arXiv · 2606.28772
Majority Vote Silences Minority Values: Annotator Disagreement at the Hate/Offensive Boundary in HateXplain
Abstract
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.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Joshua Muhumuza, Joab Ezra Agaba, Mercy Amiyo. 2026-06-27. Majority Vote Silences Minority Values: Annotator Disagreement at the Hate/Offensive Boundary in HateXplain. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28772
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.