Comparing Architectures for Supervised Political Scaling

Most tools for measuring political positions, manifesto coding, expert surveys, text-scaling models, were built and validated on Western party systems, and outside that setting they work poorly, and often not at all. This paper is an attempt at a method for those settings. It treats a large language model not as a measurement device but as a single, fallible rater in a panel, roughly the way an expert survey treats one expert: the value comes from pooling many judges rather than trusting any one of them. I describe the panel, an applicability rule that keeps a score of zero distinct from a blank, and a lens system that separates what an actor says from what it does. I report three results. First, holding a definition-free round fixed, adding written axis definitions moves scores by a mean of 1.8 points on a 21-point scale and tightens agreement between raters (mean absolute gap 2.81 to 2.50; r 0.81 to 0.89); they make two independent raters agree more closely, which an arbitrary steer would not. Second, across nine models from eight laboratories in two countries, Krippendorff's alpha is 0.86 on both an interval and an ordinal metric, and it stayed put as the panel grew from five raters to nine. That is reliability, the reproducibility of a reading, and not validity, its correctness. Third, where the panel does disagree, the disagreement is informative: the sharpest split, a full-scale divergence on an actor's stance toward its state's foundational order, points to a referent problem, and a blind triple-coding puts about two-thirds of it down to interpretation rather than error. I try to be plain about what the method can't do, including the human validation it still lacks, and I release the instrument and data in full. The worked example is the Middle East and North Africa, but I'd expect the method to carry to any region these standard tools leave out.

Scaling laws provide a fundamental framework for understanding the performance of Language Models (LMs), yet deriving them requires prohibitively expensive evaluations across thousands of checkpoints or millions of inference samples. To address this, we introduce Item Response Scaling Laws (IRSL), a unified framework that integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) within the scaling law framework. Unlike traditional approaches that treat each model-benchmark pair in isolation, IRSL disentangles latent model ability from question characteristics, factorizing the scaling law estimation for $M$ models and $N$ questions to significantly reduce parameter complexity from $O(M \times N)$ to $O(M + N)$. We instantiate IRSL with Beta-IRT, which leverages the empirical probability responses of LMs -- such as token probabilities in pre-training and pass rates in test-time sampling -- to capture richer signals than binary responses. We validate our approach across two prevalent scaling paradigms: (1) pre-training downstream scaling, using 6,612 LM checkpoints and 37,682 questions from 10 benchmarks; and (2) test-time scaling, using 12 LMs and 120 questions from 4 benchmarks with up to 2,500 samples per question. Given a one-time calibration on existing model responses, IRSL yields more reliable scaling estimates using only 50 questions per benchmark (a 99.9% reduction), achieving comparable or superior decision accuracy to traditional approaches. Furthermore, we show that the estimated latent model abilities are generalizable, enabling accurate performance forecasting across benchmarks that share the same measurement objective.

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.