PERSPECTRA: A Scalable and Configurable Pluralist Benchmark of Perspectives from Arguments

Pluralism, the capacity to engage with diverse perspectives without collapsing them into a single viewpoint, is critical for developing large language models that faithfully reflect human heterogeneity. Yet this characteristic has not been carefully examined in the LLM research community and remains absent from most alignment studies. Debate-oriented sources provide a natural entry point for pluralism research. Previous work builds on online debate sources but remains constrained by costly human validation. Other debate-rich platforms such as Reddit and Kialo also offer promising material: Reddit provides linguistic diversity and scale but lacks clear argumentative structure, while Kialo supplies explicit pro/con graphs but remains overly concise and detached from natural discourse. We introduce PERSPECTRA, a pluralist benchmark that integrates the structural clarity of Kialo debate graphs with the linguistic diversity of real Reddit discussions. Using a controlled retrieval-and-expansion pipeline, we construct 3,810 enriched arguments spanning 762 pro/con stances on 100 controversial topics. Each opinion is expanded to multiple naturalistic variants, enabling robust evaluation of pluralism. We initialise three tasks with PERSPECTRA: opinion counting (identifying distinct viewpoints), opinion matching (aligning supporting stances and discourse to source opinions), and polarity check (inferring aggregate stance in mixed discourse). Experiments with state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, highlight systematic failures, such as overestimating the number of viewpoints and misclassifying concessive structures, underscoring the difficulty of pluralism-aware understanding and reasoning. By combining diversity with structure, PERSPECTRA establishes the first scalable, configurable benchmark for evaluating how well models represent, distinguish, and reason over multiple perspectives.

Examining the Utility of Self-disclosure Types for Modeling Annotators of Social Norms

Recent work has explored the use of personal information in the form of persona sentences or self-disclosures to improve modeling of individual characteristics and prediction of annotator labels for subjective tasks. The volume of personal information has historically been restricted and thus little exploration has gone into understanding what kind of information is most informative for predicting annotator labels. In this work, we categorize self-disclosure sentences and use them to build annotator models for predicting judgments of social norms. We perform several ablations and analyses to examine the impact of the type of information on our ability to predict annotation patterns. We find that demographics are more impactful than attitudes, relationships, and experiences. Generally, theory-based approaches worked better than automatic clusters. Contrary to previous work, only a small number of related comments are needed. Lastly, having a more diverse sample of annotator self-disclosures leads to the best performance.