CORE: Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06446v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 07:16:33 GMT
• Title: CORE: Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation for Large Language Models
• Authors: Satyam Dwivedi, Sanjukta Ghosh, Shivam Dwivedi, Nishi Kumari, Anil Thakur, Anurag Purushottam, Deepak Alok, Praveen Gatla, Manjuprasad B, Bipasha Patgiri,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on many reasoning benchmarks, yet existing evaluations rarely assess their ability to distinguish between meaningful semantic relations and genuine unrelatedness.<n>We introduce CORE (Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation), a dataset of 225K multiple-choice questions spanning 74 disciplines.<n>A human baseline from 1,000+ participants achieves 92.6% accuracy (95.1% on unrelated pairs)
• Score: 0.9668495520241466
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on many reasoning benchmarks, yet existing evaluations rarely assess their ability to distinguish between meaningful semantic relations and genuine unrelatedness. We introduce CORE (Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation), a dataset of 225K multiple-choice questions spanning 74 disciplines, together with a general-domain open-source benchmark of 203 rigorously validated questions (Cohen's Kappa = 1.0) covering 24 semantic relation types with equal representation of unrelated pairs. A human baseline from 1,000+ participants achieves 92.6% accuracy (95.1% on unrelated pairs). In contrast, 29 state-of-the-art LLMs achieve 48.25-70.9% overall accuracy, with near-ceiling performance on related pairs (86.5-100%) but severe degradation on unrelated pairs (0-41.35%), despite assigning similar confidence (92-94%). Expected Calibration Error increases 2-4x on unrelated pairs, and a mean semantic collapse rate of 37.6% indicates systematic generation of spurious relations. On the CORE 225K MCQs dataset, accuracy further drops to approximately 2%, highlighting substantial challenges in domain-specific semantic reasoning. We identify unrelatedness reasoning as a critical, under-evaluated frontier for LLM evaluation and safety.

Related papers

• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• EdgeJury: Cross-Reviewed Small-Model Ensembles for Truthful Question Answering on Serverless Edge Inference [0.0]
  We present EdgeJury, a lightweight ensemble framework that improves truthfulness and robustness.<n>On TruthfulQA (MC1), EdgeJury achieves 76.2% accuracy.<n>On a 200-question adversarial EdgeCases set, EdgeJury yields +48.2% relative gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T14:48:40Z)
• Beyond Mimicry: Preference Coherence in LLMs [0.19116784879310025]
  We investigate whether large language models exhibit genuine preference structures by testing their responses to AI-specific trade-offs.<n>We find 23 combinations (47.9%) demonstrated statistically significant relationships between scenario intensity and choice patterns.<n>Only 5 combinations (10.4%) demonstrate meaningful preference coherence through adaptive or threshold-based behavior.<n>The prevalence of unstable transitions (45.8%) and stimulus-specific sensitivities suggests current AI systems lack unified preference structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T17:41:48Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• MedOmni-45°: A Safety-Performance Benchmark for Reasoning-Oriented LLMs in Medicine [69.08855631283829]
  We introduce Med Omni-45 Degrees, a benchmark designed to quantify safety-performance trade-offs under manipulative hint conditions.<n>It contains 1,804 reasoning-focused medical questions across six specialties and three task types, including 500 from MedMCQA.<n>Results show a consistent safety-performance trade-off, with no model surpassing the diagonal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:38:16Z)
• An Auditable Pipeline for Fuzzy Full-Text Screening in Systematic Reviews: Integrating Contrastive Semantic Highlighting and LLM Judgment [0.0]
  Full-text screening is the major bottleneck of systematic reviews.<n>We present a scalable, auditable pipeline that reframes inclusion/exclusion as a fuzzy decision problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T17:41:50Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)
• Multi-head attention debiasing and contrastive learning for mitigating Dataset Artifacts in Natural Language Inference [0.0]
  We develop a novel structural debiasing approach for Natural Language Inference models.<n>Our approach reduces the error rate from 14.19% to 10.42% while maintaining high performance on unbiased examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-16T17:12:21Z)
• Common 7B Language Models Already Possess Strong Math Capabilities [61.61442513067561]
  This paper shows that the LLaMA-2 7B model with common pre-training already exhibits strong mathematical abilities. The potential for extensive scaling is constrained by the scarcity of publicly available math questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T18:00:40Z)

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.