From Subsumption to Satisfiability: LLM-Assisted Active Learning for OWL Ontologies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16672v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:05:30 GMT
• Title: From Subsumption to Satisfiability: LLM-Assisted Active Learning for OWL Ontologies
• Abstract summary: In active learning, membership queries (MQs) allow a learner to pose questions to a teacher.<n>We reformulate each candidate axiom into its corresponding counter-concept and verbalise it in controlled natural language.<n>We introduce Large Language Models (LLMs) as a third component that provides real-world examples approximating an instance of the counter-concept.
• Score: 1.1351175212666613
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In active learning, membership queries (MQs) allow a learner to pose questions to a teacher, such as ''Is every apple a fruit?'', to which the teacher responds correctly with yes or no. These MQs can be viewed as subsumption tests with respect to the target ontology. Inspired by the standard reduction of subsumption to satisfiability in description logics, we reformulate each candidate axiom into its corresponding counter-concept and verbalise it in controlled natural language before presenting it to Large Language Models (LLMs). We introduce LLMs as a third component that provides real-world examples approximating an instance of the counter-concept. This design property ensures that only Type II errors may occur in ontology modelling; in the worst case, these errors merely delay the construction process without introducing inconsistencies. Experimental results on 13 commercial LLMs show that recall, corresponding to Type II errors in our framework, remains stable across several well-established ontologies.

Related papers

• A didactical-driven teacher assistant for a dimensional modeling course [1.338174941551702]
  This paper presents a didactical-driven teacher assistant for a French-language university course on dimensional modelling.<n>The architecture formalises the instructor's pedagogical reasoning into deterministic modules that handle intent detection, concept linking, and didactic approach selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T11:35:33Z)
• A2RBench: An Automatic Paradigm for Formally Verifiable Abstract Reasoning Benchmark Generation [59.98516959731531]
  Abstract reasoning ability reflects intelligence and capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules.<n>Existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning.<n>We introduce an automated pipeline named A2RBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T06:14:20Z)
• Beyond Memorization: Testing LLM Reasoning on Unseen Theory of Computation Tasks [8.210112631285666]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on formal language tasks.<n>We introduce a benchmark for deterministic finite automata (DFA) construction from regular languages.<n>We show that models achieve perfect accuracy on factual questions and 84-90% on seen tasks, but accuracy drops sharply on unseen problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T21:00:31Z)
• WakenLLM: Evaluating Reasoning Potential and Stability in LLMs via Fine-Grained Benchmarking [34.350505059394536]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:21:48Z)
• NeuralNexus at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Retrieval-Augmented Prompting for Mistake Identification in AI Tutors [0.12499537119440242]
  This paper presents our system for Track 1, Mistake Identification in the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered Tutors.<n>The task involves evaluating whether a tutor's response correctly identifies a mistake in a student's reasoning.<n>Our system retrieves semantically similar examples, constructs structured prompts, and uses schema-guided parsing produceable predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T12:11:56Z)
• What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis [81.15503859645149]
  In this paper, we aim to theoretically analyze the impact of in-context demonstrations on large language models' reasoning performance.<n>We propose a straightforward, generalizable, and low-complexity demonstration selection method named LMS3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T11:38:11Z)
• In-Context Learning May Not Elicit Trustworthy Reasoning: A-Not-B Errors in Pretrained Language Models [12.700065865071519]
  A-Not-B error is a phenomenon seen in infants where they repeat a previously rewarded behavior despite well-observed changed conditions. This highlights their lack of inhibitory control -- the ability to stop a habitual or impulsive response. We show that state-of-the-art LLMs (like Llama3-8b) perform consistently well with in-context learning (ICL) but make errors and show a significant drop of as many as 83.3% in reasoning tasks when the context changes trivially.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T18:30:31Z)
• What Do Language Models Learn in Context? The Structured Task Hypothesis [89.65045443150889]
  Large language models (LLMs) learn a novel task from in-context examples presented in a demonstration, termed in-context learning (ICL) One popular hypothesis explains ICL by task selection. Another popular hypothesis is that ICL is a form of meta-learning, i.e., the models learn a learning algorithm at pre-training time and apply it to the demonstration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T16:15:34Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Large Language Models can Learn Rules [106.40747309894236]
  We present Hypotheses-to-Theories (HtT), a framework that learns a rule library for reasoning with large language models (LLMs)<n> Experiments on relational reasoning, numerical reasoning and concept learning problems show that HtT improves existing prompting methods.<n>The learned rules are also transferable to different models and to different forms of the same problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T23:07:01Z)
• Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification [48.534270563880845]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning ability in several natural language processing tasks. LLMs with chain of thought (CoT) prompting require multi-step prompting and multi-token prediction, which is highly sensitive to individual mistakes. We propose and prove that LLMs also have similar self-verification abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T15:51:52Z)

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.