Frauke Kreuter

Anna-Carolina Haensch, Sarah Ball, Markus Herklotz et al.

Advanced large language models like ChatGPT have gained considerable attention recently, including among students. However, while the debate on ChatGPT in academia is making waves, more understanding is needed among lecturers and teachers on how students use and perceive ChatGPT. To address this gap, we analyzed the content on ChatGPT available on TikTok in February 2023. TikTok is a rapidly growing social media platform popular among individuals under 30. Specifically, we analyzed the content of the 100 most popular videos in English tagged with #chatgpt, which collectively garnered over 250 million views. Most of the videos we studied promoted the use of ChatGPT for tasks like writing essays or code. In addition, many videos discussed AI detectors, with a focus on how other tools can help to transform ChatGPT output to fool these detectors. This also mirrors the discussion among educators on how to treat ChatGPT as lecturers and teachers in teaching and grading. What is, however, missing from the analyzed clips on TikTok are videos that discuss ChatGPT producing content that is nonsensical or unfaithful to the training data.

Subhabrata Dutta, Timo Kaufmann, Goran Glavaš et al.

While there is a widespread belief that artificial general intelligence (AGI) -- or even superhuman AI -- is imminent, complex problems in expert domains are far from being solved. We argue that such problems require human-AI cooperation and that the current state of the art in generative AI is unable to play the role of a reliable partner due to a multitude of shortcomings, including difficulty to keep track of a complex solution artifact (e.g., a software program), limited support for versatile human preference expression and lack of adapting to human preference in an interactive setting. To address these challenges, we propose HAICo2, a novel human-AI co-construction framework. We take first steps towards a formalization of HAICo2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces.

Christopher Weiss, Frauke Kreuter, Ivan Habernal

Although the NLP community has adopted central differential privacy as a go-to framework for privacy-preserving model training or data sharing, the choice and interpretation of the key parameter, privacy budget $\varepsilon$ that governs the strength of privacy protection, remains largely arbitrary. We argue that determining the $\varepsilon$ value should not be solely in the hands of researchers or system developers, but must also take into account the actual people who share their potentially sensitive data. In other words: Would you share your instant messages for $\varepsilon$ of 10? We address this research gap by designing, implementing, and conducting a behavioral experiment (311 lay participants) to study the behavior of people in uncertain decision-making situations with respect to privacy-threatening situations. Framing the risk perception in terms of two realistic NLP scenarios and using a vignette behavioral study help us determine what $\varepsilon$ thresholds would lead lay people to be willing to share sensitive textual data - to our knowledge, the first study of its kind.

Chenchen Yuan, Bolei Ma, Zheyu Zhang et al.

While recent research has systematically documented political orientation in large language models (LLMs), existing evaluations rely primarily on direct probing or demographic persona engineering to surface ideological biases. In social psychology, however, political ideology is also understood as a downstream consequence of fundamental moral intuitions. In this work, we investigate the causal relationship between moral values and political positioning by treating moral orientation as a controllable condition. Rather than simply assigning a demographic persona, we condition models to endorse or reject specific moral values and evaluate the resulting shifts on their political orientations, using the Political Compass Test. By treating moral values as lenses, we observe how moral conditioning actively steers model trajectories across economic and social dimensions. Our findings show that such conditioning induces pronounced, value-specific shifts in models' political coordinates. We further notice that these effects are systematically modulated by role framing and model scale, and are robust across alternative assessment instruments instantiating the same moral value. This highlights that effective alignment requires anchoring political assessments within the context of broader social values including morality, paving the way for more socially grounded alignment techniques.

Alexander Wuttke, Matthias Aßenmacher, Christopher Klamm et al.

