Large language models (LLMs) require careful alignment to balance competing objectives: factuality, safety, conciseness, proactivity, and diversity. Existing studies focus on individual techniques or specific dimensions, lacking a holistic assessment of the inherent trade-offs. We propose a unified evaluation framework that compares LLM alignment methods (PPO, DPO, ORPO, KTO) across these five axes, using both in-distribution and out-of-distribution datasets. Leveraging a specialized LLM-as-Judge prompt, validated through human studies, we reveal that DPO and KTO excel in factual accuracy, PPO and DPO lead in safety, and PPO best balances conciseness with proactivity. Our findings provide insights into trade-offs of common alignment methods, guiding the development of more balanced and reliable LLMs.

This paper introduces a novel ’universal’ approach to discourse annotation, serving as a comprehensive synthesis of the ISO 24617-8 semantic annotation framework and a newly developed multi-layer model of coherence relations. To address the complexities of text analysis, we present a hierarchical classification and a systematic decision tree. By unifying disparate formalisms, our model provides researchers with a robust, standardised methodology for analysing complex discourse structures across various linguistic contexts.

Alignment is the critical process of minimizing harmful outputs by teaching large language models (LLMs) to prefer safe, helpful and appropriate responses. While the majority of alignment research and datasets remain overwhelmingly English-centric, ensuring safety across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts requires localized resources. In this paper, we introduce the first Polish preference dataset PLLuM-Align, created entirely through human annotation to reflect Polish language and cultural nuances. The dataset includes response rating, ranking, and multi-turn dialog data. Designed to reflect the linguistic subtleties and cultural norms of Polish, this resource lays the groundwork for more aligned Polish LLMs and contributes to the broader goal of multilingual alignment in underrepresented languages.

This study addresses the fundamental task of discourse unit detection – the critical initial step in discourse parsing. We analyze how various discourse frameworks conceptualize and structure discourse units, with a focus on their underlying taxonomies and theoretical assumptions. While approaches to discourse segmentation vary considerably, the extent to which these conceptual divergences influence practical implementations remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we investigate similarities and differences in segmentation across several English datasets, segmented and annotated according to distinct discourse frameworks, using a simple, rule-based heuristics. We evaluate the effectiveness of rules with respect to gold-standard segmentation, while also checking variability and cross-framework generalizability. Additionally, we conduct a manual comparison of a sample of rule-based segmentation outputs against benchmark segmentation, identifying points of convergence and divergence.Our findings indicate that discourse frameworks align strongly at the level of segmentation: particular clauses consistently serve as the primary boundaries of discourse units. Discrepancies arise mainly in the treatment of other structures, such as adpositional phrases, appositions, interjections, and parenthesised text segments, which are inconsistently marked as separate discourse units across formalisms.