Accelerating Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models

Cogan Shimizu; Pascal Hitzler

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Accelerating Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that conceptual modularity—dividing an ontology into human-meaningful pieces—is what makes LLM-based ontology and knowledge graph engineering work.

desk verdict Plausible position paper on LLM-based KGOE, but its central evidence for modularity as the 'missing link' rests on unpublished companion results and confounds modularity with prompt length and module-quality effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09601 v1 pith:AL7XDLQX submitted 2024-11-14 cs.AI

Cogan Shimizu , Pascal Hitzler This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords KnowledgeGraphEngineeringOntologyLargeLanguageModelsModularOntologiesModelingPopulationAlignmentEntityDisambiguation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the main obstacle to using large language models for knowledge graph and ontology engineering is not the models themselves but the way ontologies are presented to them. Its central claim is that conceptual modularity—splitting an ontology into overlapping, human-meaningful pieces that each center on a key notion—is what makes hard engineering tasks tractable for LLMs. In support, it reports that modular two-stage prompting lifted complex ontology alignment on the GeoLink benchmark from near-total failure to 104 of 109 correct mappings, and that module-scoped prompting extracted about 90 percent of target triples in ontology population experiments. If correct, the claim implies that modular structure and documentation should be built into ontologies from the start, turning modeling, extension, alignment, population, and disambiguation into semi-automatic human-LLM workflows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the conceptual module: a part of an ontology containing the classes, properties, and axioms relevant to a key notion as judged by domain experts, with no strict rules on overlap or nesting. The module does its work by letting an LLM prompt be scoped in two stages—first identify the few relevant module names, then generate the target structure using only those modules—so the model never has to hold a full large ontology in context. The same scoping supplies conceptual consistency and a tight vocabulary for extraction tasks, which the paper ties to evidence that LLMs follow patterns better and degrade with longer prompts.

What would settle it

Run the GeoLink complex-alignment task with a single full-ontology prompt truncated to the same token budget as the modular two-stage prompts; if a matched-length nonmodular prompt matches the 95 percent accuracy, the central claim is refuted. A second check: replace the human-authored 20 GeoLink modules with automatically generated ones; if the gain vanishes, the effect is tied to module quality rather than modularity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the conceptual modularity of an ontology—its division into coherent pieces that a domain expert would recognize, such as 'Organization' or 'Physical Sample' in the GeoLink oceanography ontology—is the key ingredient that lets large language models carry out knowledge graph and ontology engineering tasks. Without modules, an LLM prompted to write a complex alignment rule from two full ontologies produced essentially unusable output; with a two-stage prompt that first asks which of the 20 named modules are needed and then asks for the rule using only those modules, the system correctly identified 104 of 109 target mappings. Similar module-scoped prompting in ontology population extracted roughly 90 percent of ground-truth triples from text. The paper concludes that modularity is the missing link between human conceptualization and machine interoperability and that it must be incorporated from the start, both in ontology structure and in documentation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed gains come from conceptual modularity itself, rather than from shorter prompts, better prompt phrasing, or the particular quality of the hand-built modules used in the tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ontologies and knowledge graphs designed under modular principles from the outset become natural targets for LLM-based semi-automation of modeling, extension, and modification.
Complex ontology alignment, previously intractable in practice without a shared data graph, becomes achievable through module-first prompting: the GeoLink result is 104 of 109 correct mappings.
Ontology population can run per module: simple schematic prompts with one extraction example recovered about 90 percent of target triples from text.
Entity disambiguation should improve along with better context resolution, though the paper flags data leakage as a current obstacle to measuring LLM disambiguation abilities.
LLM-generated micropattern libraries, accessible programmatically and augmented by retrieval, give a scalable starting point for building modular ontologies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An implication left implicit is that modularity could be treated as a prompt-engineering variable: matched-token-count ablations are needed before attributing the gains to conceptual coherence rather than shorter context.
If the mechanism is conceptual scoping, a natural extension is automatic module discovery—having an LLM propose module boundaries for an existing ontology, then running the two-stage workflow on those modules.
The result also suggests a transfer test: modular scoping may improve other LLM tasks with large structured contexts, such as long-document querying or repository-scale code understanding, wherever a human-meaningful decomposition can be imposed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a position paper, not a results paper. It argues that LLM-based KGOE is an emerging area and that conceptual modularity is the key enabler. That thesis is plausible and the paper is honest about its limits. But the quantitative evidence for the central claim is borrowed from companion papers by the same group, one of them 'to appear' [1], and the reported gains confound modularity with several other factors.

