When annotators disagree on a label, the disagreement itself carries signal—and the number of annotators needed to capture it depends on the evaluation metric. We fine-tune NLI models on label distributions subsampled from ChaosNLI, a dataset providing 100 independent annotator judgments per item, and identify metric-dependent saturation. In our 3-class NLI setting, entropy correlation—whether the model identifies which items elicit disagreement—requires N ≈ 20–50 annotators to converge, while distributional match (KL divergence) saturates by N ≈ 10 (87–95% of improvement across five model seeds). This finding rests on a prior observation: soft labels carry item-specific signal that label smoothing cannot replicate. Across five smoothing intensities, entropy correlation clusters at r ≈ 0.45–0.49, while soft labels reach r = 0.643 (p < 0.001); per-item analysis traces this gap to smoothing’s inability to distinguish ambiguous items from clear ones. The soft-label advantage replicates across two architectures (DeBERTa, RoBERTa), a non-NLI-pretrained baseline, and an exploratory cross-domain evaluation on content safety. These results suggest that annotation budgets should be informed by the target evaluation metric rather than set uniformly.

Discover opportunities in Machine Learning.

Our research in machine learning breaks new ground every day.

Work with us