Community Alignment personalization
Models predict an individual's preferred response from demographics and nine examples, across five countries. Reports global accuracy.
Built on Meta's open Community Alignment preference dataset. Random guessing scores 25%.
- Made by
- Meta
- Kind
- Bias, fairness and politics
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Multiple choice
- Tasks
- All public
- Last in a system card
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 2026
In the authors’ words
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 greatly enhance the performance of alignment methods in learning heterogeneous preferences. Fourth, based on this novel candidate sampling approach, we collect and open-source Community Alignment the largest and most representative multilingual and multi-turn preference dataset to date, featuring 233,319 comparisons from annotators spanning five countries. Overall, we hope that the Community Alignment dataset will be a valuable resource for improving the effectiveness of LLMs for a diverse global population.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Community Alignment personalization yet.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | Community Alignment few-shot personalization, country accuracies in a chart with no printed values (Figure 45, 46). Text says around 42% | Bias |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6%
- Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
- DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
- Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%