Assessing the Effect of Cross-Domain Mapping on Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models
Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large…
Arxiv 2 versions
-
1 new sentence, beginning: “-cross Abstract: Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts.”
Assessing the Effect of Cross-Domain Mapping on Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models
-cross Abstract: Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large language models (LLMs) in the same way? We asked human participants and seven LLMs to design products by drawing inspiration from a random source or addressing an unmet user need. Humans reliably benefited from cross-domain mappings, while LLMs generated more original ideas than humans but showed no overall benefit from the intervention, though this changed with semantic distance. More distant source-target pairings produced more original ideas in both humans and LLMs. Humans benefited at nearly any distance, while only the highest-rated LLMs benefited when the source was sufficiently remote. Humans and LLMs also used sources differently: humans tended to transfer surface features, while LLMs transferred structural and functional properties. These findings reveal the generative role of remote associations and systematic differences in how humans and AI respond to the same creativity intervention.
-
Assessing the Effect of Cross-Domain Mapping on Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models
Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large language models (LLMs) in the same way? We asked human participants and seven LLMs to design products by drawing inspiration from a random source or addressing an unmet user need. Humans reliably benefited from cross-domain mappings, while LLMs generated more original ideas than humans but showed no overall benefit from the intervention, though this changed with semantic distance. More distant source-target pairings produced more original ideas in both humans and LLMs. Humans benefited at nearly any distance, while only the highest-rated LLMs benefited when the source was sufficiently remote. Humans and LLMs also used sources differently: humans tended to transfer surface features, while LLMs transferred structural and functional properties. These findings reveal the generative role of remote associations and systematic differences in how humans and AI respond to the same creativity intervention.
Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv
It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
The classifier could not identify the subject from the text, so the section was inherited from the source feed. We do not summarise what we cannot identify — this one links straight out.
Link-outLink-out, because the subject could not be identified from the text. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 34% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 53% | arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.27 | +0.054 14% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
What happened
Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large language models (LLMs) in the same way? We asked human participants and seven LLMs to design products by drawing inspiration from a random source or addressing an unmet user need. Humans reliably benefited from cross-domain mappings, while LLMs generated more original ideas than humans but showed no overall benefit from the intervention, though this changed with semantic distance. More distant source-target pairings produced more original ideas in both humans and LLMs. Humans benefited at nearly any distance, while only the highest-rated LLMs benefited when the source was sufficiently remote.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen Assessing the Effect of Cross-Domain Mapping on Creativity in Humans and Large Language Mode
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.