Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

LitBench: A Benchmark and Dataset for Reliable Evaluation of Creative Writing

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.00769 v1 pith:NVTZIWXW submitted 2025-07-01 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsrewardcreativehumanwritingbenchmarkevaluationlitbench
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating creative writing generated by large language models (LLMs) remains challenging because open-ended narratives lack ground truths. Without performant automated evaluation methods, off-the-shelf (OTS) language models are employed as zero-shot judges, yet their reliability is unclear in this context. In pursuit of robust evaluation for creative writing, we introduce LitBench, the first standardized benchmark and paired dataset for creative writing verification, comprising a held-out test set of 2,480 debiased, human-labeled story comparisons drawn from Reddit and a 43,827-pair training corpus of human preference labels. Using LitBench, we (i) benchmark zero-shot LLM judges, (ii) train Bradley Terry and generative reward models, and (iii) conduct an online human study to validate reward model rankings on newly LLM-generated stories. Our benchmark identifies Claude-3.7-Sonnet as the strongest off-the-shelf judge, reaching 73% agreement with human preferences; among trained reward models, Bradley-Terry and Generative reward models both attain an accuracy of 78%, outperforming all off-the-shelf judges. An online human study further confirms that our trained reward models consistently align with human preferences in novel LLM-generated stories. We release LitBench and reward models at https://huggingface.co/collections/SAA-Lab/litbench-68267b5da3aafe58f9e43461, providing a vetted resource for reliable, automated evaluation and optimization of creative writing systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. HelpBench: Assessing the Ability of LLMs to Provide Privacy, Safety, and Security Advice

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    HelpBench evaluates 18 LLMs on 450 privacy/safety questions and finds 82% average quality but 10% of responses score below 65% with inaccurate or harmful advice.

  2. StoryAlign: Evaluating and Training Reward Models for Story Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    StoryReward, trained on a new 100k story preference dataset, sets state-of-the-art performance on the introduced StoryRMB benchmark for aligning LLM stories with human preferences.

  3. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Survey of RLM adoption in 28 disciplines reveals maturity disparities via a new assessment framework, with focus on development, evaluation, and public resources.

  4. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A survey of RLM use in 28 disciplines reveals uneven adoption and introduces a maturity assessment framework showing larger gaps when limited to public resources.

  5. Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of reasoning language model adoption across 28 ERC scientific disciplines finds large maturity gaps, especially when only public resources are counted.

Pith tools