Why Large Language Models and Humans Converge and Diverge in Evaluating Creativity

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) as creativity evaluators, evidence of their alignment with human evaluations remains mixed, raising the question of when and why their judgments converge with or diverge from human judgments. Across three studies and six widely used LLMs, we addressed this gap by identifying the standards underlying LLM creativity evaluation and examining their downstream implications. Study 1 showed that LLMs generally relied on a narrower subset of human creativity evaluation standards. Convergence with human standards was strongest in the novelty dimension, whereas divergence was clearest in the contextual dimension, which captures social, market, and reputational information. Moreover, each LLM exhibited distinct, model-specific standards that varied substantially in breadth. These differences in evaluation standards were reflected in actual creativity judgments. Study 2 (N = 1,103 ideas) showed that LLM evaluations were moderately correlated with human evaluations, and individual LLMs with broader standards better distinguished ideas humans judged as more versus less creative. Study 3 (N = 1,195) showed that LLMs were less sensitive to contextual information: such information significantly altered human creativity ratings but left LLM ratings largely unchanged. Together, our findings help explain the mixed evidence on LLM-human alignment, showing that alignment depends on the evidence a judgment demands and the standards each model applies. LLMs may resemble humans when evaluations emphasize intrinsic qualities such as novelty, yet diverge when judgments require contextual information. Selecting an LLM evaluator is therefore a consequential decision: different models, applying different standards, recognize different ideas as creative.

Demographic Prompting at Scale: When More Attributes Hurt LLM--Human Agreement

We investigate how annotator demographic attributes, supplied as prompt cues, shape the alignment between large language model (LLM) predictions and human annotations across five tasks. Using five open-source LLMs, we systematically vary the number and composition of demographic components in the prompt, spanning every combination from single-attribute through full-attribute configurations. Our experiments reveal three principal findings. First, alignment consistently peaks with one to three high-signal attributes and degrades under the full attribute set, establishing a clear over-specification threshold. Second, the overall magnitude of demographic influence on human annotations does not predict which attributes improve LLM alignment; instead, both the learnability and the directional coherence of each attribute's annotation signal need to be considered jointly. Third, neuron probing reveals that specialized activation correlates with alignment gains only under coherent annotation signals, and that activation volume alone does not imply steerability. Together, these results demonstrate that demographic prompting is not a monolithic intervention: its utility is highly context-dependent, shaped by attribute signal quality, task characteristics, and model architecture.

A Hybrid Framework for Song Lyric Annotation Based on Human-LLM Alignment

Emotion recognition of song lyrics is a challenging task since lyrics may not necessarily align with the overall emotion of a song. As a result, lyrics annotation remains largely underexplored. Drawing inspiration from research in large language model (LLM) assisted annotation, we examine the alignment between humans and LLMs for annotation of lyrics by creating a new sentence-level dataset of lyrics. Our observations highlight the subjectivity of the task and the inherent challenges. Following this, we present a hybrid annotation framework that optimizes human and LLM annotation by predicting potential misalignment in annotation.