Metadata Predictability Is Not Evidence Dependence: An Intervention-Based Audit for Weak-Label Benchmarks

Evaluation in machine learning is typically treated as a neutral measurement process. However, in operational information systems, evaluation outcomes are often conditioned by the processes used to generate labels. This paper does not seek to improve classification performance. Instead, it examines the validity of performance measurement under differing label-authority regimes. This issue is particularly relevant in large-scale metadata-driven systems, where labels are often incomplete, inconsistent, or weakly supervised. We introduce evaluation sovereignty, defined as the degree to which performance metrics are independent of label authority and supervision regime, and propose a multi-track evaluation framework that systematically varies training and evaluation label sources. Using hierarchical multi-label classification on large-scale scientific metadata, we demonstrate that models exhibiting strong performance under operational ("silver") evaluation degrade substantially under independent ("gold") evaluation, particularly for fine-grained classification. For example, Micro-F1 decreases from approximately 0.54 to 0.03. Notably, ranking-based metrics remain above baseline, revealing a divergence between latent model signal and classification validity. These findings suggest that commonly reported performance metrics may reflect alignment with labeling processes rather than true predictive capability. We therefore reconceptualize evaluation validity as a system-level property shaped by label governance and provide a practical methodology for auditing intelligent systems operating under weak supervision.

LLM benchmark labels are frozen at release and silently propagated into downstream benchmarks, errors and all. We introduce an Item Response Theory-based indicator that surfaces likely mislabels at 95% precision in the top 200 examples across seven preference and multiple-choice benchmarks using responses from 114 models, outperforming a supervised classifier. We trace these errors to mechanical labeling heuristics, upstream annotation mistakes inherited unchanged from source datasets, and fundamentally ambiguous items without a defensible single label. The same model fit reveals that reward models specialize in stylistic preference rather than factual knowledge, and identifies one frontier reward model that agrees with detected mislabels at 78% accuracy versus 38% for its peers, consistent with benchmark contamination or benchmark-specific over-optimization.

Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce FORCEBENCH, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8--36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.