Nishtha N. Vaidya | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Ontology-Grounded, Reasoner-Verified Benchmarks for Evaluating LLM Reasoning in Scientific AI

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly underpin scientific AI applications that reason over structured knowledge, from biomedical question answering to materials informatics. However, their logical reasoning often falls short, producing factual inaccuracies unacceptable in these settings. Reliable evaluation remains challenging: manual dataset construction scales poorly, and LLM-based generation risks embedding the very flaws it aims to measure. High-quality benchmarks must ground both correct and incorrect labelled examples in explicit background knowledge, formally verifiable by a standard reasoner. We propose a pipeline that automatically generates ontology-grounded multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks from any sufficiently axiomatised OWL 2 ontology, with correct answers grounded in the ontology by design. Distractors are generated by perturbing the right-hand-side class expressions of class definition axioms, and their incorrectness is formally verified by an OWL reasoner via entailment checks. We evaluate the pipeline on three ontologies: Pizza (small, academic), PMDco (complex, materials science), and DOID (large, biomedical), generating 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs respectively. Distractors span four semantic categories from class unsatisfiability to weakened subsumptions, enabling diagnostic evaluation of specific reasoning failures. Items meet natural language quality standards: mean LLM judge scores of 4.02, 4.36, and 3.36 out of 5 confirm fluency, and correct-answer-to-distractor similarity above 0.8 shows that wrong options cannot be dismissed on surface form alone. Six LLMs evaluated zero-shot achieve 41.1-76.8% accuracy, well above the 25% random-guessing baseline, indicating the benchmarks are challenging and discriminative. This work is a step towards more reliable benchmarks for assessing logical reasoning in scientific AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Conceptual In-Context Learning and Chain of Concepts: Solving Complex Conceptual Problems Using Large Language Models

Science and engineering problems fall in the category of complex conceptual problems that require specific conceptual information (CI) like math/logic -related know-how, process information, or engineering guidelines to solve them. Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising agents to solve such complex conceptual problems due to their implications in advancing engineering and science tasks like assisted problem-solving. But vanilla LLMs, trained on open-world data, lack the necessary CI. In this work, we specifically explore shallow customization methods (SCMs) of LLMs for solving complex conceptual problems. We propose two novel SCM algorithms for LLM, to augment LLMs with CI and enable LLMs to solve complex conceptual problems: Conceptual In-Context Learning (C-ICL) and Chain of Concepts (CoC). The problem tackled in this paper is generation of proprietary data models in the engineering/industry domain based on conceptual information in data modelling guidelines. We evaluate our algorithms on varied sizes of the OpenAI LLMs against four evaluation metrics related to syntactic and semantic correctness, time and cost incurred. The proposed algorithms perform better than currently popular LLM SCMs like In-context Learning (ICL) and Chain of Thoughts (CoT). It was observed that as compared to CoT, response correctness increased by 30.6% and 29.88% for the new SCMs C-ICL and CoC respectively. Qualitative analysis suggests that the proposed new SCMs activate emergent capabilities in LLMs, previously unobserved in the existing SCMs. They make problem-solving processes more transparent and reduce hallucinations and the tendency of model responses to copy examples from prompts (parroting).

cs.CL↗