Disagreement

Scientific peer reviews frequently contain conflicting expert judgments, and the increasing scale of conference submissions makes it challenging for Area Chairs and editors to reliably identify and interpret such disagreements. Existing approaches typically frame reviewer disagreement as binary contradiction detection over isolated sentence pairs, abstracting away the review-level context and obscuring differences in the severity of evaluative conflict. In this work, we introduce a fine-grained formulation of reviewer contradiction analysis that operates over full peer reviews by explicitly identifying contradiction evidence spans and assigning graded disagreement intensity scores. To support this task, we present RevCI, an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels. We further propose IMPACT, a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication to model reviewer contradictions and their intensity. To support efficient deployment, we distill IMPACT into TIDE, a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass. Experimental results show that IMPACT substantially outperforms strong single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines in both evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE achieves competitive performance at significantly lower inference cost.

Disagreement in annotation is a common phenomenon in the development of NLP datasets and serves as a valuable source of insight. While majority voting remains the dominant strategy for aggregating labels, recent work has explored modeling individual annotators to preserve their perspectives. However, modeling each annotator is resource-intensive and remains underexplored across various NLP tasks. We propose an agreement-based clustering technique to model the disagreement between the annotators. We conduct comprehensive experiments in 40 datasets in 18 typologically diverse languages, covering three subjective NLP tasks: sentiment analysis, emotion classification, and hate speech detection. We evaluate four aggregation approaches: majority vote, ensemble, multi-label, and multitask. The results demonstrate that agreement-based clustering can leverage the full spectrum of annotator perspectives and significantly enhance classification performance in subjective NLP tasks compared to majority voting and individual annotator modeling. Regarding the aggregation approach, the multi-label and multitask approaches are better for modeling clustered annotators than an ensemble and model majority vote.

Mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures enable trillion-parameter LLMs with sparsely activated experts. Expert parallelism (EP) is a widely adopted MoE training strategy, but it suffers from severe all-to-all communication bottlenecks, which is exaggerated by the limited inter-node network bandwidth as the growing model size requires distributing experts across GPU nodes. Prior work focused on overlapping these all-to-all communications with feed-forward network (FFN) and self-attention computations, which often leaves residual network-bound stalls due to inherent imbalance in attention and FFN layers' computation-communication ratios. We present DisagMoE, a disaggregated MoE training system that jointly optimizes model placement and scheduling for maximal efficiency. DisagMoE separates attention and FFN layers into disjoint GPU groups, introduces a multi-stage pipeline with uni-directional, many-to-many communications, and employs a computation-communication roofline model to balance GPU and network bandwidth allocation among the attention and FFN groups. DisagMoE is implemented on Megatron-LM, and evaluation shows that DisagMoE improves training efficiency across multiple MoE models with up to 1.8x speedup on 16-node 8xH800 clusters.

Standard Importance Sampling (IS) collapses under label corruption because high-norm examples, prioritized for variance reduction, are often adversarial outliers. We formalize this misalignment using an $\varepsilon$-contamination model and propose Disagreement-Regularized Importance Sampling (DR-IS), a sub-sampling method based on loss rank-disagreement across independent proxy ensemble. We prove finite-sample concentration bounds showing that the empirical rank disagreement of bulk corrupted examples is bounded above, and that of boundary-clean examples bounded below, both at rate $O(\sqrt{\log(N/δ)/K})$ with probability $1-δ$; when the structural expectation gap $Δ'$ between the two groups is positive and the boundary-clean set is at least as large as the selected subset, these bounds certify strict separation and control the contamination rate of the selected subset. Empirically, DR-IS remains robust under targeted high-norm attacks that break magnitude-based methods such as the Error $L_2$-norm (EL2N) on benchmark datasets. DR-IS complements training-dynamics approaches like Area Under the Margin ranking (AUM), offering improved robustness in the loss-aligned regime alongside explicit finite-sample concentration certificates and a contamination bound limiting noise leakage from the statistical tail of corrupted points.

We propose a simplified human-in-the-loop workflow for second language (L2) Korean morphosyntactic annotation by leveraging agreement between two domain-adapted parsers. We first evaluate whether parser agreement can serve as a proxy for annotation correctness by comparing it with independent human judgments. The results show strong correspondence between parser and human judgments, supporting the feasibility of semi-automatic L2-Korean UD annotation. Further analysis demonstrates that parser disagreements cluster in linguistically predictable domains such as grammatical-relation distinctions and clause-boundary ambiguity. While many disagreement cases are tractable for iterative model refinement, others reflect deeper representational challenges inherent in parsing and tagging L2-Korean corpora.

