Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1705.10219

Automatic White-Box Testing of First-Order Logic Ontologies

Javier Álvez·Montserrat Hermo·Paqui Lucio·German Rigau
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Formal ontologies are axiomatizations in a logic-based formalism. The development of formal ontologies, and their important role in the Semantic Web area, is generating considerable research on the use of automated reasoning techniques and tools that help in ontology engineering. One of the main aims is to refine and to improve axiomatizations for enabling automated reasoning tools to efficiently infer reliable information. Defects in the axiomatization can not only cause wrong inferences, but can also hinder the inference of expected information, either by increasing the computational cost of, or even preventing, the inference. In this paper, we introduce a novel, fully automatic white-box testing framework for first-order logic ontologies. Our methodology is based on the detection of inference-based redundancies in the given axiomatization. The application of the proposed testing method is fully automatic since a) the automated generation of tests is guided only by the syntax of axioms and b) the evaluation of tests is performed by automated theorem provers. Our proposal enables the detection of defects and serves to certify the grade of suitability --for reasoning purposes-- of every axiom. We formally define the set of tests that are generated from any axiom and prove that every test is logically related to redundancies in the axiom from which the test has been generated. We have implemented our method and used this implementation to automatically detect several non-trivial defects that were hidden in various first-order logic ontologies. Throughout the paper we provide illustrative examples of these defects, explain how they were found, and how each proof --given by an automated theorem-prover-- provides useful hints on the nature of each defect. Additionally, by correcting all the detected defects, we have obtained an improved version of one of the tested ontologies: Adimen-SUMO.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Javier Álvez, Montserrat Hermo, Paqui Lucio, German Rigau. 2017-05-29. Automatic White-Box Testing of First-Order Logic Ontologies. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10219

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