What it does well: it gives a clear map of KGOE tasks (modeling, extension, alignment, population, disambiguation) and makes a coherent case for why MOMo-style conceptual modules should help LLMs. It explicitly asks for more experiments (Section 4.3) and flags data leakage in disambiguation benchmarks (Section 4.4). That candor is worth something.

The soft spot is the causal claim. The GeoLink alignment result (104/109) compares a two-stage modular prompt to a one-shot full-ontology prompt. As described, the modular condition differs in at least three ways at once: module-name selection from a list of 20, reduced prompt length, and modules the authors themselves built for that ontology. The stress-test note has it right. Any method that shortens and focuses context could reproduce part of the gain, so the conclusion that modularity 'must be incorporated from the start' (Section 6) overreaches the evidence. The ontology population numbers from [32] have a similar problem: they come from the authors' own modules and prompts, with no ablation against non-modular baselines beyond a single one-shot condition.

The citation pattern is heavily self-referential, which is expected for a position paper summarizing a decade of the authors' own MOMo work. Not a flaw by itself, but it means the evidence chain for the central thesis depends on results not yet independently verified.

Who this is for: readers working on knowledge graph or ontology engineering with LLMs will find it a useful framing and a good pointer to the companion papers. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require the companion evidence be made accessible and the authors should add ablations separating modular decomposition from prompt engineering, token budget, and module quality before the 'missing link' claim is treated as established. I would not desk-reject it; I would send it out with that expectation.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a position paper that argues LLM-based Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering (KGOE) will be made practical by conceptual modularity, i.e., partitioning ontologies into human-meaningful pieces. It motivates this claim with a complex ontology alignment result (104/109 on GeoLink, Sections 2 and 4.2), preliminary ontology population results (~90% triple extraction, Section 4.3), and an LLM-generated micropattern library (Section 4.1), then outlines research challenges and concludes that modularity is 'a missing link' that 'must be incorporated from the start' (Section 6).

Significance. If the asserted causal role of modularity is correct, the paper identifies a concrete design principle for LLM-based KGOE and connects it to an existing methodology (MOMo) with tooling and documentation support. The paper is also honest in places: it explicitly calls for more experiments (Section 4.3) and concedes data-leakage problems in entity disambiguation benchmarks (Section 4.4). These qualities make it a useful consolidation of a research agenda. However, the quantitative support for the load-bearing claim is narrow and mostly drawn from the authors' own, partly unpublished work, so the significance of the paper depends on future external validation and on the missing ablations described below.

major comments (3)

