aiqbench analysis
This paper proposes a new framework, q@Tail($\alpha$), which formalizes LLM creativity as performance in the long tail of input-output distributions rather than relying on arbitrary novelty metrics. Empirical evaluation across 26 open-weight models and 15 benchmarks demonstrates that rankings based on high-tail subsets align more closely with human judgment in LM-Arena than standard evaluations. The study identifies significant potential for improving generative capabilities by optimizing model performance specifically within these rare, long-tail regions.
Evaluating LLM Creativity through Long-Tail Performance
arXiv:2610.12998v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Creativity benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) vary widely in task and metric design. This raises the question of whether they capture a common notion of creativity. We propose that this shared target can be formalized as task-specific performance in the long tail of a reference input-output distribution, which describes how common input-output pairs are relative to a chosen source of text. We ground this proposition in the novelty-quality product formulation and evaluate it empirically across 15 benchmarks and 26 open-weight models, using n-gram absence from the pretraining data as a novelty proxy. Our results show that creativity benchmarks lie further in the tail regions than standard benchmarks. Moreover, on both creativity and standard benchmarks, model rankings from higher-tail subsets of each benchmark align more closely with human creativity judgments in LM-Arena. Building on these findings, we introduce q@Tail($\alpha$), a lower-cost creativity diagnostic that measures mean task quality on the tail fraction of an existing benchmark. Applying it to creativity-promoting methods reveals substantial room to improve LLM creativity through stronger tail performance.
Abstract:Creativity benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) vary widely in task and metric design. This raises the question of whether they capture a common notion of creativity. We propose that this shared target can be formalized as task-specific performance in the long tail of a reference input-output distribution, which describes how common input-output pairs are relative to a chosen source of text. We ground this proposition in the novelty-quality product formulation and evaluate it empirically across 15 benchmarks and 26 open-weight models, using n-gram absence from the pretraining data as a novelty proxy. Our results show that creativity benchmarks lie further in the tail regions than standard benchmarks. Moreover, on both creativity and standard benchmarks, model rankings from higher-tail subsets of each benchmark align more closely with human creativity judgments in LM-Arena. Building on these findings, we introduce q@Tail($\alpha$), a lower-cost creativity diagnostic that measures mean task quality on the tail fraction of an existing benchmark. Applying it to creativity-promoting methods reveals substantial room to improve LLM creativity through stronger tail performance.
26 pages, including references and appendices. Code and data: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.12998 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.12998v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.12998 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 279 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · Sep 29, 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026

The Culture Funnel: You can’t align what isn’t in the data
Cohere · Aug 19, 2026

Benchtalks #3: We taught AI everything except how to learn
Snorkel AI Blog · Jun 25, 2026