Comparing Architectures for Supervised Political Scaling

Labeling corpora constitutes a bottleneck to create models for new tasks or domains. Large language models mitigate the issue with automatic corpus labeling methods, particularly for categorical annotations. Some NLP tasks such as emotion intensity prediction, however, require text regression, but there is no work on automating annotations for continuous label assignments. Regression is considered more challenging than classification: The fact that humans perform worse when tasked to choose values from a rating scale lead to comparative annotation methods, including best-worst scaling. This raises the question if large language model-based annotation methods show similar patterns, namely that they perform worse on rating scale annotation tasks than on comparative annotation tasks. To study this, we automate emotion intensity predictions and compare direct rating scale predictions, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling. We find that the latter shows the highest reliability. A transformer regressor fine-tuned on these data performs nearly on par with a model trained on the original manual annotations.

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.