[Sections 2 and 4.2] The GeoLink 104/109 result does not isolate the effect of conceptual modularity. The modular two-stage prompt differs from the one-shot full-ontology prompt in at least three ways at once: the first stage replaces the difficult end-to-end task with a module-name selection over 20 author-provided names; the second prompt is much shorter; and the modules themselves are the MOMo modules of [27], whose boundaries were designed by the same group that reports the benchmark. Because Section 4.3 explicitly motivates modularity partly by prompt length [28], the observed gain could be due to context reduction or task decomposition rather than to human-meaningful modularity per se. Without ablations that hold prompt length, instruction framing, and module quality fixed (e.g., random partitions versus MOMo modules), the statement in Section 6 that modularity 'must be incorporated from the start' is not established by this evidence.
[Section 4.3] The ontology population pillar is not supportable as reported. The manuscript states only that 'rather excellent results' were obtained with '~90% extraction of related triples from text, as compared to ground truth' and cites an unpublished manuscript [32]. No dataset, baseline, non-modular comparison, prompt template, or evaluation protocol is given. Since this is one of only two quantitative results used to justify the central thesis, the reader cannot assess whether the gain comes from modularity, from the illustrative example in the prompt, or from task-specific tuning. Either add a detailed experimental description (including a non-modular control) or explicitly label the result as a preliminary observation.
[Sections 4.1-4.3 and 6] The central evidence chain is overwhelmingly internal to the authors' own research line: MOMo [45], the GeoLink modules [27], the alignment companion paper [1], the population paper [32], and the micropattern library [13]. This does not make the argument circular, but it raises the risk that the reported gains reflect the quality of the specific modules and prompts that this group engineered for these benchmarks. A test of the general claim would be a demonstration on independently developed modular ontologies or on independently constructed module partitions; without such a test, the generalization from 'these modules help' to 'modularity must be incorporated from the start' remains unsubstantiated.

minor comments (6)

[Title] The title contains an apparent spacing typo ('wit h'); please correct it.
[References] Reference [4] is a duplicate of reference [3]; please consolidate.
[Section 4.4] The sentence 'some benchmarks (after prompt-tuning) achieve upwards of F1 = 91' lacks a concrete benchmark name, model, and citation; as written it is not verifiable.
[Section 4.3] The sentence 'LLMs tend to be better at following patterns, rather than instructions, and it correlates as well to the length of the prompt [28]' conflates two claims; the cited work appears to support only the input-length part, not the pattern-versus-instruction part.
[Section 2] The 'essentially completely failed' one-shot condition is reported qualitatively; please report at least approximate precision/recall for both conditions so that the claimed contrast is quantified.
[Section 4.2] The GeoLink result is reported as 104/109 target mappings correctly identified; please clarify whether this is recall on the gold standard and report precision, including how partial rule matches are counted.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The headline GeoLink 95% and ~90% ontology-population results are imported from the authors' own 'to appear' companion paper and preprint; the Section 6 'missing link' conclusion generalizes those self-cited results without independent derivation or ablation.

self citation load bearing [Section 2 and Section 4.2 (GeoLink complex alignment; Refs. [1], [27])]
"As described above in Section 2, it was demonstrated in [1] that modularity provides significant performance improvements to LLM-based complex alignment, in this case with 104 out of 109 (i.e., 95%) target alignment mappings correctly identified on the GeoLink benchmark when taking modularity into account."

The 104/109 result is the paper's strongest quantitative support for the thesis that modularity is decisive. It is attributed entirely to Ref. [1], a companion paper co-authored by P. Hitzler and marked 'to appear'; Section 2's narrative ('The availability and principled use of modules made the difference') is likewise a report of that same work, using the authors' own GeoLink modules [27]. No ablation or independent reproduction is provided. Therefore the Section 6 conclusion that modularity 'must be incorporated from the start' rests, for its key evidence, on the authors' own unpublished self-citation rather than on an externally checkable result.
self citation load bearing [Section 4.3 (Ontology Population; Ref. [32])]
"Indeed, in a recent set of experiments, we obtained rather excellent results [32]. Using prompts constructed with a simple schematic representations of modules and a corresponding extraction example, an LLM was able to achieve ~90% extraction of related triples from text, as compared to ground truth."

