Selection, Not Salience: The Shape and Limits of Personalization in Social Highlighting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10398v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 04:18:08 GMT
• Title: Selection, Not Salience: The Shape and Limits of Personalization in Social Highlighting
• Abstract summary: We map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes.<n>Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer.<n>Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals.
• Score: 1.8620637029128544
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Does personalizing what a reader sees pay off, and where does it stop? Using a social web highlighter and a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users, which holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does), we map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes. At the document altitude we give the clean, leakage-free, identity-controlled measurement that prior next-document evaluations could only upper-bound: a person's history identifies which documents in a co-reading neighborhood are theirs, with an own-versus-other gap of +0.169 against community negatives and +0.119 against topic-matched hard negatives (both highly significant); a content-based arm suggests the signal is not purely title-driven but is largely thematic. This is comparable to the span-level selection signal (+0.14) from our prior work: the selection signal is of comparable magnitude across altitudes (+0.12 to +0.17), most of it stable topic preference. At the sentence altitude, a two-stage personalized auto-highlight (an impersonal model proposes candidates, a personal model re-ranks them) does not improve on its impersonal baseline: two off-the-shelf zero-shot LLMs, including a frontier model, predict highlight locations worse than a lead baseline, and personal re-ranking is beaten by the salience order even on the highest-recall candidate pool, so the null is not merely a Stage-1 ceiling artifact. Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer: modest (~+0.13), topic-dominated, with no reliable gain at the salience layer. We also surface a control-in-negatives bias that inflated our document gap to a spurious +0.227 until audited. Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals than by personalizing them harder.

Related papers

• Measuring Alignment With Reader Highlights Net of Position and Length [1.8620637029128544]
  On 120 web documents (at least 12 independent readers each), a language-model importance ranking keeps 38.4% of crowd-marked sentences against 19.9% of their matched neighbours.<n>A single human reader reaches +0.182 - indistinguishable from GPT-5.4 (+0.002 [-0.081, +0.088]) and below 5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T06:24:38Z)
• Using AI Agents to Automate Black-Box Audits of Personalization Algorithms at Scale [76.72846830885882]
  Personalization algorithms determine what content users encounter on online platforms.<n> auditing these systems is difficult because independent auditors have only black-box access to the algorithms.<n>We introduce a framework for black-box audits of personalization algorithms using generative AI agents as behavioral engines for synthetic accounts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T18:25:09Z)
• LivingArena: Do LLMs Know What Other LLMs Don't? Peer-Probing as Scalable Evaluation [79.03892269184145]
  LivingArena is an automated, contamination-resistant evaluation framework.<n>Models take turns proposing questions, aiming to pose items that opponents cannot answer correctly.<n>Questioners are encouraged to actively identify and exploit opponents' knowledge boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T06:20:58Z)
• Trait, Not State: The Durability of Reading Identity in Social Highlighting [1.8620637029128544]
  We ask the temporal question: is a reader's selection signature a trait or a state?<n>We freeze each reader's first six months of highlighting as a profile.<n>We track its own-vs-other advantage on its later selections at growing gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T04:59:37Z)
• The Long Tail, Not the Front Page: Cold-Start Prediction of Crowd Highlight Salience [1.8620637029128544]
  A social highlighter's most useful signal -- which passages a crowd of readers marks -- exists only for documents people have already read.<n>Can the aggregate crowd salience of a document be predicted from its text before its marks accumulate?<n>Prior work on this data found that zero-shot language models recover highlight locations worse than a trivial lead (position) baseline.<n>We ask whether a model trained on the highlight corpus can beat that baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T04:37:23Z)
• Factions Within, Uncertain Across: Within-Document Reader Sub-Groups in Social Highlighting [1.8620637029128544]
  We ask the group-level question on a co-readership platform using a margin-preserving curveball null.<n>Experiment 1 shows readers form strong sub-groups far beyond what shared salience, mark density, and sentence popularity predict.<n>Experiment 2 is that grouping a stable reader trait? Here we are honest about power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T03:25:36Z)
• Personal Salience: Highlighting Is Social, but Individuality Lives in Selection [1.8620637029128544]
  We ask whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does.<n>We separate generic salience (structure), crowd salience (what others marked), and personal salience (the individual residual)<n>Our results are leakage-free, use a dense crowd, and a model-matched control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T04:44:51Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• NearID: Identity Representation Learning via Near-identity Distractors [116.71529576796605]
  Existing vision encoders entangle object identity with background context, leading to unreliable representations and metrics.<n>We introduce the first principled framework to address this vulnerability using Near-identity distractors.<n>We present the NearID dataset (19K identities, 316K matched-context distractors) together with a strict margin-based evaluation protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T12:33:14Z)
• Large-scale online deanonymization with LLMs [58.46277616551135]
  We show that large language models can be used to perform at-scale deanonymization.<n>With full Internet access, our agent can re-identify Hacker News users and Anthropic Interviewer participants at high precision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T19:02:50Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Is Active Persona Inference Necessary for Aligning Small Models to Personal Preferences? [16.12440288407791]
  A popular trend is adding a prefix to the current user's conversation to steer preference distribution.<n>Most methods passively model personal preferences with prior example preferences pairs.<n>We ask whether models benefit from actively inferring preference descriptions.<n>We then test how effective finetuned 1-8B size models are at inferring and aligning to personal preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T15:39:48Z)
• Uncovering the Sociodemographic Fabric of Reddit [5.915947588383603]
  We introduce a principled framework for sociodemographic inference on Reddit.<n>We leverage over 850,000 user self-declarations of age, gender, and partisan affiliation.<n>Our approach improves classification performance over the state of the art by up to 19% in ROC AUC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T16:11:39Z)
• Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences [80.55271307662365]
  We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. We show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T14:34:31Z)
• Understanding writing style in social media with a supervised contrastively pre-trained transformer [57.48690310135374]
  Online Social Networks serve as fertile ground for harmful behavior, ranging from hate speech to the dissemination of disinformation. We introduce the Style Transformer for Authorship Representations (STAR), trained on a large corpus derived from public sources of 4.5 x 106 authored texts. Using a support base of 8 documents of 512 tokens, we can discern authors from sets of up to 1616 authors with at least 80% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T09:01:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.