Safety policies define what constitutes safe and unsafe AI outputs, guiding data annotation and model development. However, annotation disagreement is pervasive and can stem from multiple sources such as operational failures (annotators misunderstand or misexecute the task), policy ambiguity (policy wording leaves room for interpretation), or value pluralism (different annotators hold different perspectives on safety). Distinguishing these sources matters. For example, operational failures call for quality control, ambiguity calls for policy clarification, and pluralism calls for deliberation about incorporating diverse perspectives. Yet understanding why annotators disagree is difficult. Directly asking annotators for their reasoning is costly, substantially increasing annotation burden, and can be unreliable for both human and LLM annotators as self-reported reasoning often fails to reflect actual decision processes. We introduce Annotator Policy Models (APMs), interpretable models that learn annotators' internal safety policies from labeling behavior alone, making annotator reasoning visible and comparable without additional annotation effort. We validate that APMs accurately model annotator safety policy (>80% accuracy), faithfully predict responses to counterfactual edits, and recover known policy differences in controlled settings. Applying APMs to LLM and human annotations, we demonstrate two core applications: (1) surfacing policy ambiguity by revealing how annotators interpret safety instructions differently, and (2) surfacing value pluralism by uncovering systematic differences in safety priorities across demographic groups. Together, these capabilities support more targeted, transparent, and inclusive safety policy design.

Human evaluation remains the primary standard for assessing modern AI systems, yet annotator disagreement, bias, and variability make system rankings fragile under standard majority vote aggregation. Majority vote discards annotator reliability and item-level ambiguity, often yielding unstable comparisons across annotator subsets. We introduce STABLEVAL, a disagreement-aware evaluation framework that models latent item correctness and annotator-specific confusion patterns to produce posterior expected item credit and calibrated agent-level scores. Unlike label-denoising approaches such as Dawid-Skene, STABLEVAL is explicitly designed for stable and uncertainty-aware system evaluation rather than hard label recovery. We formalize ranking stability as a first-class evaluation objective and analyze how aggregation methods preserve or distort underlying annotator behavior. Across controlled synthetic experiments and multiple real-world human-annotated benchmarks, majority vote exhibits increasing score error and ranking instability under annotator heterogeneity and adversarial noise, while STABLEVAL yields more stable and statistically grounded system rankings. These results demonstrate that modeling disagreement is essential for robust and reproducible AI evaluation.

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.

Multimodal controversy detection (MCD) identifies controversial content in videos and their associated user comments, to support risk management for social video platforms.Prior research frames MCD as a static representation learning task, where features are directly extracted from videos and their accompanying comments. However, these methods fail to capture the diverse perspectives and evaluations from different audience groups. Inspired by the real-world process of content dissemination among audiences, we propose AuDisAgent, a training-free multi-agent framework that reformulates MCD as a dynamic propagation process.Our framework explicitly models audience dissemination through a structured multi-agent system. First, three specialized Screening Agents (Video Agent, Comment Agent, and Interaction Agent) conduct initial assessments from visual, textual, and cross-modal perspectives, respectively. For samples where the three agents cannot reach a consensus, a Viewing Panel Agent is activated to simulate post-screening discussions among audiences with diverse backgrounds and stances. This mechanism models how different audience groups interpret and react to the same content, uncovering latent controversial content that may emerge during the dissemination process. Finally, an Arbitration Agent renders the final judgment based on the complete reasoning chain from the preceding steps.In addition, to address the "cold-start" scenario where newly released videos have few or no comments, we design a Comment Bootstrapping Strategy that leverages historical public comments from semantically similar videos as the initial comment context. Extensive experiments on a public dataset demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods in both rich-comment and limited-comment scenarios.

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

We reframe clinician overrides of clinical AI recommendations as implicit preference data - the same signal structure exploited by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), but richer: the annotator is a domain expert, the alternatives carry real consequences, and downstream outcomes are observable. We present a formal framework extending standard preference learning with three contributions: a five-category override taxonomy mapping override types to distinct model update targets; a preference formulation conditioned on patient state s, organizational context c, and clinician capability kappa, where kappa decomposes into execution capability kappa-exec and alignment capability kappa-align; and a dual learning architecture that jointly trains a reward model and a capability model via alternating optimization, preventing a failure mode we term suppression bias-the systematic suppression of correct-but-difficult recommendations when clinician capability falls below the execution threshold. We argue that chronic disease management under outcome-based payment contracts produces override data with uniquely favorable properties-longitudinal density, concentrated decision space, outcome labels, and natural capability variation-and that training environments combining longitudinal outcome measurement with aligned financial incentives are a necessary condition for learning a reward model aligned with patient trajectory rather than with encounter economics. This framework emerged from operational work to improve clinician capability in a live value-based care deployment.