Traditional methods for eliciting people's opinions face a trade-off between depth and scale: structured surveys enable large-scale data collection but limit respondents' ability to voice their opinions in their own words, while conversational interviews provide deeper insights but are resource-intensive. This study explores the potential of replacing human interviewers with large language models (LLMs) to conduct scalable conversational interviews. Our goal is to assess the performance of AI Conversational Interviewing and to identify opportunities for improvement in a controlled environment. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth study with university students who were randomly assigned to a conversational interview by either AI or human interviewers, both employing identical questionnaires on political topics. Various quantitative and qualitative measures assessed interviewer adherence to guidelines, response quality, participant engagement, and overall interview efficacy. The findings indicate the viability of AI Conversational Interviewing in producing quality data comparable to traditional methods, with the added benefit of scalability. We publish our data and materials for re-use and present specific recommendations for effective implementation.

Christoph Kern, Stephanie Eckman, Jacob Beck et al.

When training data are collected from human annotators, the design of the annotation instrument, the instructions given to annotators, the characteristics of the annotators, and their interactions can impact training data. This study demonstrates that design choices made when creating an annotation instrument also impact the models trained on the resulting annotations. We introduce the term annotation sensitivity to refer to the impact of annotation data collection methods on the annotations themselves and on downstream model performance and predictions. We collect annotations of hate speech and offensive language in five experimental conditions of an annotation instrument, randomly assigning annotators to conditions. We then fine-tune BERT models on each of the five resulting datasets and evaluate model performance on a holdout portion of each condition. We find considerable differences between the conditions for 1) the share of hate speech/offensive language annotations, 2) model performance, 3) model predictions, and 4) model learning curves. Our results emphasize the crucial role played by the annotation instrument which has received little attention in the machine learning literature. We call for additional research into how and why the instrument impacts the annotations to inform the development of best practices in instrument design.

Polina Gordienko, Georg Schollmeyer, Frauke Kreuter et al.

Multi-task benchmarks have become a central pillar of machine learning research, yet their growing influence has incentivised benchmark gaming -- strategic actions taken to improve the leaderboard rank of a specific model. Treating datasets as voters and models as candidates, we consider benchmark-specific training -- the inclusion of benchmark data in training -- as a form of election manipulation. For any ordinal benchmark, the problem of choosing datasets to train on so that a target model becomes top-ranked corresponds to shift bribery, a class of manipulation problems from computational social choice. Leveraging this identification, we show that the benchmark-specific training problem is NP-hard under Borda count and mean win rate. Complementing this worst-case perspective, we introduce the instance-level robustness, the minimum number of datasets a model developer must include in training to top a given leaderboard, and derive expressions for it under arithmetic mean, median, mean win rate and pairwise majority. We evaluate these expressions on MMLU under HELM and on BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) under the Open LLM Leaderboard. Across both suites, mean win rate is hardest to manipulate: this gap is clear on BBH (24 tasks, 4507 models), where its median robustness is 22 tasks (92%), compared with 13 (54%) under arithmetic mean and 12 (50%) under median and pairwise majority.

Robert Chew, Stephanie Eckman, Christoph Kern et al.

Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.

Xinpeng Wang, Bolei Ma, Chengzhi Hu et al.

The open-ended nature of language generation makes the evaluation of autoregressive large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions (MCQ) to limit the response space. The model is then evaluated by ranking the candidate answers by the log probability of the first token prediction. However, first-tokens may not consistently reflect the final response output, due to model's diverse response styles such as starting with "Sure" or refusing to answer. Consequently, MCQ evaluation is not indicative of model behaviour when interacting with users. But by how much? We evaluate how aligned first-token evaluation is with the text output along several dimensions, namely final option choice, refusal rate, choice distribution and robustness under prompt perturbation. Our results show that the two approaches are severely misaligned on all dimensions, reaching mismatch rates over 60%. Models heavily fine-tuned on conversational or safety data are especially impacted. Crucially, models remain misaligned even when we increasingly constrain prompts, i.e., force them to start with an option letter or example template. Our findings i) underscore the importance of inspecting the text output as well and ii) caution against relying solely on first-token evaluation.

Bolei Ma, Yuting Li, Wei Zhou et al.

