Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratings

Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training. We show that this aggregation is not neutral: 42.6% of all annotator disagreement in HateXplain concentrates specifically at the hate/offensive boundary, a pattern consistent with annotators applying different thresholds for where hate begins (chi-squared = 135.199, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Both a hard-label BERT model (Model A) and a soft-label model (Model B) drop 22 percentage points in accuracy from agreed posts (~80%) to disagreement posts (~58%), confirmed at p < 0.0001. A per-annotator multi-head model (Model C) widens this gap further to 28 points while collapsing offensive disagreement accuracy to 0.245. Critically, Model A expresses significantly higher confidence on boundary case errors than Model C (0.710 vs. 0.495, p < 0.0001), meaning standard evaluation metrics will not detect the failure. Three downstream interventions of increasing sophistication all fail to recover boundary accuracy. We argue the problem is structural. Majority vote presents a contested judgment as ground truth, and models inherit that false certainty. The intervention must be upstream in annotation design.

Human label variation has been established as a central phenomenon in NLP: the perspectives different annotators have on the same item need to be embraced. Data collection practices thus shifted towards increasing the annotator numbers and releasing disaggregated datasets, harmful language being most resourced due to its high subjectivity. While this resulted in rich information about \textit{who} annotated (sociodemographics, attitudes, etc.), the \textit{what} (e.g., linguistic properties of items), and their interplay has received little attention. We present the first large-scale analysis of four reference datasets for harmful language detection, bringing together annotator characteristics, linguistic properties of the items, and their interactions in a statistically informed picture. We find that interactions are crucial, revealing intersectional effects ignored in previous work, and that a strong role is played by lexical cues and annotator attitudes. Effect patterns, however, vary considerably across datasets. This urges caution about generalization and transferability.

Current research primarily focuses on model performance, while comparatively less attention has been devoted to uncertainty estimation, particularly in settings where LLMs are increasingly used to generate annotated data. We introduce a framework combining conformal prediction with Collaborative Filtering-style annotators' representation to model LLM behavior in relation to human annotators and to analyze patterns of agreement and disagreement. Using Non-Conformity Scores, we introduce the Ghost Prediction metric and the Ghost Annotator representation to quantify cases in which model predictions diverge from all available human annotations. We compute cosine similarity measures to explore differences in model behavior across sociodemographic axes. We evaluated four LLMs of different size and families across four content moderation datasets. Our finding shows that while we find that all models uncertainty increases with annotator disagreement, larger models tend to be more confident in the classification of texts that are not aligned with any human annotation. Finally, the Ghost Annotator framework reveals a consistent and robust pattern of demographic misalignment, suggesting a structural bias likely rooted in pretraining corpora.