Qiu Ji

Keyu Wang, Site Li, Jiaye Li et al.

Inconsistency handling is an important issue in knowledge management. Especially in ontology engineering, logical inconsistencies may occur during ontology construction. A natural way to reason with an inconsistent ontology is to utilize the maximal consistent subsets of the ontology. However, previous studies on selecting maximum consistent subsets have rarely considered the semantics of the axioms, which may result in irrational inference. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to reasoning with inconsistent ontologies in description logics based on the embeddings of axioms. We first give a method for turning axioms into distributed semantic vectors to compute the semantic connections between the axioms. We then define an embedding-based method for selecting the maximum consistent subsets and use it to define an inconsistency-tolerant inference relation. We show the rationality of our inference relation by considering some logical properties. Finally, we conduct experiments on several ontologies to evaluate the reasoning power of our inference relation. The experimental results show that our embedding-based method can outperform existing inconsistency-tolerant reasoning methods based on maximal consistent subsets.

Qiu Ji, Guilin Qi, Yuxin Ye et al.

Ontology revision aims to seamlessly incorporate a new ontology into an existing ontology and plays a crucial role in tasks such as ontology evolution, ontology maintenance, and ontology alignment. Similar to repair single ontologies, resolving logical incoherence in the task of ontology revision is also important and meaningful, because incoherence is a main potential factor to cause inconsistency and reasoning with an inconsistent ontology will obtain meaningless answers.To deal with this problem, various ontology revision approaches have been proposed to define revision operators and design ranking strategies for axioms in an ontology. However, they rarely consider axiom semantics which provides important information to differentiate axioms. In addition, pre-trained models can be utilized to encode axiom semantics, and have been widely applied in many natural language processing tasks and ontology-related ones in recent years.Therefore, in this paper, we study how to apply pre-trained models to revise ontologies. We first define four scoring functions to rank axioms based on a pre-trained model by considering various information from an ontology. Based on the functions, an ontology revision algorithm is then proposed to deal with unsatisfiable concepts at once. To improve efficiency, an adapted revision algorithm is designed to deal with unsatisfiable concepts group by group. We conduct experiments over 19 ontology pairs and compare our algorithms and scoring functions with existing ones. According to the experiments, our algorithms could achieve promising performance.

Yongrui Chen, Zhiqiang Liu, Jing Yu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress on reasoning tasks involving unstructured text, yet their capabilities significantly deteriorate when reasoning requires integrating structured external knowledge such as knowledge graphs, code snippets, or formal logic. This limitation is partly due to the absence of benchmarks capable of systematically evaluating LLM performance across diverse structured knowledge modalities. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{OneEval}}, a comprehensive benchmark explicitly designed to assess the knowledge-intensive reasoning capabilities of LLMs across four structured knowledge modalities, unstructured text, knowledge graphs, code, and formal logic, and five critical domains (general knowledge, government, science, law, and programming). \textsc{OneEval} comprises 4,019 carefully curated instances and includes a challenging subset, \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}, consisting of 1,285 particularly difficult cases. Through extensive evaluation of 18 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, we establish three core findings: a) \emph{persistent limitations in structured reasoning}, with even the strongest model achieving only 32.2\% accuracy on \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}; b) \emph{performance consistently declines as the structural complexity of the knowledge base increases}, with accuracy dropping sharply from 53\% (textual reasoning) to 25\% (formal logic); and c) \emph{diminishing returns from extended reasoning chains}, highlighting the critical need for models to adapt reasoning depth appropriately to task complexity. We release the \textsc{OneEval} datasets, evaluation scripts, and baseline results publicly, accompanied by a leaderboard to facilitate ongoing advancements in structured knowledge reasoning.

Xinbang Dai, Yuncheng Hua, Tongtong Wu et al.

When we integrate factual knowledge from knowledge graphs (KGs) into large language models (LLMs) to enhance their performance, the cost of injection through training increases with the scale of the models. Consequently, there is significant interest in developing prompt strategies that effectively incorporate KG information into LLMs. However, the community has not yet comprehensively understood how LLMs process and interpret KG information in different input formats and organizations within prompts, and researchers often rely on trial and error. To address this gap, we design extensive experiments to empirically study LLMs' comprehension of different KG prompts. At the literal level, we reveal LLMs' preferences for various input formats (from linearized triples to fluent natural language text). At the attention distribution level, we discuss the underlying mechanisms driving these preferences. We then investigate how the organization of structured knowledge impacts LLMs and evaluate LLMs' robustness in processing and utilizing KG information in practical scenarios. Our experiments show that (1) linearized triples are more effective than fluent NL text in helping LLMs understand KG information and answer fact-intensive questions; (2) Different LLMs exhibit varying preferences for different organizational formats of triples; (3) LLMs with larger scales are more susceptible to noisy, incomplete subgraphs.