A Comparative Study of Competency Question Elicitation Methods from Ontology Requirements

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02989v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:49:30 GMT
• Title: A Comparative Study of Competency Question Elicitation Methods from Ontology Requirements
• Authors: Reham Alharbi, Valentina Tamma, Terry R. Payne, Jacopo de Berardinis,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents an empirical evaluation of three distinct CQ formulation approaches.<n>We generate CQs using each approach from a set of requirements for cultural heritage.<n>We assess them across different dimensions: degree of acceptability, ambiguity, relevance, complexity and readability.
• Score: 0.22499166814992444
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Competency Questions (CQs) are pivotal in knowledge engineering, guiding the design, validation, and testing of ontologies. A number of diverse formulation approaches have been proposed in the literature, ranging from completely manual to Large Language Model (LLM) driven ones. However, attempts to characterise the outputs of these approaches and their systematic comparison are scarce. This paper presents an empirical comparative evaluation of three distinct CQ formulation approaches: manual formulation by ontology engineers, instantiation of CQ patterns, and generation using state of the art LLMs. We generate CQs using each approach from a set of requirements for cultural heritage, and assess them across different dimensions: degree of acceptability, ambiguity, relevance, readability and complexity. Our contribution is twofold: (i) the first multi-annotator dataset of CQs generated from the same source using different methods; and (ii) a systematic comparison of the characteristics of the CQs resulting from each approach. Our study shows that different CQ generation approaches have different characteristics and that LLMs can be used as a way to initially elicit CQs, however these are sensitive to the model used to generate CQs and they generally require a further refinement step before they can be used to model requirements.

Related papers

• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making.<n>With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems.<n>We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for LLMs through Minimum Bayes Risk: Bridging Confidence and Consistency [66.96286531087549]
  Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) encompass a variety of approaches.<n>We propose a novel approach to integrating model confidence with output consistency, resulting in a family of efficient and robust UQ methods.<n>We evaluate our approach across various tasks such as question answering, abstractive summarization, and machine translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T14:30:12Z)
• Discerning and Characterising Types of Competency Questions for Ontologies [0.4757470449749875]
  Competency Questions (CQs) are widely used in ontology development by guiding, among others, the scoping and validation stages.<n>Very limited guidance exists for formulating CQs and assessing whether they are good CQs, leading to issues such as ambiguity and unusable formulations.<n>This paper contributes to such theoretical foundations by analysing questions, their uses, and the myriad of development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T10:26:29Z)
• AGENT-CQ: Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Clarifying Questions for Conversational Search with LLMs [53.6200736559742]
  AGENT-CQ consists of two stages: a generation stage and an evaluation stage. CrowdLLM simulates human crowdsourcing judgments to assess generated questions and answers. Experiments on the ClariQ dataset demonstrate CrowdLLM's effectiveness in evaluating question and answer quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T17:06:27Z)
• VerifierQ: Enhancing LLM Test Time Compute with Q-Learning-based Verifiers [7.7705926659081275]
  VerifierQ is a novel approach that integrates Offline Q-learning into verifier models. We address three key challenges in applying Q-learning to LLMs. Our method enables parallel Q-value computation and improving training efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T15:43:55Z)
• A RAG Approach for Generating Competency Questions in Ontology Engineering [1.0044270899550196]
  With the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs), there arises the possibility to automate and enhance this process.<n>We present a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach that uses LLMs for the automatic generation of CQs.<n>We conduct experiments using GPT-4 on two domain engineering tasks and compare results against ground-truth CQs constructed by domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T13:34:32Z)
• Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph [83.90988015005934]
  Uncertainty quantification is a key element of machine learning applications.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark that implements a collection of state-of-the-art UQ baselines.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical investigation of UQ and normalization techniques across eleven tasks, identifying the most effective approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T20:06:31Z)
• An Experiment in Retrofitting Competency Questions for Existing Ontologies [0.0]
  Inspecting CQs together with the axioms provides critical insights into the scope and applicability of the CQs. CQs are integral to the majority of engineering methodologies, but the practice of publishing CQs alongside the on artefacts is not widely observed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T08:57:39Z)
• DQ-LoRe: Dual Queries with Low Rank Approximation Re-ranking for In-Context Learning [66.85379279041128]
  In this study, we introduce a framework that leverages Dual Queries and Low-rank approximation Re-ranking to automatically select exemplars for in-context learning. DQ-LoRe significantly outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods in the automatic selection of exemplars for GPT-4, enhancing performance from 92.5% to 94.2%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T16:44:37Z)
• An Empirical Comparison of LM-based Question and Answer Generation Methods [79.31199020420827]
  Question and answer generation (QAG) consists of generating a set of question-answer pairs given a context. In this paper, we establish baselines with three different QAG methodologies that leverage sequence-to-sequence language model (LM) fine-tuning. Experiments show that an end-to-end QAG model, which is computationally light at both training and inference times, is generally robust and outperforms other more convoluted approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T14:59:53Z)
• Generating Diverse and Consistent QA pairs from Contexts with Information-Maximizing Hierarchical Conditional VAEs [62.71505254770827]
  We propose a conditional variational autoencoder (HCVAE) for generating QA pairs given unstructured texts as contexts. Our model obtains impressive performance gains over all baselines on both tasks, using only a fraction of data for training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-28T08:26:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.