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

Abstract

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.