Cultivating Pluralism In Algorithmic Monoculture: The Community Alignment Dataset
Lily Hong Zhang, Smitha Milli, Karen Jusko, Jonathan Smith, Brandon Amos, Wassim Bouaziz, Manon Revel, Jack Kussman, Yasha Sheynin, Lisa Titus, Bhaktipriya Radharapu, Jane Yu, Vidya Sarma, Kris Rose, Maximilian Nickel

TL;DR
This paper introduces the Community Alignment dataset, a large multilingual preference dataset, and demonstrates the importance of diverse sampling methods to better align large language models with varied human preferences across cultures.
Contribution
It presents a novel negatively-correlated sampling technique for preference data collection and releases the largest multilingual preference dataset to date.
Findings
Humans show more preference variation than LLM responses.
Existing datasets are insufficient for capturing global preference diversity.
Negatively-correlated sampling improves preference learning.
Abstract
How can large language models (LLMs) serve users with varying preferences that may conflict across cultural, political, or other dimensions? To advance this challenge, this paper establishes four key results. First, we demonstrate, through a large-scale multilingual human study with representative samples from five countries (N=15,000), that humans exhibit substantially more variation in preferences than the responses of 21 state-of-the-art LLMs. Second, we show that existing methods for preference dataset collection are insufficient for learning the diversity of human preferences even along two of the most salient dimensions of variability in global values, due to the underlying homogeneity of candidate responses. Third, we argue that this motivates the need for negatively-correlated sampling when generating candidate sets, and we show that simple prompt-based techniques for doing so…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
- Valuable dataset contribution: opensourcing a large-scale multilingual preference dataset with unique features (prompt-level annotator overlap and comparison-level natural language explanations) - Comprehensive and rigorous experiments and evaluation: Nationally representative samples from five countries, professional translations, and systematic evaluation of 21 LLMs. Testing four different approaches (prompt-steering, SFT, DPO, GRPO) shows the problem is fundamental rather than method-spec
- Limited analysis of downstream performance trade-offs: No measurement of NC sampling's impact on general task performance or helpfulness. Prior work suggests diversity might degrade fine-grained learning signals and overall model quality. Without evaluating performance on standard benchmarks, practical applicability remains unclear - Insufficient clarity in experimental procedures: Critical details are relegated to appendices or described too briefly. Section 3 lacks clear explanation of win r
1. This paper introduces a new perspective for evaluating preference dataset diversity using Inglehart and Welzel (IW) dimensions, revealing that 21 LLMs exhibit an “algorithmic monoculture” and are poorly aligned with human preferences. 2. The authors propose negatively-correlated sampling, an efficient method to enhance the diversity of LLM-generated responses. 3. They also release Community Alignment, an open-source multilingual preference dataset built with negatively-correlated sampling, co
1. The paper lacks a related work section, making it difficult for readers to understand its position within existing research. For instance, it is unclear whether the proposed negatively-correlated sampling method is novel or adapted from prior work. 2. I am concerned about using only four dimensions—secular-rational vs. traditional and self-expression vs. survival values—to measure preference diversity. How representative are these dimensions overall? The authors should elaborate on their rati
S1: I quite like the insight that people's preferences vary from one another far more than model responses from leading LLMs do - an important selection bias to document and mitigate. S2: The contributed dataset is massive (200k comparisons from annotators from five countries), and is a very valuable resource for the community, especially in future pluralistic reward modeling. S3: Negatively correlated sampling could be a useful technique for future work for getting more diverse candidate respon
W1: While an understandable omission for the space constraints, there is very limited analysis on the actual generated preferences. E.g., how much do people actually disagree in practice (interannotator agreement rates)? What were some of the features of the natural language preference explanations provided? What kinds of topics were covered in the prompts? A potential future camera-ready version of the paper could benefit from some additional of the above analyses (but I do not consider them es
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSmart Cities and Technologies · Information Retrieval and Data Mining
