SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2512.05594

Ontology Learning with LLMs: A Benchmark Study on Axiom Identification

Abstract

Ontologies are an important tool for structuring domain knowledge, but their development is a complex task that requires significant modelling and domain expertise. Ontology learning, aimed at automating this process, has seen advancements in the past decade with the improvement of Natural Language Processing techniques, and especially with the recent growth of Large Language Models (LLMs). This paper investigates the challenge of identifying axioms: fundamental ontology components that define logical relations between classes and properties. In this work, we introduce an Ontology Axiom Benchmark OntoAxiom, and systematically test LLMs on that benchmark for axiom identification, evaluating different prompting strategies, ontologies, and axiom types. The benchmark consists of nine medium-sized ontologies with together 17.118 triples, and 2.771 axioms. We focus on subclass, disjoint, subproperty, domain, and range axioms. To evaluate LLM performance, we compare twelve LLMs with three shot settings and two prompting strategies: a Direct approach where we query all axioms at once, versus an Axiom-by-Axiom (AbA) approach, where each prompt queries for one axiom only. Our findings show that the AbA prompting leads to higher F1 scores than the direct approach. However, performance varies across axioms, suggesting that certain axioms are more challenging to identify. The domain also influences performance: the FOAF ontology achieves a score of 0.642 for the subclass axiom, while the music ontology reaches only 0.218. Larger LLMs outperform smaller ones, but smaller models may still be viable for resource-constrained settings. Although performance overall is not high enough to fully automate axiom identification, LLMs can provide valuable candidate axioms to support ontology engineers with the development and refinement of ontologies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Roos M. Bakker, Daan L. Di Scala, Maaike H. T. de Boer, Stephan A. Raaijmakers. 2025-12-05. Ontology Learning with LLMs: A Benchmark Study on Axiom Identification. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05594

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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