The ~90% population figure is cited from Ref. [32], whose authors overlap with this paper (S. S. Norouzi, P. Hitzler, C. Shimizu). It is immediately used as 'an excellent indicator that modularity is of significant added value,' and Section 6 generalizes it into the claim that modularity 'must be incorporated from the start.' No non-modular baseline or external verification appears in this section; the load-bearing empirical premise is again the authors' own preprint.

full rationale

This is a vision/roadmap essay rather than a formal derivation, so there are no equations whose inputs equal outputs. The paper does not fit a parameter and rename it a prediction, nor does it invoke a uniqueness theorem. The circularity concern is concentrated in the empirical chain: the two headline numbers (95% GeoLink alignment and ~90% population) are imported from Refs. [1] and [32], both from the same research group, and the 'missing link' claim in Section 6 is a direct extrapolation of those self-cited results. The paper acknowledges relevant uncertainty (e.g., data-leakage problems in entity disambiguation, Section 4.4), and the modularity thesis has independent plausibility from prompt-length arguments and external LLM-alignment work, which keeps the score moderate. However, because the central causal claim is not separated from prompt structure, token budget, or author-built module quality by any ablation, and because its strongest evidence is not independently verified in this paper, a score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper contains no equations, no fitted parameters, and no new formal machinery. Its load-bearing inputs are (a) reported results from companion papers [1] (to appear) and [32] (arXiv preprint), (b) the premise that MOMo-style conceptual modules are the appropriate unit of decomposition for LLM prompting, and (c) the causal attribution that modularity, not prompt engineering, produced the reported gains. All three are asserted rather than demonstrated in this manuscript. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption LLMs can serve as approximate, queryable knowledge bases that produce structured output for KGOE tasks, with human experts checking accuracy (Section 1).
The entire proposal assumes LLMs reliably provide draft-quality ontologies, alignments, and extractions; the paper acknowledges hallucination and reliability problems but treats human oversight as sufficient.
domain assumption MOMo-style conceptual modules (human-chosen partitions with no precise membership rules, Section 3) are an effective unit of decomposition for LLM prompting.
The central thesis presupposes that conceptual modules, rather than other modularity notions (deductive modules [26], templates [50]), are the right scoping device; the paper asserts this via its own results [1, 32, 13].
ad hoc to paper The observed performance gains are caused by modularity itself, not by prompt engineering or module-authoring quality (Sections 2 and 4.2).
This causal attribution is the load-bearing inference behind 'modularity is a missing link', yet no controlled ablation is presented to isolate the cause.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerating Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AL7XDLQX

@misc{pith2026241109601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerating Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AL7XDLQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09601}
}

read the original abstract

Large Language Models bear the promise of significant acceleration of key Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering tasks, including ontology modeling, extension, modification, population, alignment, as well as entity disambiguation. We lay out LLM-based Knowledge Graph and Ontology Engineering as a new and coming area of research, and argue that modular approaches to ontologies will be of central importance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

Amini, S

R. Amini, S. S. Norouzi, P . Hitzler, and R. Amini. Towards complex ontology alignment using large language models. In Proceedings KGSWC 2024, to appear, 2024

work page 2024
[32]

S. S. Norouzi, A. Barua, A. Christou, N. Gautam, A. Eells , P . Hitzler, and C. Shimizu. Ontology population using LLMs, 2024

work page 2024
[27]

Krisnadhi, Y

A. Krisnadhi, Y . Hu, K. Janowicz, P . Hitzler, R. A. Arko, S. Carbotte, C. Chandler, M. Cheatham, D. Fils, T. W. Finin, P . Ji, M. B. Jon es, N. Karima, K. A. Lehnert, A. Mickle, T. W. Narock, M. O’Brien, L. Ray- mond, A. Shepherd, M. Schildhauer, and P . Wiebe. The geolink mod- ular oceanography ontology. In M. Arenas, Ó. Corcho, E. Simp erl, M. Strohma...

work page 2015
[28]

M. Levy, A. Jacoby, and Y . Goldberg. Same task, more tokens: the impact of input length on the reasoning performance of large langua ge models, 2024

work page 2024
[45]

Shimizu, K

C. Shimizu, K. Hammar, and P . Hitzler. Modular ontology modeling. Semantic W eb, 14(3):459–489, 2023

work page 2023
[13]

