As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning. We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level. Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a large-scale online experiment (N=748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g. name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases. We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT-4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them. We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases. Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

Evaluations in machine learning rarely use the latest metrics, datasets, or human evaluation in favor of remaining compatible with prior work. The compatibility, often facilitated through leaderboards, thus leads to outdated but standardized evaluation practices. We pose that the standardization is taking place in the wrong spot. Evaluation infrastructure should enable researchers to use the latest methods and what should be standardized instead is how to incorporate these new evaluation advances. We introduce GEMv2, the new version of the Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics Benchmark which uses a modular infrastructure for dataset, model, and metric developers to benefit from each other’s work. GEMv2 supports 40 documented datasets in 51 languages, ongoing online evaluation for all datasets, and our interactive tools make it easier to add new datasets to the living benchmark.