When Metrics Disagree: A Meta-Analysis of Knowledge-Graph-Completion Model Benchmarking

Evaluating Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) models remains challenging because standard assessment relies on isolated rank-based metrics such as MRR, Hits$@$k, and Mean Rank, which often produce conflicting model orderings across datasets. A model that leads on MRR may trail on Hits@1, and strong performance on one dataset may not generalize to another. This fragmentation hinders comparison, enables selective reporting, and obscures real progress. We reframe KGC evaluation as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and present a meta-analysis of seven aggregators across five tests: consistency, cross-dataset stability, metric independence, robustness under noise, and generalizability. Each test is averaged over leave-one-model-out (LOMO) and leave-one-group-out (LOGO) removals so that reliability reflects aggregator behavior across diverse model subsets. Across tail $(h,r,?)$ and relation $(h,?,t)$ prediction, Pareto-optimal analysis identifies Z-score as the most balanced aggregator, which ranks DualE highest for tail prediction and FMS (Flow-Modulated Scoring) highest for relation prediction. A test-sensitivity analysis using the same removals shows that consistency and stability are largely removal-invariant, while generalizability and independence are the most sensitive. The framework resolves evaluation inconsistencies and offers evidence-based guidance for aggregator selection and model benchmarking in KGC.

Link Prediction or Perdition: the Seeds of Instability in Knowledge Graph Embeddings

Embedding models (KGEMs) constitute the main link prediction approach to complete knowledge graphs. Standard evaluation protocols emphasize rank-based metrics such as MRR or Hits@$K$, but usually overlook the influence of random seeds on result stability. Moreover, these metrics conceal potential instabilities in individual predictions and in the organization of embedding spaces. In this work, we conduct a systematic stability analysis of multiple KGEMs across several datasets. We find that high-performance models actually produce divergent predictions at the triple level and highly variable embedding spaces. By isolating stochastic factors (i.e., initialization, triple ordering, negative sampling, dropout, hardware), we show that each independently induces instability of comparable magnitude. Furthermore, for a given model, hyperparameter configurations with better MRR are not guaranteed to be more stable. Moreover, voting, albeit a known remediation mechanism, only provides a limited enhancement of stability. These findings highlight critical limitations of current benchmarking protocols, and raise concerns about the reliability of KGEMs for knowledge graph completion.