Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2002.03842

Overview of chemical ontologies

Christian Pachl·Nils Frank·Jan Breitbart·Stefan Bräse
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Ontologies order and interconnect knowledge of a certain field in a formal and semantic way so that they are machine-parsable. They try to define allwhere acceptable definition of concepts and objects, classify them, provide properties as well as interconnect them with relations (e.g. "A is a special case of B"). More precisely, Tom Gruber defines Ontologies as a "specification of a conceptualization; [...] a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents." [1] An Ontology is made of Individuals which are organized in Classes. Both can have Attributes and Relations among themselves. Some complex Ontologies define Restrictions, Rules and Events which change attributes or relations. To be computer accessible they are written in certain ontology languages, like the OBO language or the more used Common Algebraic Specification Language. With the rising of a digitalized, interconnected and globalized world, where common standards have to be found, ontologies are of great interest. [2] Yet, the development of chemical ontologies is in the beginning. Indeed, some interesting basic approaches towards chemical ontologies can be found, but nevertheless they suffer from two main flaws. Firstly, we found that they are mostly only fragmentary completed or are still in an architecture state. Secondly, apparently no chemical ontology is widespread accepted. Therefore, we herein try to describe the major ontology-developments in the chemical related fields Ontologies about chemical analytical methods, Ontologies about name reactions and Ontologies about scientific units.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Christian Pachl, Nils Frank, Jan Breitbart, Stefan Bräse. 2020-02-07. Overview of chemical ontologies. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03842

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↗