Human annotators frequently disagree on emotion labels, yet most evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) emotion annotation collapse these judgments into a single gold standard, discarding the distributional information that disagreement encodes. We ask whether LLMs capture the structure of this disagreement, not just majority labels, by comparing emotion judgment distributions between human annotators and four zero-shot LLMs, plus a fine-tuned RoBERTa baseline, across two complementary benchmarks: GoEmotions and EmoBank, totaling 640,000 LLM responses. Zero-shot models diverge substantially from human distributions, and in-domain fine-tuning, not model scale, is required to close the gap. We formalize a lexical-grounding gradient through a quantitative transparency score that predicts per-category human--LLM agreement: LLMs reliably capture emotions with explicit lexical markers but systematically fail on pragmatically complex emotions requiring contextual inference, a pattern that replicates across both categorical and continuous emotion frameworks. We further propose three lightweight post-hoc calibration methods that reduce the distributional gap by up to 14%, and provide actionable guidelines for when LLM emotion annotations can, and cannot, substitute for human labeling.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning tasks but remain unreliable on challenging instances. Existing test-time scaling methods, such as repeated sampling, self-correction, and tree search, improve performance at the cost of increased computation, yet often exhibit diminishing returns on hard problems. We observe that output disagreement is strongly correlated with instance difficulty and prediction correctness, providing a useful signal for guiding instance-level strategy selection at test time. Based on this insight, we propose a training-free framework that formulates test-time scaling as an instance-level routing problem, rather than allocating more computation within a single strategy, dynamically selecting among different scaling strategies based on output disagreement. The framework applies lightweight resolution for consistent cases, majority voting for moderate disagreement, and rewriting-based reformulation for highly ambiguous instances. Experiments on seven mathematical benchmarks and three models show that our method improves accuracy by 3% - 7% while reducing sampling cost compared to existing approaches.

Multi-agent deliberation systems using large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for policy simulation, yet they suffer from artificial consensus: evaluator agents converge on the same option regardless of their assigned value perspectives. We present the AI Council, a three-phase deliberation framework, and conduct 120 deliberations across two policy scenarios to test two interventions. First, architectural heterogeneity (assigning a different 7-9B parameter model to each value perspective) significantly reduces first-choice concentration compared to a homogeneous baseline (child welfare: 70.9% to 46.1%, p < 0.001, r = 0.58; housing: 46.0% to 22.9%, p < 0.001, r = 0.50). This contrasts with accuracy-oriented multi-agent debate, where heterogeneity does not reduce convergence, suggesting model diversity operates differently when no objectively correct answer exists. Second, coherence validation (using a frontier model to assess whether each evaluator's reasoning is grounded in its assigned values) reveals a fidelity-diversity tradeoff: on a scenario with a dominant option, it further reduces concentration (46.1% to 40.8%, p = 0.004), but on a scenario with genuinely competitive options, it increases concentration (22.9% to 26.6%, p = 0.96) by amplifying high-coherence evaluators who cluster on one option. This tradeoff may be a general property of multi-agent systems employing quality weighting. We report negative results from three failed Delphi designs, demonstrate that 8B models exhibit binary rather than graded responses to counter-arguments, and propose the trustworthy tension rate as a diagnostic measure of small-model deliberation capabilities.

Federated Learning (FL) typically assumes unconditional collaboration, a premise that overlooks the complexities of real-world, multi-stakeholder environments in which clients may need to exclude one another for strategic, regulatory, or competitive reasons. This paper addresses this gap, which we term 'client-level disagreements,' by first introducing a taxonomy of such scenarios. We then propose a robust, multi-track resolution strategy that guarantees strict client exclusion by creating and managing isolated model update paths ('tracks'), thereby preventing the cross-contamination and unfairness issues present in naive strategies. Through an empirical evaluation of our custom simulation system across 34 scenarios using the MNIST and N-CMAPSS datasets, we validate that our approach correctly handles permanent, temporal, and overlapping disagreement patterns. Our scalability analysis reveals the server-side resolution algorithm's overhead is negligible (<1 ms per round) even under heavy load. The primary scalability constraint is the client-side training load from participating in multiple tracks, a cost that we show can be effectively mitigated by a submodel reuse strategy. This work presents a scalable and architecturally sound method for managing client-level disagreements, and enhances the practical applicability of FL in settings where policy compliance and strategic control are non-negotiable.

