Benchmarking Language Model Creativity: A Case Study on Code Generation
This addresses the need for better evaluation of LLM creativity in coding tasks, though it is incremental as it builds on existing cognitive science concepts and applies them to a specific domain.
The paper tackles the problem of quantifying creativity in large language models (LLMs) for code generation, introducing a framework with denial prompting and a metric called NEOGAUGE, and finds that even top models like GPT-4 fall short of human-like creativity without significant improvement from advanced reasoning strategies.
As LLMs become increasingly prevalent, it is interesting to consider how ``creative'' these models can be. From cognitive science, creativity consists of at least two key characteristics: \emph{convergent} thinking (purposefulness to achieve a given goal) and \emph{divergent} thinking (adaptability to explore new environments or constraints) \citep{runco2003critical}. In this work, we introduce a framework for quantifying LLM creativity that incorporates the two design ingredients: (1) We introduce DENIAL PROMPTING which pushes LLMs to develop more creative solutions to a given problem by incrementally imposing new constraints on the previous solution, compelling LLMs to adopt new strategies. (2) We define NEOGAUGE, a metric that quantifies both convergent and divergent thinking in the generated creative responses by LLMs. We test the proposed framework on Codeforces problems, which serve as both a natural dataset for coding tasks and a collection of prior human solutions. We quantify NEOGAUGE for various proprietary and open-source models and find that even the most creative model, GPT-4, still falls short of demonstrating human-like creativity. We also experiment with advanced reasoning strategies (MCTS, self-correction, etc.) and observe no significant improvement in creativity. As a by-product of our analysis, we release NEOCODER dataset for reproducing our results on future models.