Understanding pragmatics-the use of language in context-is crucial for developing NLP systems capable of interpreting nuanced language use. Despite recent advances in language technologies, including large language models, evaluating their ability to handle pragmatic phenomena such as implicatures and references remains challenging. To advance pragmatic abilities in models, it is essential to understand current evaluation trends and identify existing limitations. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of resources designed for evaluating pragmatic capabilities in NLP, categorizing datasets by the pragmatic phenomena they address. We analyze task designs, data collection methods, evaluation approaches, and their relevance to real-world applications. By examining these resources in the context of modern language models, we highlight emerging trends, challenges, and gaps in existing benchmarks. Our survey aims to clarify the landscape of pragmatic evaluation and guide the development of more comprehensive and targeted benchmarks, ultimately contributing to more nuanced and context-aware NLP models.

Bolei Ma, Ercong Nie, Shuzhou Yuan et al.

Prompt-based methods have been successfully applied to multilingual pretrained language models for zero-shot cross-lingual understanding. However, most previous studies primarily focused on sentence-level classification tasks, and only a few considered token-level labeling tasks such as Named Entity Recognition (NER) and Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging. In this paper, we propose Token-Level Prompt Decomposition (ToPro), which facilitates the prompt-based method for token-level sequence labeling tasks. The ToPro method decomposes an input sentence into single tokens and applies one prompt template to each token. Our experiments on multilingual NER and POS tagging datasets demonstrate that ToPro-based fine-tuning outperforms Vanilla fine-tuning and Prompt-Tuning in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer, especially for languages that are typologically different from the source language English. Our method also attains state-of-the-art performance when employed with the mT5 model. Besides, our exploratory study in multilingual large language models shows that ToPro performs much better than the current in-context learning method. Overall, the performance improvements show that ToPro could potentially serve as a novel and simple benchmarking method for sequence labeling tasks.

Bolei Ma, Berk Yoztyurk, Anna-Carolina Haensch et al.

In recent research, large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly used to investigate public opinions. This study investigates the algorithmic fidelity of LLMs, i.e., the ability to replicate the socio-cultural context and nuanced opinions of human participants. Using open-ended survey data from the German Longitudinal Election Studies (GLES), we prompt different LLMs to generate synthetic public opinions reflective of German subpopulations by incorporating demographic features into the persona prompts. Our results show that Llama performs better than other LLMs at representing subpopulations, particularly when there is lower opinion diversity within those groups. Our findings further reveal that the LLM performs better for supporters of left-leaning parties like The Greens and The Left compared to other parties, and matches the least with the right-party AfD. Additionally, the inclusion or exclusion of specific variables in the prompts can significantly impact the models' predictions. These findings underscore the importance of aligning LLMs to more effectively model diverse public opinions while minimizing political biases and enhancing robustness in representativeness.

Sarah Ball, Greg Gluch, Shafi Goldwasser et al.

With the increased deployment of large language models (LLMs), one concern is their potential misuse for generating harmful content. Our work studies the alignment challenge, with a focus on filters to prevent the generation of unsafe information. Two natural points of intervention are the filtering of the input prompt before it reaches the model, and filtering the output after generation. Our main results demonstrate computational challenges in filtering both prompts and outputs. First, we show that there exist LLMs for which there are no efficient prompt filters: adversarial prompts that elicit harmful behavior can be easily constructed, which are computationally indistinguishable from benign prompts for any efficient filter. Our second main result identifies a natural setting in which output filtering is computationally intractable. All of our separation results are under cryptographic hardness assumptions. In addition to these core findings, we also formalize and study relaxed mitigation approaches, demonstrating further computational barriers. We conclude that safety cannot be achieved by designing filters external to the LLM internals (architecture and weights); in particular, black-box access to the LLM will not suffice. Based on our technical results, we argue that an aligned AI system's intelligence cannot be separated from its judgment.

Jan Simson, Alessandro Fabris, Cosima Fröhner et al.

