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.

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.