# Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.05036 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05036/

## Key facts

- Cited by 52 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jan 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.08237/) (2019)
- [ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.11942/) (2019)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03891/) (2019)
- [Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05719/) (2021)
- [Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.07997/) (2021)
- [Social Chemistry 101: Learning to Reason about Social and Moral Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.00620/) (2020)
- [MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.01640/) (2021)
- [On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05699/) (2021)
- [Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.02950/) (2022)
- [A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1306.6078/) (2013)
- [Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.09094/) (2020)
- [DynaSent: A Dynamic Benchmark for Sentiment Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15349/) (2020)
- [Hate Speech and Counter Speech Detection: Conversational Context Does Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.06423/) (2022)
- [Explainable Agreement through Simulation for Tasks with Subjective Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.05004/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 52)

- [NLPositionality: Characterizing Design Biases of Datasets and Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01943/) (2023)
- [When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06626/) (2023)
- [Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07034/) (2023)
- [QuestBench: Can LLMs ask the right question to acquire information in reasoning tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22674/) (2025)
- [When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06826/) (2023)
- [The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05860/) (2024)
- [Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20897/) (2025)
- [Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09743/) (2023)
- [Disentangling Perceptions of Offensiveness: Cultural and Moral Correlates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06861/) (2023)
- [On Diversified Preferences of Large Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07401/) (2023)
- [Regularized Best-of-N Sampling with Minimum Bayes Risk Objective for Language Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01054/) (2024)
- [Under the Surface: Tracking the Artifactuality of LLM-Generated Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14698/) (2024)
- [Annotation alignment: Comparing LLM and human annotations of conversational safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06369/) (2024)
- [Sociocultural Norm Similarities and Differences via Situational Alignment and Explainable Textual Entailment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14492/) (2023)
- [Beyond Consensus: Perspectivist Modeling and Evaluation of Annotator Disagreement in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09065/) (2026)
- [Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06865/) (2026)
- [Don't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04085/) (2024)
- [Does Cross-Cultural Alignment Change the Commonsense Morality of Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16316/) (2024)
- [CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10823/) (2025)
- [Modeling Annotator Disagreement with Demographic-Aware Experts and Synthetic Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.02853/) (2025)
- [Leveraging Annotator Disagreement for Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.17577/) (2024)
- [NUTMEG: Separating Signal From Noise in Annotator Disagreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18890/) (2025)
- [Evaluating how LLM annotations represent diverse views on contentious topics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23243/) (2025)
- [What is Stigma Attributed to? A Theory-Grounded, Expert-Annotated Interview Corpus for Demystifying Mental-Health Stigma](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12727/) (2025)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Investigating Error Types in GPT-4 Responses to USMLE Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13307/) (2024)
- [PluriHarms: Benchmarking the Full Spectrum of Human Judgments on AI Harm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08951/) (2026)
- [VideoNorms: Benchmarking Cultural Awareness of Video Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.08543/) (2025)
- [Unveiling the Multi-Annotation Process: Examining the Influence of Annotation Quantity and Instance Difficulty on Model Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14572/) (2023)
- [Annotation-Efficient Language Model Alignment via Diverse and Representative Response Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13541/) (2024)
- [A Collaborative Content Moderation Framework for Toxicity Detection based on Conformalized Estimates of Annotation Disagreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04090/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In NLP annotation, it is common to have multiple annotators label the text and then obtain the ground truth labels based on the agreement of major annotators. However, annotators are individuals with different backgrounds, and minors' opinions should not be simply ignored. As annotation tasks become subjective and topics are controversial in modern NLP tasks, we need NLP systems that can represent people's diverse voices on subjective matters and predict the level of diversity. This paper examines whether the text of the task and annotators' demographic background information can be used to estimate the level of disagreement among annotators. Particularly, we extract disagreement labels from the annotators' voting histories in the five subjective datasets, and then fine-tune language models to predict annotators' disagreement. Our results show that knowing annotators' demographic information, like gender, ethnicity, and education level, helps predict disagreements. In order to distinguish the disagreement from the inherent controversy from text content and the disagreement in the annotators' different perspectives, we simulate everyone's voices with different combinations of annotators' artificial demographics and examine its variance of the finetuned disagreement predictor. Our paper aims to improve the annotation process for more efficient and inclusive NLP systems through a novel disagreement prediction mechanism. Our code and dataset are publicly available.