Evaluating LLM-generated business ideas is often harder to scale than generating them. Unlike standard NLP benchmarks, business idea evaluation relies on multi-dimensional criteria such as feasibility, novelty, differentiation, user need, and market size, and expert judgments often disagree. This paper studies a methodological question raised by such disagreement: should an automatic judge approximate an aggregate consensus, or model evaluators individually? We introduce PBIG-DATA, a dataset of approximately 3,000 individual scores across 300 patent-grounded product ideas, provided by domain experts on six business-oriented dimensions: specificity, technical validity, innovativeness, competitive advantage, need validity, and market size. Analyses show substantial expert disagreement on fine-grained ordinal scores, while agreement is higher under coarse selection, suggesting structured heterogeneity rather than random noise. We then compare three judge configurations: a rubric-only zero-shot judge, an aggregate judge conditioned on mixed evaluator histories, and a personalized judge conditioned on the target evaluator's scoring history. Across dimensions and model sizes, personalized judges align more closely with the corresponding evaluator than aggregate judges, and evaluator agreement correlates with similarity of judge-generated reasoning only under personalized conditioning. These results indicate that pooled labels can be a fragile target in pluralistic evaluation settings and motivate evaluator-conditioned judge designs for business idea assessment.

Annotation pipelines in Natural Language Processing (NLP) commonly assume a single latent ground truth per instance and resolve disagreement through label aggregation. Perspectivist approaches challenge this view by treating disagreement as potentially informative rather than erroneous. We present a large-scale analysis of graded health-literacy annotations from 6,323 open-ended COVID-19 responses collected in Ecuador and Peru. Each response was independently labeled by multiple annotators using proportional correctness scores, reflecting the degree to which responses align with normative public-health guidelines, allowing us to analyze the full distribution of judgments rather than aggregated labels. Variance decomposition shows that question-level conceptual difficulty accounts for substantially more variance than annotator identity, indicating that disagreement is structured by the task itself rather than driven by individual raters. Agreement-stratified analyses further reveal that key social-scientific effects, including country, education, and urban-rural differences, vary in magnitude and in some cases reverse direction across levels of inter-annotator agreement. These findings suggest that graded health-literacy evaluation contains both epistemically stable and unstable components, and that aggregating across them can obscure important inferential differences. We therefore argue that strong perspectivist modeling is not only conceptually justified but statistically necessary for valid inference in graded interpretive tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident yet incorrect responses, and uncertainty quantification is one potential solution to more robust usage. Recent works routinely rely on self-consistency to estimate aleatoric uncertainty (AU), yet this proxy collapses when models are overconfident and produce the same incorrect answer across samples. We analyze this regime and show that cross-model semantic disagreement is higher on incorrect answers precisely when AU is low. Motivated by this, we introduce an epistemic uncertainty (EU) term that operates in the black-box access setting: EU uses only generated text from a small, scale-matched ensemble and is computed as the gap between inter-model and intra-model sequence-semantic similarity. We then define total uncertainty (TU) as the sum of AU and EU. In a comprehensive study across five 7-9B instruction-tuned models and ten long-form tasks, TU improves ranking calibration and selective abstention relative to AU, and EU reliably flags confident failures where AU is low. We further characterize when EU is most useful via agreement and complementarity diagnostics.

Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a \emph{schema-level diagnostic} for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas \emph{prior to} gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.

Applying computational methods to law at scale requires separating genuine legal reasoning from surface similarity. We study this through a concrete task: detecting implicit citations of the French Civil Code, where a court applies a statutory rule without naming it: a post-hoc question about the reasoning a court actually used. We release a benchmark of 1,015 passage-article pairs annotated by three legal experts. Our central finding is that their disagreement is itself informative: the third of cases the experts dispute are where models fail. Our best ensemble reaches an F1 score of 0.70 overall. Yet, two-thirds of its false positives fall on those disputed cases, a concentration that holds across all ten models we evaluate. Disagreement is a signal of intrinsic difficulty, not annotation noise. This should not block useful tools, however: reframed as top-$k$ ranking with multi-model consensus, the same signals reach 76% precision for the top-200 candidates without supervision.

Generalization bounds for deep learning models are typically vacuous, not computable or restricted to specific model classes. In this paper, we tackle these issues by providing new disagreement-based certificates for the gap between the true risk of any two predictors. We then bound the true risk of the predictor of interest via a surrogate model that enjoys tight generalization guarantees, and by evaluating our disagreement bound on an unlabeled dataset.We empirically demonstrate the tightness of the obtained certificates and showcase the versatility of the approach by training surrogate models leveraging three different frameworks: sample compression, model compression and PAC-Bayes theory. Importantly, such guarantees are achieved without modifying the target model, nor adapting the training procedure to the generalization framework.

