Abstract:Modern AI evaluation frameworks treat evaluator disagreement as noise to be resolved. In creative domains, professional disagreement reflects genuine differences in taste, not measurement error. We argue that evaluating creative AI requires preserving two distinct signals: convergence, where professionals align around shared best practices, and divergence, where individual taste legitimately varies. We present the Human Creativity Benchmark (HCB), a benchmark that operationalizes this separation by collecting pairwise preferences, scalar ratings on prompt adherence, usability, and visual appeal, and qualitative rationale from domain professionals. Across 15,000 professional judgments spanning five creative domains and three workflow phases (ideation, mockup, refinement), we find that convergence concentrates on verifiable dimensions like technical correctness and visual hierarchy, while divergence concentrates on taste-driven dimensions like aesthetic direction and conceptual risk. No model excels uniformly across all phases. Collapsing these signals into a single quality metric discards the most actionable information: where models must be correct versus where they should remain steerable.
Abstract:Text-to-image models produce graphic design at production scale, but their supervision comes from photo-style preference data with a single overall verdict per comparison. Designers evaluate along several distinct axes, including typography, visual hierarchy, color harmony, layout, and brief fidelity, and a single label collapses them. We release TASTE (Typography, Aesthetics, Spatial, Tone, Etc.): ten professional designers ranked outputs from four current text-to-image models on nine criteria across two disjoint cohorts, yielding 1,600 ratings per criterion plus per-image hallucination flags on the holistic-preference cohorts. We pair the dataset with three contributions. First, a criterion-agnostic signal test framework, using Kendall's tau, majority probability, and Condorcet cycles against exact iid-uniform nulls at p = 4 and R = 5, places designer agreement on graphic design between food and movie preferences and photo-style image quality, with every TASTE criterion rejecting the random-rater null. Second, no pre-trained system in our benchmark, including six open-weight VLM judges from 3B to 33B parameters and three dedicated T2I scorers, HPSv2.1, PickScore-v1, and LAION-Aesthetic-V2, exceeds 0.55 macro agreement with the 5-designer majority; VLM judges trade off position bias against content sensitivity, so scaling moves along this frontier without improving accuracy. Third, a small pairwise-difference head trained on TASTE reaches 0.611, closing roughly half the gap to the 0.741 single-rater ceiling.