Li-Chun Lu

We systematically examine, analyze, and compare representative creativity measures–creativity index, perplexity, syntactic templates, and LLM-as-a-Judge–across diverse creative domains, including creative writing, unconventional problem-solving, and research ideation. Our analyses reveal that these metrics exhibit limited consistency, capturing different dimensions of creativity. We highlight key limitations, including the creativity index’s focus on lexical diversity, perplexity’s sensitivity to model confidence, and syntactic templates’ inability to capture conceptual creativity. Additionally, LLM-as-a-Judge shows instability and bias. Our findings underscore the need for more robust, generalizable evaluation frameworks that better align with human judgments of creativity.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown exceptional proficiency in natural language processing but often fall short of generating creative and original responses to open-ended questions. To enhance LLM creativity, our key insight is to emulate the human process of inducing collective creativity through engaging discussions with participants from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. To this end, we propose LLM Discussion, a three-phase discussion framework that facilitates vigorous and diverging idea exchanges and ensures convergence to creative answers. Moreover, we adopt a role-playing technique by assigning distinct roles to LLMs to combat the homogeneity of LLMs. We evaluate the efficacy of the proposed framework with the Alternative Uses Test, Similarities Test, Instances Test, and Scientific Creativity Test through both LLM evaluation and human study. The results show that our proposed framework outperforms single-LLM approaches and existing multi-LLM frameworks across various creativity metrics.