Floor, Ceiling, and the Fusion Gap: How Much of Crowd Reading Attention Can Machines Predict?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01704v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 05:09:49 GMT
• Title: Floor, Ceiling, and the Fusion Gap: How Much of Crowd Reading Attention Can Machines Predict?
• Abstract summary: benchmark score means nothing without knowing what a trivial method achieves and what the best possible method could achieve.<n>We construct both bounds for a task with a rare kind of ground truth: predicting which sentences a crowd of readers -- highlighting for their own purposes, unpaid, uninstructed, and blind to each other -- marked in 120 web documents.
• Score: 1.8620637029128544
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A benchmark score means nothing without knowing what a trivial method achieves and what the best possible method could achieve. We construct both bounds for a task with a rare kind of ground truth: predicting which sentences a crowd of readers -- highlighting for their own purposes, unpaid, uninstructed, and blind to each other -- marked in 120 web documents. The floor is naive truncation (lead); the ceiling is a split-half oracle: half the crowd predicting the other half. The gap between them is +0.2028 AP [+0.1698, +0.2342, domain-clustered], and three findings structure it. First, the gap is semantic: position and length features recover 5% of it. Second, frontier language models reach 35-53% of it zero-shot -- far above classical baselines, far below the crowd; a state-of-the-art prompt compressor (LLMLingua-2) lands below the floor, indistinguishable from random selection. Third, an unweighted cross-vendor fusion of five frontier rankings plus a position prior reaches 60%, beating the best single model by +0.0159 [+0.0044, +0.0269; Holm p=0.019] -- a gain that survives ablation of its best member, split-half arm selection, prompt paraphrase, and label, gate, and seed perturbations, and was CONFIRMED by a pre-registered replication on 217 independent documents (+0.0179, Holm p=0.042). Finally, the bracket compresses: distilling the fusion into one open-weight 8B student that reads the whole document retains 90% of the fusion's edge and reaches statistical parity with the strongest single frontier model (+0.0070 [-0.0068, +0.0200]), where a local-context student retains only 63% -- the crowd's signal lives in document-level structure, and the cheapest known improvement is to ask several different models and average.

Related papers

• The Blending Ratio Is Not Where the Performance Is: Diagnosing Prototype Blending for Few-Shot Adaptation of Vision-Language Models [22.461983628330277]
  Many few-shot adaptation methods classify with a convex combination of the zero-shot text prototype and the mean of the K labelled image features.<n>We ask what is the right ratio, can it be estimated without validation data, and is finding it where the performance is?<n>Across 4,800 cells (ten datasets, five backbones including SigLIP, five shot counts, five seeds, four prompt tiers) this theoretically optimal ratio is a reliable estimate of the wrong quantity.<n> validation-free linear probes beat even the oracle-tuned blend: CLAP by +1.9 points and LP++ by +1.5 on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T15:02:33Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• When AI Writes, Who Gets Cited? Evidence of Citation Monoculture Across Language Models [45.91367912142692]
  We show that different models may still select the same narrow subset, producing citation monoculture without any single citation being wrong.<n>Eleven models from three vendors choose at most ten papers from uniformly random panels of thirty, with real titles and abstracts but fabricated authors, reassigned years, and hidden venues and citation counts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T14:27:46Z)
• Language Models Agree With Each Other, Not With Readers [1.8620637029128544]
  We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose.<n>2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents.<n>No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-31T10:44:10Z)
• 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)
• The Model as One Rater Among Several: Measuring Political Positions in Data-Sparse Regions with a Language-Model Panel [0.0]
  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.<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T08:48:50Z)
• 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)
• Automated Proving of Shannon-Type Entropy Inequalities via Fine-Tuned Language Models and Guided Tree Search [50.16356451328644]
  Proving Shannon-type entropy inequalities is a fundamental task in information theory.<n>We investigate whether small-scale large language models, fine-tuned on atomic proof steps, can automate this process.<n>We show that GPT-5.5 solves 1.7% samples under zero-shot prompting while Psitip solves 33.3% samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T05:43:12Z)
• Amplifying, Not Learning: Fine-Tuned AI Text Detectors Amplify a Pretrained Direction [51.56484100374058]
  Text detectors amplify a pretrained typicality axis; they do not construct an AI-vs-human boundary.<n>On raw encoders before any task supervision, projecting onto centroid(AI)-centroid(HC3) achieves NYT-vs-HC3 AUROC 0.806/0.944/0.834 across three architectures.<n>On RoBERTa-base, raw projection exceeds fine-tuning; on RoBERTa-base, full fine-tuning reduces discrimination below raw on both fluent-formal populations tested.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T19:08:38Z)
• How Far Is Document Parsing from Solved? PureDocBench: A Source-TraceableBenchmark across Clean, Degraded, and Real-World Settings [56.70440596502351]
  The past year has seen over 20 open document parsing models, yet benchmarks almost exclusively on OmniDocBench.<n>We present PureDocBench, a benchmark thatrenders document images from HTML/CSS, covering 10 domains, 66 pages, and 1,475 pages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T09:30:31Z)
• BibTeX Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation [34.429649156970015]
  Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice.<n>Three search-enabled frontier models generate Bib entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy.<n>Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T16:30:58Z)
• 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)
• HuBERT: Self-Supervised Speech Representation Learning by Masked Prediction of Hidden Units [81.53783563025084]
  We propose an offline clustering step to provide aligned target labels for a BERT-like prediction loss. A key ingredient of our approach is applying the prediction loss over the masked regions only. HuBERT shows up to 19% and 13% relative WER reduction on the more challenging dev-other and test-other evaluation subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T14:14:28Z)

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.