Like most of NLP, models for human-centered NLP tasks—tasks attempting to assess author-level information—predominantly use rep-resentations derived from hidden states of Transformer-based LLMs. However, what component of the LM is used for the representation varies widely. Moreover, there is a need for Human Language Models (HuLMs) that implicitly model the author and provide a user-level hidden state. Here, we systematically evaluate different ways of representing documents and users using different LM and HuLM architectures to predict task outcomes as both dynamically changing states and averaged trait-like user-level attributes of valence, arousal, empathy, and distress. We find that representing documents as an average of the token hidden states performs the best generally. Further, while a user-level hidden state itself is rarely the best representation, we find its inclusion in the model strengthens token or document embeddings used to derive document- and user-level representations resulting in best performances.

While NLP models often seek to capture cognitive states via language, the validity of predicted states is determined by comparing them to annotations created without access the cognitive states of the authors. In behavioral sciences, cognitive states are instead measured via experiments. Here, we introduce an experiment-based framework for evaluating language-based cognitive style models against human behavior. We explore the phenomenon of decision making, and its relationship to the linguistic style of an individual talking about a recent decision they made. The participants then follow a classical decision-making experiment that captures their cognitive style, determined by how preferences change during a decision exercise. We find that language features, intended to capture cognitive style, can predict participants’ decision style with moderate-to-high accuracy (AUC 0.8), demonstrating that cognitive style can be partly captured and revealed by discourse patterns.