Date
Publisher
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.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can an adaptive AI interviewer elicit higher-quality creative thinking without dictating answers to learners?
- Setting and data: 64 undergraduate and graduate students (67% male, average age 22.5) across 16 future-oriented problem-solving scenarios.
- Method: Randomized between-subjects experiment, simulated participant evaluations, and qualitative edge-case analysis.
Why it matters
Contextualized creativity assessment often conflates creative potential with non-creative factors such as domain knowledge and willingness to engage. Furthermore, static tests fail to reflect modern creative problem-solving practices that occur through human-AI interaction.
Key findings
- In simulation across 16 scenarios, IntElicit achieved a significantly higher average creativity score (325.71) than top models like GPT-4o (301.67) and DeepSeek-R1 (298.40).
- In the human study, expert raters gave IntElicit-elicited responses better average ranks across all creativity dimensions (overall mean rank 2.16) than an expert-designed dialogue baseline (2.84).
- Dialogue analysis showed IntElicit adapted its scaffolding strategy to participant personas, using more perspective shifting for talkative users and more divergent expansion prompts for quiet users.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
