Abstract
Entity Alignment (EA) identifies equivalent entities across knowledge graphs and is critical for knowledge base integration and ontology merging. Evaluating EA systems at scale requires expensive expert annotation, making systematic assessment across diverse domains practically infeasible. LLM-as-judge evaluation offers a potentially scalable alternative, yet its reliability for structured prediction tasks like EA remains unstudied. We present the first systematic benchmarking study across three frontier models, three datasets, and four EA systems, using perturbation bias diagnostics, meta-evaluation across all dataset--judge--prompt combinations, and counterfactual label-flip tests. We identify anchor bias, a failure mode in which judges invert discrimination when the system's decision label is visible. Judge discrimination collapses under label-exposing prompts (J-ROC-AUC 0.12--0.87), while a label-free protocol recovers near-ceiling capability on distinctive-name datasets (0.98--1.00 for NeuSymEA) and significant recovery on biomedical pairs (0.93--0.95). Counterfactual label flips show that the visible label causally shifts scores by more than 2 points in 53--99% of pairs (FSR), with sensitivity growing with model capability, a pattern we call the frontier model paradox: stronger judges are more label-sensitive, not less, yet also better label-free predictors. The direction of the shifts is mixed, so we report this as an observed pattern. A blinded two-annotator human evaluation (102 pairs, Cohen's $\kappa$ = 0.902) provides a gold-label reference. We release the first biomedical EA benchmark (MeSH--SNOMED CT, 15K pairs) and a reproducible auditing framework for LLM judge reliability in EA. Code and data are available at this https URL.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09554
