Roger E. Beaty

Chao Wen, Tung Phung, Pronita Mehrotra et al.

Generative AI has democratized content creation, but popular chatbot-based interfaces often prioritize execution, generating fully rendered artifacts right away. This issue can lead to premature convergence and design fixation, where users are being anchored to initial outputs. Recent works have proposed new interfaces to address this issue by supporting exploration, though typically constrained to be semantically close to a user's initial task framing, potentially limiting the creativity of the outcomes. We examine an approach grounded in the Geneplore model of creative cognition and instantiate it in a human-AI co-creation system, HAICo, for creative image generation. HAICo explicitly structures the creative process into two switchable modes: DIVERGENT mode scaffolds the broad exploration of remote conceptual ideas; CONVERGENT mode supports a targeted refinement of selected ideas. Through a within-subjects study (N=24) on a poster image creation task, we demonstrate that HAICo outperforms ChatGPT across multiple dimensions of creativity and usability. Our results highlight the critical need to shift from pure execution-focused chatbots to scaffolded co-creation systems that actively guide exploration and foster the creative process.

Mete Ismayilzada, Simone A. Luchini, Abdulkadir Gokce et al.

Creative thinking is a fundamental aspect of human cognition, and divergent thinking-the capacity to generate novel and varied ideas-is widely regarded as its core generative engine. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive performance on divergent thinking tests and prior work has shown that models with higher task performance tend to be more aligned to human brain activity. However, existing brain-LLM alignment studies have focused on passive, non-creative tasks. Here, we explore brain alignment during creative thinking using fMRI data from 170 participants performing the Alternate Uses Task (AUT). We extract representations from LLMs varying in size (270M-72B) and measure alignment to brain responses via Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA), targeting the creativity-related default mode and frontoparietal networks. We find that brain-LLM alignment scales with model size (default mode network only) and idea originality (both networks), with effects strongest early in the creative process. We further show that post-training objectives shape alignment in functionally selective ways: a creativity-optimized \texttt{Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct} preserves alignment with high-creativity neural responses while reducing alignment with low-creativity ones; a human behavior fine-tuned model elevates alignment with both; and a reasoning-trained variant shows the opposite pattern, suggesting chain-of-thought training steers representations away from creative neural geometry toward analytical processing. These results demonstrate that post-training objectives selectively reshape LLM representations relative to the neural geometry of human creative thought.

Antonio Laverghetta, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tom Hope et al.

Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how including example solutions with ratings impact creativity evaluation, using a finegrained annotation protocol where raters were tasked with explaining their originality scores and rating for the facets of remoteness (whether the response is "far" from everyday ideas), uncommonness (whether the response is rare), and cleverness. In Study 1, we analyzed creativity ratings from 72 experts with formal science or engineering training, comparing those who received example solutions with ratings (example) to those who did not (no example). Computational text analysis revealed that, compared to experts with examples, no-example experts used more comparative language (e.g., "better/worse") and emphasized solution uncommonness, suggesting they may have relied more on memory retrieval for comparisons. In Study 2, parallel analyses with state-of-the-art LLMs revealed that models prioritized uncommonness and remoteness of ideas when rating originality, suggesting an evaluative process rooted around the semantic similarity of ideas. In the example condition, while LLM accuracy in predicting the true originality scores improved, the correlations of remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness with originality also increased substantially -- to upwards of $0.99$ -- suggesting a homogenization in the LLMs evaluation of the individual facets. These findings highlight important implications for how humans and AI reason about creativity and suggest diverging preferences for what different populations prioritize when rating.