Papers › On the Ambiguity of Rank-Based Evaluation of Entity Alignment or Link Prediction Methods

On the Ambiguity of Rank-Based Evaluation of Entity Alignment or Link Prediction Methods

17 Feb 2020arXiv:2002.06914archive 2025-07-28

Max Berrendorf, Evgeniy Faerman, Laurent Vermue, Volker Tresp

In this work, we take a closer look at the evaluation of two families of methods for enriching information from knowledge graphs: Link Prediction and Entity Alignment. In the current experimental setting, multiple different scores are employed to assess different aspects of model performance. We analyze the informativeness of these evaluation measures and identify several shortcomings. In particular, we demonstrate that all existing scores can hardly be used to compare results across different datasets. Moreover, we demonstrate that varying size of the test size automatically has impact on the performance of the same model based on commonly used metrics for the Entity Alignment task. We show that this leads to various problems in the interpretation of results, which may support misleading conclusions. Therefore, we propose adjustments to the evaluation and demonstrate empirically how this supports a fair, comparable, and interpretable assessment of model performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/mberr/rank-based-evaluation.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

11 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 11 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from mberr/rank-based-evaluation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections