aiqbench analysis
This study treats a national language model as a scientific instrument, revealing that while sovereign models like AMALIA match human coders in accuracy, only half of their performance stems from the intended theoretical construct rather than surface-level correlations. The research introduces an inexpensive "recovery gap" audit method to distinguish genuine epistemic trust from mere agreement with trained annotators across different model sizes and languages.
Trusting sovereign language models as scientific instruments: evidence from Portugal's AMALIA
arXiv:2607.08731v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: National language models are becoming publicly funded epistemic infrastructure. Public ownership, linguistic specialization, and open weights create a presumption of trustworthiness. Such an instrument, built by and for a language community, looks like the natural choice for measuring what that community says and values. Whether such a model validly measures anything is untested at release. The evaluation of LLMs as measurement instruments is typically task-specific and stops at agreement with human coders. Agreement cannot distinguish an LLM instrument that measures a construct from one that reaches matching codes through surface correlates. We audit the presumption on a favourable case: AMALIA, Portugal's publicly funded 9B model, coding the moral foundation of authority in European Portuguese. The \textit{recovery gap} operationalizes the audit: decompose the codebook into its theory-defined clauses, recombine them through the theory's explicit rule, and measure how much of the original prompt's performance the stated theory reproduces. In a pre-registered, out-of-sample study on a transcreated (English to European Portuguese) corpus, AMALIA agrees with trained coders within six points of open models eight to thirteen times its size. Yet, the recovery gap shows that only about half of coding performance on authority can be attributed to the theory. A larger multilingual LLM closes the recovery gap on the same corpus, suggesting the shortfall lies in the annotator model, not the corpus or its translation. Sovereignty earns operational and performance trust; epistemic trust requires calibration -- and the audit method is inexpensive, and portable across models, languages and tasks.
Abstract:National language models are becoming publicly funded epistemic infrastructure. Public ownership, linguistic specialization, and open weights create a presumption of trustworthiness. Such an instrument, built by and for a language community, looks like the natural choice for measuring what that community says and values. Whether such a model validly measures anything is untested at release. The evaluation of LLMs as measurement instruments is typically task-specific and stops at agreement with human coders. Agreement cannot distinguish an LLM instrument that measures a construct from one that reaches matching codes through surface correlates. We audit the presumption on a favourable case: AMALIA, Portugal's publicly funded 9B model, coding the moral foundation of authority in European Portuguese. The \textit{recovery gap} operationalizes the audit: decompose the codebook into its theory-defined clauses, recombine them through the theory's explicit rule, and measure how much of the original prompt's performance the stated theory reproduces. In a pre-registered, out-of-sample study on a transcreated (English to European Portuguese) corpus, AMALIA agrees with trained coders within six points of open models eight to thirteen times its size. Yet, the recovery gap shows that only about half of coding performance on authority can be attributed to the theory. A larger multilingual LLM closes the recovery gap on the same corpus, suggesting the shortfall lies in the annotator model, not the corpus or its translation. Sovereignty earns operational and performance trust; epistemic trust requires calibration -- and the audit method is inexpensive, and portable across models, languages and tasks.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2607.08731 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.08731v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.08731 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 347 words
Related coverage

BRICS Draws a New Global Line: Full Text of New Delhi Declaration
slguardian.org · Sep 12, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026
Assessing Information Ecosystems : How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid Threats
carnegieendowment.org · Aug 5, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026