mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

IntElicit: Eliciting and Assessing Contextualized Creativity via Dialogue Policy Optimization

arXiv 2606.12086 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2026cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage). Meanwhile, in the age of generative AI, creative problem solving increasingly occurs in tool-mediated and human--AI interactive environments, making fully static assessment less aligned with contemporary creative practice. To address these issues, this paper proposes IntElicit, a framework for eliciting and assessing contextualized creativity via dialogue policy optimization. IntElicit functions as a constrained adaptive AI Interviewer: it provides non-directive knowledge and agency scaffolds in multi-turn interaction to reduce non-creative confounders, while preserving participants' responsibility for generating the creative content being evaluated. Specifically, to tackle sparse rewards and potential reward hacking (e.g., answer dictation) in open-ended educational dialogue, IntElicit introduces a decomposed process reward mechanism. This mechanism aligns the policy with pedagogical elicitation, rewarding prompts that draw out participant reasoning rather than producing optimal answers on their behalf. Extensive experiments, including participant simulation and a human subject study (N=64), show that IntElicit improves elicited creative outcomes over expert-designed baselines. Together, the results suggest that interactive elicitation can reveal creative potential that static FPSP-style assessment may miss, providing a formative and diagnostic lens for contextualized creativity assessment in AI-mediated learning contexts.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.

Builds on

12 of 45 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  4. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  5. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  6. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  7. 2023RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedbackcited by 625
  8. 2023Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Trainingcited by 401
  9. 2025CollabLLM: From Passive Responders to Active Collaboratorscited by 124
  10. 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplificationcited by 110
  11. 2022Designing Creative AI Partners with COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systemscited by 59
  12. 2020How to Motivate Your Dragon: Teaching Goal-Driven Agents to Speak and Act in Fantasy Worldscited by 35

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Human Agency and Creativity in AI-Assisted Learning Environments ↗
  2. 2026Multi-agent AI systems outperform human teams in creativity
  3. 2025AI Delivers Creative Output but Struggles with Thinking Processes
  4. 2025CreativityPrism: A Cross-Domain Evaluation Framework for Large Language Model Creativity
  5. 2025Thinking Outside the (Gray) Box: A Context-Based Score for Assessing Value and Originality in Neural Text Generation
  6. 2026AGC-Bench: Measuring Artificial General Creativity
  7. 2024AI Knowledge and Reasoning: Emulating Expert Creativity in Scientific Research
  8. 2025ClearFairy: Capturing Creative Workflows through Decision Structuring, In-Situ Questioning, and Rationale Inference