As machine learning (ML) systems are increasingly adopted in high-stakes decision-making domains, ensuring fairness in their outputs has become a central challenge. At the core of fair ML research are the datasets used to investigate bias and develop mitigation strategies. Yet, much of the existing work relies on a narrow selection of datasets--often arbitrarily chosen, inconsistently processed, and lacking in diversity--undermining the generalizability and reproducibility of results. To address these limitations, we present FairGround: a unified framework, data corpus, and Python package aimed at advancing reproducible research and critical data studies in fair ML classification. FairGround currently comprises 44 tabular datasets, each annotated with rich fairness-relevant metadata. Our accompanying Python package standardizes dataset loading, preprocessing, transformation, and splitting, streamlining experimental workflows. By providing a diverse and well-documented dataset corpus along with robust tooling, FairGround enables the development of fairer, more reliable, and more reproducible ML models. All resources are publicly available to support open and collaborative research.

Sarah Ball, Niki Hasrati, Alexander Robey et al.

Discrete optimization-based jailbreaking attacks on large language models aim to generate short, nonsensical suffixes that, when appended onto input prompts, elicit disallowed content. Notably, these suffixes are often transferable -- succeeding on prompts and models for which they were never optimized. And yet, despite the fact that transferability is surprising and empirically well-established, the field lacks a rigorous analysis of when and why transfer occurs. To fill this gap, we identify three statistical properties that strongly correlate with transfer success across numerous experimental settings: (1) how much a prompt without a suffix activates a model's internal refusal direction, (2) how strongly a suffix induces a push away from this direction, and (3) how large these shifts are in directions orthogonal to refusal. On the other hand, we find that prompt semantic similarity only weakly correlates with transfer success. These findings lead to a more fine-grained understanding of transferability, which we use in interventional experiments to showcase how our statistical analysis can translate into practical improvements in attack success.

Bolei Ma, Yong Cao, Indira Sen et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate public opinion and other social phenomena. Most current studies constrain these simulations to multiple-choice or short-answer formats for ease of scoring and comparison, but such closed designs overlook the inherently generative nature of LLMs. In this position paper, we argue that open-endedness, using free-form text that captures topics, viewpoints, and reasoning processes "in" LLMs, is essential for realistic social simulation. Drawing on decades of survey-methodology research and recent advances in NLP, we argue why this open-endedness is valuable in LLM social simulations, showing how it can improve measurement and design, support exploration of unanticipated views, and reduce researcher-imposed directive bias. It also captures expressiveness and individuality, aids in pretesting, and ultimately enhances methodological utility. We call for novel practices and evaluation frameworks that leverage rather than constrain the open-ended generative diversity of LLMs, creating synergies between NLP and social science.

Sarah Ball, Simeon Allmendinger, Frauke Kreuter et al.

Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly used in survey contexts to simulate human preferences. While many research endeavors evaluate the quality of synthetic GenAI data by comparing model-generated responses to gold-standard survey results, fundamental questions about the validity and reliability of using LLMs as substitutes for human respondents remain. Our study provides a technical analysis of how demographic attributes and prompt variations influence latent opinion mappings in large language models (LLMs) and evaluates their suitability for survey-based predictions. Using 14 different models, we find that LLM-generated data fails to replicate the variance observed in real-world human responses, particularly across demographic subgroups. In the political space, persona-to-party mappings exhibit limited differentiation, resulting in synthetic data that lacks the nuanced distribution of opinions found in survey data. Moreover, we show that prompt sensitivity can significantly alter outputs for some models, further undermining the stability and predictiveness of LLM-based simulations. As a key contribution, we adapt a probe-based methodology that reveals how LLMs encode political affiliations in their latent space, exposing the systematic distortions introduced by these models. Our findings highlight critical limitations in AI-generated survey data, urging caution in its use for public opinion research, social science experimentation, and computational behavioral modeling.

Stephanie Eckman, Bolei Ma, Christoph Kern et al.

Models trained on crowdsourced annotations may not reflect population views, if those who work as annotators do not represent the broader population. In this paper, we propose PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replication, a post-processing method that adjusts training data to better reflect target population characteristics without collecting additional annotations. Using simulation studies on offensive language and hate speech detection with varying annotator compositions, we show that non-representative pools degrade model calibration while leaving accuracy largely unchanged. PAIR corrects these calibration problems by replicating annotations from underrepresented annotator groups to match population proportions. We conclude with recommendations for improving the representativity of training data and model performance.

