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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17768 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17768/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09542/) (2023)
- [The Long Tail, Not the Front Page: Cold-Start Prediction of Crowd Highlight Salience](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11654/) (2026)
- [Measuring Alignment With Reader Highlights Net of Position and Length](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27739/) (2026)
- [Language Models Agree With Each Other, Not With Readers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.29274/) (2026)
- [Floor, Ceiling, and the Fusion Gap: How Much of Crowd Reading Attention Can Machines Predict?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01704/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A model trained on readers' highlights can show a newcomer where earlier readers converged on a page, even on pages with few readers. A year of stronger language models suggests two upgrades: use them directly, or use them as teachers. We compare both with a third, more reader data, on one social highlighting platform, with the comparisons, the selection rules and a sealed set of fresh pages fixed in advance. On 215 development pages, seven language models released by October 2026 rank sentences zero-shot at an average precision of at most 0.3744 against the sentences half the readers marked most, and 0.3931 when fused with reading position, while a 3-billion-parameter model trained on reader highlights alone reaches 0.4346. Used as the teacher that breaks ties among readers' counts, the stronger fusion changes a trained model by +0.0013 [-0.0012, +0.0040], whereas going from half to all of its training pages adds +0.0242 [+0.0179, +0.0301]. A 27-billion-parameter backbone on the reader-only recipe adds +0.0225 on the development pages; on 131 fresh pages, read once and too few for a confirmatory comparison, its difference from the 3-billion model is unresolved, both score above the fusion, and in an exploratory split their lead over the previous model sits on pages from domains that their fresh training pages also cover. In this recipe, more reader data improves a trained model where a stronger tie-breaking teacher yields no material gain, and frontier models used as rankers still trail a small model trained on readers.