Eells, B

A. Eells, B. Dave, P . Hitzler, and C. Shimizu. Commonsen se ontology micropatterns. In T. R. Besold, A. d’Avila Garcez, E. Jiméne z-Ruiz, R. Confalonieri, P . Madhyastha, and B. Wagner, editors,Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning - 18th International Conference, Ne Sy 2024, Barcelona, Spain, September 9-12, 2024, Proceedings, Part II, volume 14980 of ...

work page 2024
[2]

M. N. Asim, M. Wasim, M. U. G. Khan, W. Mahmood, and H. M. Abb asi. A survey of ontology learning techniques and applications. Database J. Biol. Databases Curation, 2018:bay101, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Blomqvist

E. Blomqvist. Semi-automatic Ontology Construction based on Patterns . PhD thesis, Linköping University, 2009

work page 2009

Show all 56 references

[4]

Blomqvist

E. Blomqvist. Semi-automatic Ontology Construction based on Patterns . PhD thesis, Linköping University, Sweden, 2009

2009
[5]

Buitelaar and P

P . Buitelaar and P . Cimiano, editors. Ontology Learning and Population: Bridging the Gap between Text and Knowledge , volume 167 of Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Applications . IOS Press, 2008

2008
[6]

P . L. Buttigieg, E. Paﬁlis, S. E. Lewis, M. P . Schildhauer , R. L. Walls, and C. J. Mungall. The environment ontology in 2016: bridgin g domains with increased scope, semantic density, and interoperatio n. J. Biomed. Semant., 7:57, 2016

2016
[7]

Carbon, E

S. Carbon, E. Douglass, B. M. Good, D. R. Unni, N. L. Harris , C. J. Mungall, et al. The gene ontology resource: enriching a gold mine. Nu- cleic Acids Res. , 49(Database-Issue):D325–D334, 2021

2021
[8]

Cheatham and P

M. Cheatham and P . Hitzler. String similarity metrics fo r ontology align- ment. In H. Alani, L. Kagal, A. Fokoue, P . Groth, C. Biemann, J . X. Parreira, L. Aroyo, N. F. Noy, C. Welty, and K. Janowicz, edit ors, The Semantic W eb – ISWC 2013 - 12th International Semantic W e...

2013
[9]

Cheatham and P

M. Cheatham and P . Hitzler. Conference v2.0: An uncertai n version of the OAEI conference benchmark. In P . Mika, T. Tudorache, A. Bernstein, C. Welty, C. A. Knoblock, D. Vrandecic, P . Groth, N. F. Noy, K.Janowicz, and C. A. Goble, editors, The Semantic W eb - ISWC 2014 - 13...

2014
[10]

Cimiano, A

P . Cimiano, A. Hotho, and S. Staab. Learning concept hie rarchies from text corpora using formal concept analysis. J. Artif. Intell. Res. , 24:305– 339, 2005

2005
[11]

Cimiano, A

P . Cimiano, A. Mädche, S. Staab, and J. Völker. Ontology learning. In S. Staab and R. Studer, editors, Handbook on Ontologies , International Handbooks on Information Systems, pages 245–267. Springer , 2009

2009
[12]

Cimiano and J

P . Cimiano and J. Völker. Text2onto. In A. Montoyo, R. Mu ´noz, and E. Métais, editors, Natural Language Processing and Information Sys- tems, pages 227–238, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer Berlin Heidel- berg

2005
[14]

A. Gangemi. Ontology design patterns for semantic web c ontent. In Y . Gil, E. Motta, V . R. Benjamins, and M. A. Musen, editors,The Seman- tic W eb – ISWC 2005, 4th International Semantic W eb Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005, Proceedings, volume 37...

2005
[15]

H. B. Giglou, J. D’Souza, and S. Auer. Llms4ol: Large lan guage models for ontology learning. In T. R. Payne, V . Presutti, G. Qi, M. P oveda- Villalón, G. Stoilos, L. Hollink, Z. Kaoudi, G. Cheng, and J. Li, edi- tors, The Semantic W eb - ISWC 2023 - 22nd International Semant...

