mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Rushes: A Human Preference Dataset for Pluralistic Alignment

arXiv 2607.20767 ↗First posted 22 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce Rushes, a dataset and benchmark for studying revealed human engagement preferences in interactive narrative environments. Rushes is collected through a game interface where users interact with AI-generated branching narratives and select one choice from a small, explicit candidate set at each decision point. Each interaction logs the full candidate set, the user's choice, and the evolving narrative context, yielding time-ordered trajectories with persistent user-level identifiers. Rushes contains 44,226 decision events from 8,167 unique users across six games, capturing sequential, personalized engagement behavior rather than static judgments. We show that user choices exhibit structured, non-random patterns, quantified by a low choice entropy relative to a uniform baseline. We position Rushes as a diagnostic benchmark for pluralistic alignment and demonstrate a robust Engagement Gap: state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5, fail to outperform simple baselines. While classical Matrix Factorization (SVD) captures measurable personalized signal (37.7%), frontier LLMs (34.23%) struggle to even match the Popularity Baseline (36.4%) on event-level choice prediction. This gap suggests that single, population-level objectives, like those used in modern RLHF, appear insufficient to capture heterogeneous, context-dependent engagement signals. As a result, even highly capable models default to majority preferences rather than adapting to individual trajectories. We release Rushes to support research into pluralistic alignment and sequential decision-making in generative systems. The full code for the platform and dataset will be available here: https://github.com/microsoft/rushes

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Beyond Correctness: Evaluating Subjective Writing Preferences Across Cultures16 Oct
  2. 2024PERSONA: A Reproducible Testbed for Pluralistic Alignment24 Jul

Other references · 8

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  3. 2018Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendationcited by 1,169
  4. 2024LTX-Video: Realtime Video Latent Diffusioncited by 549
  5. 2025TextQuests: How Good are LLMs at Text-Based Video Games?cited by 11
  6. 2021Fabula Entropy Indexing: Objective Measures of Story Coherencecited by 7
  7. 2025Narrative Studio: Visual narrative exploration using LLMs and Monte Carlo Tree Searchcited by 3
  8. 2025LikeBench: Evaluating Subjective Likability in LLMs for Personalizationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Alignment Makes Language Models Normative, Not Descriptive
  2. 2026AI Alignment through a Game-theoretic Lens: A Survey
  3. 2026Stayin' Aligned Over Time: Towards Longitudinal Human-LLM Alignment via Contextual Reflection and Privacy-Preserving Behavioral Data
  4. 2026Align AI to Dynamic Human-AI Workflows
  5. 2026Unpacking Human Preference for LLMs: Demographically Aware Evaluation with the HUMAINE Framework
  6. 2025RoleRMBench & RoleRM: Towards Reward Modeling for Profile-Based Role Play in Dialogue Systems
  7. 2024Data-Centric Human Preference with Rationales for Direct Preference Alignment
  8. 2026NARRA-Gym for Evaluating Interactive Narrative Agents