When in Doubt, Consult: Expert Debate for Sexism Detection via Confidence-Based Routin

Sexist content online increasingly appears in subtle, context-dependent forms that evade traditional detection methods. Its interpretation often depends on overlapping linguistic, psychological, legal, and cultural dimensions, which produce mixed and sometimes contradictory signals, even in annotated datasets. These inconsistencies, combined with label scarcity and class imbalance, result in unstable decision boundaries and cause fine-tuned models to overlook subtler, underrepresented forms of harm. Together, these limitations point to the need for a design that explicitly addresses the combined effects of (i) underrepresentation, (ii) noise, and (iii) conceptual ambiguity in both data and model predictions. To address these challenges, we propose a two-stage framework that unifies (i) targeted training procedures to adapt supervision to scarce and noisy data with (ii) selective, reasoning-based inference to handle ambiguous or borderline cases. Our training setup applies class-balanced focal loss, class-aware batching, and post-hoc threshold calibration to mitigate label imbalance and noisy supervision. At inference time, a dynamic routing mechanism classifies high-confidence cases directly and escalates uncertain instances to a novel \textit{Collaborative Expert Judgment} (CEJ) module, which prompts multiple personas and consolidates their reasoning through a judge model. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results across several benchmarks, with F1 gains of +4.48% and +1.30% on EDOS Tasks A and B, respectively, and a +2.79% improvement in ICM on EXIST 2025 Task 1.1.