samples as a function of the target distribution and the denoiser architecture for three different denoiser architectures (linear, polynomial, bottleneck). Empirically, we show that small changes in the popular UNET denoiser architecture leads to very different forms of creativity, and these small changes often yield samples that are highly nonrealistic. Taken together, our results show that diffusion models will only be successful if the inductive bias of the denoiser architecture is in strong alignment with the true target distribution.

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.

Current AI-assisted innovation systems typically apply a single ideation methodology (such as TRIZ or Design Thinking) using sequential prompt-based workflows that do not preserve intermediate reasoning structure. As a result, insights generated across methodologies remain fragmented, limiting traceability, synthesis, and systematic evaluation of novelty. We present IdeaForge, a knowledge graph-grounded multi-agent framework for innovation analysis and patent claim generation. IdeaForge integrates multiple innovation methodologies (TRIZ, Design Thinking, and SCAMPER) through specialist agents operating over a persistent FalkorDB knowledge graph. Each agent contributes structured entities and relationships representing contradictions, inventive principles, user needs, transformations, analogies, and candidate claims. The central contribution of IdeaForge is a cross-methodology convergence mechanism implemented through graph-based claim linkage. Claims independently supported by multiple methodologies are connected using CONVERGENT relationships, enabling identification of high-confidence innovation candidates through graph traversal. A downstream patent drafting agent generates structured patent drafts grounded in convergent claim subgraphs, reducing reliance on unconstrained language model generation. An InnovationScore formula ranks claims by convergent support, methodology diversity, claim strength, and prior art challenge count. We describe the graph schema, agent architecture, convergence detection pipeline, and patent synthesis workflow. Experiments on a legal technology use case demonstrate that graph-grounded multi-methodology synthesis produces more diverse and traceable innovation candidates compared to single-methodology baselines. We discuss implications for computational creativity, explainable AI-assisted invention, and graph-native innovation systems.

The discovery of novel methodologies for emerging problems is a continuing cycle in ML, often driven by the migration of techniques across domains. Building on this observation, we ask whether current LLM ideation systems benefit from targeted cross-domain retrieval or simply from exposure to diverse mechanisms. We study this question through PaperGym, a three-stage pipeline: (1) tool-augmented seed extraction via read, grep, and bash over an isolated paper environment, (2) cross-domain seed retrieval via paraphrasing across seven ML domains, and (3) method synthesis from retrieved seeds, each scored by rubric-based judges. Tool-augmented extraction improves specificity, and paraphrase-based retrieval broadens domain coverage. In synthesis, cross-domain retrieval receives more pairwise novelty wins than no-retrieval and same-domain baselines, but shows no significant difference from a random diverse-seed control. These findings suggest LLM ideation systems benefit from diverse seed exposure, but do not yet reliably exploit the semantic reason particular seeds were retrieved. We release the seed library, rubric prompts, and run scripts at https://github.com/yunjoochoi/PaperGym

Autonomous science promises to augment scientific discovery, particularly in complex fields like biomedicine. However, this requires AI systems that can consistently generate novel and diverse solutions to open-ended problems. We evaluate LLMs on the task of open-ended solution generation and quantify their tendency to mode collapse into low-diversity generations. To mitigate this mode collapse, we introduce analogical reasoning (AR) as a new approach to solution generation. AR generates analogies to cross-domain problems based on shared relational structure, then uses those analogies to search for novel solutions. Compared to baselines, AR discovers significantly more diverse generations (improving solution diversity metrics by 90-173%), generates novel solutions over 50% of the time (compared to as little as 1.6% for baselines), and produces high-quality analogies. To validate the real-world feasibility of AR, we implement AR-generated solutions across four biomedical problems, yielding consistent quantitative gains. AR-generated approaches achieve a nearly 13-fold improvement on distributional metrics for perturbation effect prediction, outperform all baselines on AUPRC when predicting cell-cell communication, infer brain region interactions with a high Spearman correlation ($ρ$=0.729) to published methods, and establish state-of-the-art performance on 2 datasets for oligonucleotide property prediction. The novel and diverse solutions produced by AR can be used to augment the search space of existing solution generation methods.

