Hugging Face Trending Papers June 10, 2026

Factions Within, Uncertain Across: Within-Document Reader Sub-Groups in Social Highlighting

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

When many people highlight the same document, is the crowd a single consensus, or is it internally structured into reader sub-groups that mark different things -- and is that structure a stable property of a reader or of the document? Building on prior work showing an individual's within-document highlighting signal is a whisper while individuality lives in selection, we ask the group-level question on a co-readership platform using a margin-preserving curveball null.

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

multimodal

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Aug 3

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

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.

llms benchmarks

arXiv Machine Learning

1d ago

Whose Gold? Annotator-Pool Disagreement Is Large at the Item Level, and Hidden by Small Leaderboards

arXiv:2608. 15980v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Preference benchmarks are built by hiring annotators, and the identity of those annotators is treated as an implementation detail.

By Anik Jha

llms benchmarks safety

Hugging Face Trending Papers

Aug 4

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Coupling Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise. In LLM collectives this proxy can break: agents can produce diverse-looking arguments while preserving the same conclusion.

llms rag agents

arXiv AI

Aug 11

The Announcement Carries the Cue: Markup, Boundaries, and the Notation of Pre-Training Corpora

arXiv:2608. 09093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How a document's arrangement is written down, its notation, is a training variable that no dataset card records.

By E. M. Freeburg

arXiv AI

Aug 6

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

arXiv:2608. 03722v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.

By Molood Arman

llms rag agents

arXiv AI

Aug 5

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Coupling Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

arXiv:2608. 03722v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Collective intelligence research treats disagreement as evidence of epistemic diversity: if agents express different views, the group should retain capacity to revise.

By Molood Arman

llms rag agents

Related stories

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

Whose Gold? Annotator-Pool Disagreement Is Large at the Item Level, and Hidden by Small Leaderboards

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Coupling Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

The Announcement Carries the Cue: Markup, Boundaries, and the Notation of Pre-Training Corpora

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Diagnostic for Machine Collectives

When Outputs Disperse, Does Epistemic Revision Follow? A Black-Box Coupling Diagnostic for Machine Collectives