Unai Fischer-Abaigar, Christoph Kern, Frauke Kreuter

Automated decision-making (ADM) systems are being deployed across a diverse range of critical problem areas such as social welfare and healthcare. Recent work highlights the importance of causal ML models in ADM systems, but implementing them in complex social environments poses significant challenges. Research on how these challenges impact the performance in specific downstream decision-making tasks is limited. Addressing this gap, we make use of a comprehensive real-world dataset of jobseekers to illustrate how the performance of a single CATE model can vary significantly across different decision-making scenarios and highlight the differential influence of challenges such as distribution shifts on predictions and allocations.

Bolei Ma, Xinpeng Wang, Tiancheng Hu et al.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked wide interest in validating and comprehending the human-like cognitive-behavioral traits LLMs may capture and convey. These cognitive-behavioral traits include typically Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOVs). However, measuring AOVs embedded within LLMs remains opaque, and different evaluation methods may yield different results. This has led to a lack of clarity on how different studies are related to each other and how they can be interpreted. This paper aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of recent works on the evaluation of AOVs in LLMs. Moreover, we survey related approaches in different stages of the evaluation pipeline in these works. By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences. Finally, we provide practical insights into evaluation methods, model enhancement, and interdisciplinary collaboration, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of evaluating AOVs in LLMs.

Sarah Ball, Frauke Kreuter, Nina Panickssery

Conversational large language models are trained to refuse to answer harmful questions. However, emergent jailbreaking techniques can still elicit unsafe outputs, presenting an ongoing challenge for model alignment. To better understand how different jailbreak types circumvent safeguards, this paper analyses model activations on different jailbreak inputs. We find that it is possible to extract a jailbreak vector from a single class of jailbreaks that works to mitigate jailbreak effectiveness from other semantically-dissimilar classes. This may indicate that different kinds of effective jailbreaks operate via a similar internal mechanism. We investigate a potential common mechanism of harmfulness feature suppression, and find evidence that effective jailbreaks noticeably reduce a model's perception of prompt harmfulness. These findings offer actionable insights for developing more robust jailbreak countermeasures and lay the groundwork for a deeper, mechanistic understanding of jailbreak dynamics in language models.

Ercong Nie, Shuzhou Yuan, Bolei Ma et al.

Probing the multilingual knowledge of linguistic structure in LLMs, often characterized as sequence labeling, faces challenges with maintaining output templates in current text-to-text prompting strategies. To solve this, we introduce a decomposed prompting approach for sequence labeling tasks. Diverging from the single text-to-text prompt, our prompt method generates for each token of the input sentence an individual prompt which asks for its linguistic label. We test our method on the Universal Dependencies part-of-speech tagging dataset for 38 languages, using both English-centric and multilingual LLMs. Our findings show that decomposed prompting surpasses the iterative prompting baseline in efficacy and efficiency under zero- and few-shot settings. Moreover, our analysis of multilingual performance of English-centric LLMs yields insights into the transferability of linguistic knowledge via multilingual prompting.

Unai Fischer-Abaigar, Christoph Kern, Noam Barda et al.

AI-driven decision-making systems are becoming instrumental in the public sector, with applications spanning areas like criminal justice, social welfare, financial fraud detection, and public health. While these systems offer great potential benefits to institutional decision-making processes, such as improved efficiency and reliability, these systems face the challenge of aligning machine learning (ML) models with the complex realities of public sector decision-making. In this paper, we examine five key challenges where misalignment can occur, including distribution shifts, label bias, the influence of past decision-making on the data side, as well as competing objectives and human-in-the-loop on the model output side. Our findings suggest that standard ML methods often rely on assumptions that do not fully account for these complexities, potentially leading to unreliable and harmful predictions. To address this, we propose a shift in modeling efforts from focusing solely on predictive accuracy to improving decision-making outcomes. We offer guidance for selecting appropriate modeling frameworks, including counterfactual prediction and policy learning, by considering how the model estimand connects to the decision-maker's utility. Additionally, we outline technical methods that address specific challenges within each modeling approach. Finally, we argue for the importance of external input from domain experts and stakeholders to ensure that model assumptions and design choices align with real-world policy objectives, taking a step towards harmonizing AI and public sector objectives.

