The Long Tail, Not the Front Page: Cold-Start Prediction of Crowd Highlight Salience

Context compression discards most of a document before a language model reads it, and is normally evaluated by downstream task accuracy - which makes another model the judge of what mattered. Naturalistic social highlighting offers a non-circular reference: many people independently marking passages on the same page. But the obvious metric, the fraction of crowd-marked sentences a compressor keeps, is confounded twice: crowd marks are front-loaded and crowd-marked sentences are longer, so any method favouring early or long sentences scores well regardless of readers. We remove both by matching each marked sentence against unmarked sentences of the same document at equal relative depth and equal within-document length rank, and we calibrate every estimator on synthetic nulls built from position and length alone - a step that matters, since depth-only stratification returns a false positive on 20-36% of nulls containing no effect. 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: an enrichment of +0.196 [+0.148, +0.239], at p = 0.0005 under an exact randomization test that assumes nothing about clustering, and replicated cross-vendor. Naive truncation, whose keep rule is position, correctly falls to +0.003. To give the number a scale: scored identically, on the same budget, against a crowd label recomputed to exclude them, a single human reader reaches +0.182 - indistinguishable from GPT-5.4 (+0.002 [-0.081, +0.088]) and below Claude Opus 5. Classical methods are not null - Luhn's 1958 heuristic reaches +0.088 - so reader selection is partly recoverable by counting words; conditioning additionally on lexical centrality removes only 0.010, so the agreement is not centrality. We also report that a claim in our own prior work does not reproduce on this corpus.

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.

Social highlighters let people mark passages that matter to them. We ask how much of an individual is recoverable from these naturalistic traces, using a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users) that holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does. We separate generic salience (structure), crowd salience (what others marked), and personal salience (the individual residual). First, highlighting is social: which sentences you mark is predicted far better by the crowd than by structure or by a personal model, and even a well-estimated crowd, an information-privileged baseline that sees others' marks on the same document, beats a frontier LLM twin built from your other-document history; the within-document personal signal is at most a whisper (own-vs-other gap +0.017 by an embedding scorer, small but significant). Second, in sharp contrast, individuality lives in selection: asked which of the already-salient passages are yours, your own history is a strong, leakage-free predictor (gap +0.14). A topic decomposition shows this is largely stable thematic preference: it shrinks ~6-8x against a topically-matched peer, and a thin residual cannot be separated from finer topic. The non-obvious part is an asymmetry: under the same scorer the individual signal is ~6-8x weaker in salience than in selection. Methodologically, naive history-conditioning evaluations leak (the target's own marks enter the profile in ~42% of pairs, inflating personal scores by up to +0.15 AP) and small crowds overstate personalization; our results are leakage-free, use a dense crowd, and a model-matched control. Highlights carry a genuine individual signature, but a thin layer over a strong shared one, surfacing far more in which salient things a person selects than in what is salient.