Decomposing and Predicting Annotation Disagreement in Harmful Content Across Languages

When humans label subjective content, they disagree, and that disagreement is not noise. It reflects genuine differences in perspective shaped by annotators' social identities and lived experiences. Yet standard practice still flattens these judgments into a single majority label, and recent LLM-based approaches fare no better: we show that prompted large language models, even with chain-of-thought reasoning, fail to recover the structure of human disagreement. We introduce DiADEM, a neural architecture that learns "how much each demographic axis matters" for predicting who will disagree and on what. DiADEM encodes annotators through per-demographic projections governed by a learned importance vector $\boldsymbolα$, fuses annotator and item representations via complementary concatenation and Hadamard interactions, and is trained with a novel item-level disagreement loss that directly penalizes mispredicted annotation variance. On the DICES conversational-safety and VOICED political-offense benchmarks, DiADEM substantially outperforms both the LLM-as-a-judge and neural model baselines across standard and perspectivist metrics, achieving strong disagreement tracking ($r{=}0.75$ on DICES). The learned $\boldsymbolα$ weights reveal that race and age consistently emerge as the most influential demographic factors driving annotator disagreement across both datasets. Our results demonstrate that explicitly modeling who annotators are not just what they label is essential for NLP systems that aim to faithfully represent human interpretive diversity.

It is increasingly recognized that human annotators do not always agree, and such disagreement is inherent in many annotation tasks. However, not all instances in a given task elicit the same degree of opinion divergence. In this paper, we investigate annotation variation patterns in graded human ratings for inappropriate languages, including offensive language, hate speech, and toxic language perception. We examine whether the degree of annotation disagreement can be predicted from textual features. We further propose the Opposition Index, a metric that quantifies perspective opposition among annotators on a given item, and investigate the predictability of instances with potentially opposing human opinions. Our results show a moderate positive correlation between estimated and observed annotation variance. We find that two approaches achieve comparable performance in variance prediction: directly predicting the variance value and estimating it from predicted annotation distributions. Our results on opposition perspective prediction show that items with high opposition index values are more difficult to predict and are often underestimated by models.

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.