Decentralized training is often regarded as inferior to centralized training because the consensus errors between workers are thought to undermine convergence and generalization. This work challenges this view by introducing decentralized SGD with Adaptive Consensus (DSGD-AC), which uses a time-dependent scaling mechanism to maintain consensus errors throughout the training. We show that adaptive consensus changes the stationary variance of disagreement modes by balancing two effects: it preserves consensus-error magnitude through weaker graph damping while still allowing curvature-dependent damping to shape the disagreement directions. This balance can produce a stronger Hessian-weighted loss-envelope penalty around the deployed model, even when normalized Hessian alignment is weaker than in standard DSGD. Empirical results on image classification show that DSGD-AC reaches flatter solutions and higher test accuracy than standard DSGD and even centralized SGD. Together, these results support consensus errors as a useful implicit regularizer and open a new perspective on the design of decentralized learning algorithms.

Reaching consensus on massive discussion networks is critical for reducing noise and achieving optimal collective outcomes. However, the natural tendency of humans to preserve their initial ideas constrains the emergence of global solutions. To address this, Collective Intelligence (CI) platforms facilitate the discovery of globally superior solutions. We introduce a dynamical system based on the standard $O(N)$ model to drive the aggregation of semantically similar ideas. The system consists of users represented as nodes in a $d=2$ lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions, where their ideas are represented by semantic vectors computed with a pretrained embedding model. We analyze the system's equilibrium states as a function of the coupling parameter $β$. Our results show that $β> 0$ drives the system toward a ferromagnetic-like phase (global consensus), while $β< 0$ induces an antiferromagnetic-like state (maximum dissent), where users maximize semantic distance from their neighbors. This framework offers a controllable method for managing the tradeoff between cohesion and diversity in CI platforms.

Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjective Task Learner framework (MC-STL), which clusters annotations into identifiable human value clusters by three approaches (similarity of annotator rationales, expert-value taxonomies or rater's sociocultural descriptors) and calibrates predictions for each value cluster by learning cluster-specific embeddings. We demonstrate MC-STL on several subjective learning settings, including ordinal, binary, and preference learning predictions, and evaluate it on multiple datasets covering toxic chatbot conversations, offensive social media posts, and human preference alignment. The results show that MC-STL consistently outperforms the baselines that ignore the latent value structure of the annotations, delivering gains in discrimination, value-specific calibration, and disagreement-aware metrics.

Shared accountability records are often used by parties who may never agree about causation, responsibility, or normative interpretation. For such records, neutrality cannot be achieved by omitting contested information, because accountability requires preserving the claims parties made, with their sources and provenance. Nor can neutrality be achieved by asserting one contested interpretation as the shared base. This paper defines a neutral substrate as a shared representational layer that provides stable reference while making no object-level substrate-layer commitments to causal or normative propositions. The central design constraint is that, when causal and normative propositions are contestable across admissible frameworks and the substrate's referential commitments are common ground, the substrate's neutrality is guaranteed at design time if and only if its foundational layer is restricted to those referential commitments and attribution propositions whose attributional basis is fixed by them. Causal and normative content may still be represented, but not as object-level foundational-layer commitments: it may appear there only as the content of attributed assertions with provenance, made by some identified framework, source, agent, institution, record, or document. The representational machinery used here is standard: reification, attribution, and provenance. The contribution is the constraint: a checkable condition on the foundational layer of a shared record, stated together with the assumptions it depends on and the boundary condition under which the constraint does not apply. A neutral substrate says enough to preserve accountability, but it does not turn one party's interpretation into an object-level substrate-layer commitment. The constraint does not apply at that layer when the referential regime or attributional basis is contested among the frameworks in play.

Annotators routinely disagree on laughter boundaries and subtle chuckles, yet temporal laughter localization typically evaluates against a single reference annotation. We show that this disagreement is structured rather than random noise. Re-annotating the SMILE-Temporal benchmark (672 videos, 1,683 events) with 3-5 annotators per video (alpha = 0.757), we find systematic patterns: disagreement is 1.73 times larger at offsets than onsets, far more common for chuckles than full laughs (77% vs. 20%), and predictable from event attributes (AUC = 0.831). Evaluating against a single annotator breaks down under this structure: system scores shift by 0.246 F1 depending on the chosen ground truth, correctly ranking systems only 69.7% of the time (vs. 80% against all annotators). We propose a disagreement-calibrated evaluation that scores predictions against the full annotator distribution using conformally calibrated tolerance bands (wider at offsets, 0.727s, than onsets, 0.5s). The per-annotator annotations and analysis code are available at https://github.com/WSCSports/MTLLFM-temporal-laughter-localization.