More Reader Data or a Better Teacher? Updating a Model of Crowd Highlights in Late 2026

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.

A social highlighter's most useful signal -- which passages a crowd of readers marks -- exists only for documents people have already read. Can the aggregate crowd salience of a document be predicted from its text before its marks accumulate? Prior work on this data found that zero-shot language models recover highlight locations worse than a trivial lead (position) baseline, so we ask whether a model trained on the highlight corpus can beat that baseline. Using a pre-registered ladder of models and a by-document cluster bootstrap, we find a small but robust edge: a logistic ranker over sentence embeddings and positional/contextual features beats the lead baseline by +0.044 average precision (95% CI [+0.029, +0.058]; clears a pre-registered margin delta=0.03 in 97% of resamples, and stable across pipeline re-runs). Two unsupervised extractive baselines (centroid, LexRank-style centrality) lose to lead, and the trained model beats them by +0.108, so the edge is not recovered by generic unsupervised proxies -- it reflects learning from real reader marks. In product terms, precision@3 rises from 0.25 to 0.39 (+55% relative) and the model beats lead on 69% of documents. An ablation attributes the edge to the raw embedding (+0.014) and training augmentation (+0.010), each with a positive CI. The edge is not a temporal-generalization failure, and we find no evidence that content drift or near-duplicate leakage explains it. A standardized regression shows the advantage is governed mainly by document popularity (lower popularity, larger edge) and by label reliability. It nearly vanishes only on the most popular content; there it is the lead baseline that strengthens, not the model that weakens. Because our evaluation conditions on documents that eventually accumulated readers, these results are a retrospective cold-start simulation.