As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly. Instead, progress unfolds in a jagged fashion, with capabilities growing unevenly across tasks, domains, and model scales. In this work, we examine this dynamic jaggedness through the lens of scientific idea generation. We introduce SciAidanBench, a benchmark of open-ended scientific questions designed to measure the scientific creativity of large language models (LLMs). Given a scientific question, models are asked to generate as many unique and coherent ideas as possible, with the total number of valid responses serving as a proxy for creative potential. Evaluating 19 base models across 8 providers (30 total variants including reasoning versions), we find that jaggedness manifests both across models and within models. First, in a cross-task comparison between general and scientific creativity, improvements in general creativity do not translate uniformly to scientific creativity, revealing divergent capability profiles across models. Second, at the prompt level, stronger models do not improve uniformly; instead, they exhibit high variability, with bursts of creativity on some questions and limited performance on others. Third, at the domain level, individual models display uneven strengths across scientific subfields, reflecting fragmented internal capability profiles. Finally, we show that this jaggedness can be harnessed. We explore mechanisms of inference-time compute, knowledge pooling, and brainstorming to combine models effectively and construct meta-model ensembles that outperform any single model. Our results position jaggedness not as a limitation, but as a resource, a structural feature of AI progress that, when understood and leveraged, can amplify LLM-driven scientific creativity.

Generative models trained on finite data face a fundamental tension: their score-matching or next-token objective converges to the empirical training distribution rather than the population distribution we seek to learn. Using rule-valid synthetic tasks, we trace this tension across two training timescales: $τ_{\mathrm{rule}}$, the step at which generations first become rule-valid, and $τ_{\mathrm{mem}}$, the step at which models begin reproducing training samples. Focusing on parity and extending to other binary rules and combinatorial puzzles, we characterize how these two clocks, $τ_{\mathrm{rule}}$ and $τ_{\mathrm{mem}}$, depend on key aspects of the learning setup. Specifically, we show that $τ_{\mathrm{rule}}$ increases with rule complexity and decreases with model capacity, while $τ_{\mathrm{mem}}$ is approximately invariant to the rule and scales nearly linearly with dataset size $N$. We define the \emph{innovation window} as the interval $[τ_{\mathrm{rule}}, τ_{\mathrm{mem}}]$. This window widens with increasing $N$ and narrows with rule complexity, and may vanish entirely when $τ_{\mathrm{rule}} \geq τ_{\mathrm{mem}}$. The same two-clock structure arises in both diffusion (DiT) and autoregressive (GPT) models, with architecture-dependent offsets. Dissecting the learned score of DiT models reveals a corresponding evolution of the optimization landscapes, where rule-valid samples' basins expand substantially around $τ_{\mathrm{rule}}$, while training samples' basins begin to dominate around $τ_{\mathrm{mem}}$. Together, these results yield a unified and predictive account of when and how generative models exhibit genuine innovation.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.

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.

Promotional language has been increasingly used to aid the communication of innovative ideas in science. Yet, less is known about its role in the context of technological innovation. Here, we use a validated and domain-diagnosed lexicon of 135 promotional words to study the association between promotional language and patent evaluation outcomes among 2.7 million USPTO patent applications. Our large-scale study reveals three unexpected findings. First, in contrast to scientific evaluation, we find that a higher frequency of promotional words is negatively associated with the probability of an application being (i) granted a patent, (ii) transferred ownership, and (iii) successfully appealed. This promotional penalty holds even after accounting for a range of confounding factors and is largely robust across different technological areas. Among matched samples, the difference in the success rate between the lowest and highest promotional density quintile is 5.5, 5.9, and 5.3 percentage points for patentability, transferability, and rejection reversal. Second, contrary to institutional skepticism, we show that promotional language is not a mask of weak technology, but objectively reflects the degree of combinatorial novelty and future citation impact. Third, digging into the mechanisms, we find that the tolerance to promotional framing is strongly moderated by human factors, with men and experienced examiners showing a higher acceptance of promotional narratives than women and novice examiners. By revealing an emerging paradox in the patent system, our study offers theoretical and practical implications for improving patent evaluation through more objective scrutiny of linguistic patterns in patent filings.