Cornelia Gruber, Patrick Oliver Schenk, Malte Schierholz et al.

Supervised machine learning and predictive models have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. However, before quantification is possible, types and sources of uncertainty need to be defined precisely. While first concepts and ideas in this direction have emerged in recent years, this paper adopts a conceptual, basic science perspective and examines possible sources of uncertainty. By adopting the viewpoint of a statistician, we discuss the concepts of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which are more commonly associated with machine learning. The paper aims to formalize the two types of uncertainty and demonstrates that sources of uncertainty are miscellaneous and can not always be decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic. Drawing parallels between statistical concepts and uncertainty in machine learning, we emphasise the role of data and their influence on uncertainty.

Christoph Kern, Ruben L. Bach, Hannah Mautner et al.

Algorithmic profiling is increasingly used in the public sector as a means to allocate limited public resources effectively and objectively. One example is the prediction-based statistical profiling of job seekers to guide the allocation of support measures by public employment services. However, empirical evaluations of potential side-effects such as unintended discrimination and fairness concerns are rare. In this study, we compare and evaluate statistical models for predicting job seekers' risk of becoming long-term unemployed with respect to prediction performance, fairness metrics, and vulnerabilities to data analysis decisions. Focusing on Germany as a use case, we evaluate profiling models under realistic conditions by utilizing administrative data on job seekers' employment histories that are routinely collected by German public employment services. Besides showing that these data can be used to predict long-term unemployment with competitive levels of accuracy, we highlight that different classification policies have very different fairness implications. We therefore call for rigorous auditing processes before such models are put to practice.

Matthias Kuppler, Christoph Kern, Ruben L. Bach et al.

The advent of powerful prediction algorithms led to increased automation of high-stake decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources such as government spending and welfare support. This automation bears the risk of perpetuating unwanted discrimination against vulnerable and historically disadvantaged groups. Research on algorithmic discrimination in computer science and other disciplines developed a plethora of fairness metrics to detect and correct discriminatory algorithms. Drawing on robust sociological and philosophical discourse on distributive justice, we identify the limitations and problematic implications of prominent fairness metrics. We show that metrics implementing equality of opportunity only apply when resource allocations are based on deservingness, but fail when allocations should reflect concerns about egalitarianism, sufficiency, and priority. We argue that by cleanly distinguishing between prediction tasks and decision tasks, research on fair machine learning could take better advantage of the rich literature on distributive justice.

Amanda Fernández-Fontelo, Pascal J. Kieslich, Felix Henninger et al.

A central goal of survey research is to collect robust and reliable data from respondents. However, despite researchers' best efforts in designing questionnaires, respondents may experience difficulty understanding questions' intent and therefore may struggle to respond appropriately. If it were possible to detect such difficulty, this knowledge could be used to inform real-time interventions through responsive questionnaire design, or to indicate and correct measurement error after the fact. Previous research in the context of web surveys has used paradata, specifically response times, to detect difficulties and to help improve user experience and data quality. However, richer data sources are now available, in the form of the movements respondents make with the mouse, as an additional and far more detailed indicator for the respondent-survey interaction. This paper uses machine learning techniques to explore the predictive value of mouse-tracking data with regard to respondents' difficulty. We use data from a survey on respondents' employment history and demographic information, in which we experimentally manipulate the difficulty of several questions. Using features derived from the cursor movements, we predict whether respondents answered the easy or difficult version of a question, using and comparing several state-of-the-art supervised learning methods. In addition, we develop a personalization method that adjusts for respondents' baseline mouse behavior and evaluate its performance. For all three manipulated survey questions, we find that including the full set of mouse movement features improved prediction performance over response-time-only models in nested cross-validation. Accounting for individual differences in mouse movements led to further improvements.