# Design Creativity Bench: Measuring creativity in LLM-Generated UI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11539 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11539/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06452/) (2023)
- [Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.05196/) (2023)
- [Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14499/) (2025)
- [Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22954/) (2025)
- [Is Temperature the Creativity Parameter of Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00492/) (2024)
- [NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05228/) (2025)
- [Evaluating the Diversity and Quality of LLM Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12522/) (2025)
- [Base Models Beat Aligned Models at Randomness and Creativity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00047/) (2025)
- [We're Different, We're the Same: Creative Homogeneity Across LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19361/) (2025)
- [Is Convergence Inevitable? Tracing Output Homogeneity Back to Base Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11426/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As leading LLMs improve on capability evaluations, their limitations in producing creative outputs on design tasks remain insufficiently characterised. Our work introduces Design Creativity Bench, a benchmark that evaluates diversity and appropriateness in UI designs. It measures distinctiveness among models on the same prompt (originality), how much a model's designs change between two prompts for the same UI goal in different product domains (creative range), and the share of a brief's acceptance criteria each design meets (appropriateness). Originality is 0.592 for same-prompt design pairs from different models (95% CI [0.582, 0.602]), far below the 0.764 for same-prompt human-model pairs (95% CI [0.751, 0.778]). Creative range is 0.581 across models (95% CI [0.567, 0.597]), against 0.902 for human designs (95% CI [0.884, 0.919]). Appropriateness is above 90% for every model in our test set, and the best model reaches 99.2%, slightly above the 98.0% for human designs. Our work shows that the default output of LLMs, though generally appropriate, is substantially more repetitive than the human baseline. This calls for strong measures to address the issue. A live leaderboard with newer models is maintained at https://kombai.com/benchmark/.