aiqbench analysis
This study exposes a critical flaw in using LLMs to evaluate AI systems for entity alignment, revealing that visible labels cause judges to invert their discrimination due to anchor bias. The research demonstrates that stronger models are paradoxically more susceptible to this sensitivity, necessitating label-free protocols to recover near-ceiling performance capabilities. By releasing the first biomedical benchmark and an auditing framework, the authors provide essential tools for validating structured prediction tasks without relying on unreliable automated judges.
Reliability of LLM Judges for Evaluating Entity Alignment
arXiv:2610.09554v1 Announce Type: new 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. Label exposure causally collapses judge discrimination (J-ROC-AUC 0.12-0.87), while a label-free protocol recovers near-ceiling capability on distinctive-name datasets (0.93-1.00) and significant recovery on biomedical pairs (0.93-0.95). Counterfactual experiments confirm causality (FSR 53-99%) and reveal a frontier model paradox: stronger judges exhibit greater label sensitivity, not less. A blinded two-annotator human evaluation (102 pairs, Cohen's kappa=0.902) confirms this mechanism directly. 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 https://github.com/vaibhavalakshmiravideshik/llm-as-a-judge-entity-alignment.
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. Label exposure causally collapses judge discrimination (J-ROC-AUC 0.12-0.87), while a label-free protocol recovers near-ceiling capability on distinctive-name datasets (0.93-1.00) and significant recovery on biomedical pairs (0.93-0.95). Counterfactual experiments confirm causality (FSR 53-99%) and reveal a frontier model paradox: stronger judges exhibit greater label sensitivity, not less. A blinded two-annotator human evaluation (102 pairs, Cohen's kappa=0.902) confirms this mechanism directly. 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.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.09554 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.09554v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09554 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 287 words
Related coverage

Implementing and Evaluating a Basic Per-Action Monitor for Safer Evals
METR · Sep 27, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026