arXiv:2606.11654cs.IRcs.CL2026-06被引 2

用文本预测读者标记热点,模型比简单位置基准更准。

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

  • 用句子嵌入和位置特征训练逻辑排序器,预测未被阅读过的文档热点。
  • 平均精度提升0.044,69%文档表现优于位置基准,精确率@3达0.39。
  • 效果受内容热度影响,冷门内容提升更明显,适合冷启动场景。

社交亮点中最关键的信号——大众读者标记的段落——仅在文章被阅读后才出现。能否在标记积累前,仅凭文本预测其群体关注度?先前研究发现,零样本语言模型的表现不如简单的开头位置基准。本文通过预注册模型链与逐文档聚类自举法,验证了在标注语料上训练的模型可显著超越该基准:基于句子嵌入与位置/上下文特征的逻辑回归器,平均精度提升+0.044(95%置信区间[+0.029, +0.058]),在97%重抽样中超过预设阈值0.03,且结果稳定。两个无监督提取基线(中心点、LexRank式中心性)均逊于位置基准,而该模型领先+0.108,说明优势源自真实读者标记的学习。产品层面,精确率@3从0.25升至0.39(相对提升55%),模型在69%文档上胜出。消融实验表明,原始嵌入和训练增强各贡献+0.014与+0.010,置信区间均为正。该优势非时间泛化失败所致,亦无内容漂移或近似重复泄漏解释。标准化回归显示,优势主要由文档流行度(越冷门,优势越大)与标签可靠性决定,仅在最热门内容中几乎消失;此时是位置基准变强,而非模型变弱。因评估基于最终积累读者的文档,结果为回溯式冷启动模拟。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

冷启动文本预测热点检测信息抽取

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。