2023
[16]

L. H. Gilpin, V . Penubarthi, and L. Kagal. Explaining mu ltimodal errors in autonomous vehicles. In 8th IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 2021, Porto, Portugal , October 6-9, 2021, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2021

2021
[17]

Hammar and V

K. Hammar and V . Presutti. Template-based content ODP instantiation. In K. Hammar, P . Hitzler, A. Krisnadhi, A. Lawrynowicz, A. G. Nu zzolese, and M. Solanki, editors, Advances in Ontology Design and Patterns [re- vised and extended versions of the papers presented at the 7t...

2016
[18]

Hannou, V

F. Hannou, V . Charpenay, M. Lefrançois, C. Roussey, A. Z immermann, and F. Gandon. The ACIMOV methodology: Agile and continuous in- tegration for modular ontologies and vocabularies. In F. To yoshima, M. Katsumi, G. Righetti, S. D. Giorgis, M. M. Hedblom, O. Kutz , B. Bro- da...

2023
[19]

Hertling and H

S. Hertling and H. Paulheim. Olala: Ontology matching w ith large lan- guage models. In K. B. V enable, D. Garijo, and B. Jalaian, edi tors, Pro- ceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 2023, K-C AP 2023, Pensacola, FL, USA, December 5-7, 2023 , pages 131–139. ACM, 2023

2023
[20]

P . Hitzler. A review of the semantic web ﬁeld. Commun. ACM, 64(2):76– 83, 2021

2021
[21]

Hitzler, A

P . Hitzler, A. Dalal, M. S. Mahdavinejad, and S. S. Norou zi, editors. Neu- rosymbolic Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Knowledge Graphs (t entative title). Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2025. In 5 preparation

2025
[22]

Hitzler, A

P . Hitzler, A. Gangemi, K. Janowicz, A. A. Krisnadhi, an d V . Presutti. Towards a simple but useful ontology design pattern represe ntation lan- guage. In E. Blomqvist, Ó. Corcho, M. Horridge, D. Carral, an d R. Hoek- stra, editors, Proceedings of the 8th W orkshop on Ontolo...

2017
[23]

Hitzler and M

P . Hitzler and M. K. Sarker, editors. Neuro-Symbolic Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence: The State of the Art , volume 342 of Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelli- gence and Applications. IOS Press, 2021

2021
[24]

Hitzler, M

P . Hitzler, M. K. Sarker, and A. Eberhart, editors. Compendium of Neu- rosmbolic Artiﬁcial Intelligence , volume 369 of Frontiers in Artiﬁcial In- telligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2023

2023
[25]

Hitzler and C

P . Hitzler and C. Shimizu. Modular ontologies as a bridg e between human conceptualization and data. In P . Chapman, D. Endres, and N. Pernelle, editors, Graph-Based Representation and Reasoning - 23rd International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2018, Edinburgh , ...

2018
[26]

Koopmann and J

P . Koopmann and J. Chen. Deductive module extraction for expressive de- scription logics. In C. Bessiere, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , IJCAI-20, pages 1636–1643. International Joint Conferences on Artiﬁcial...

2020
[29]

Lewis, E

P . Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küt- tler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented gen- eration for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

2020
[30]

Maedche and S

A. Maedche and S. Staab. Discovering conceptual relati ons from text. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artiﬁcial In telligence, ECAI’00, page 321–325, NLD, 2000. IOS Press

2000
[31]

Maedche and S

A. Maedche and S. Staab. Ontology learning for the seman tic web. IEEE Intell. Syst., 16(2):72–79, 2001

2001
[33]

S. S. Norouzi, M. S. Mahdavinejad, and P . Hitzler. Conve rsational on- tology alignment with chatgpt. In P . Shvaiko, J. Euzenat, E. Jiménez- Ruiz, O. Hassanzadeh, and C. Trojahn, editors, Proceedings of the 18th International W orkshop on Ontology Matching co-located wi th t...

2023
[34]

http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2020/results/complex/index.html

OAEI 2020 complex track results. http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2020/results/complex/index.html. Retrieved November 18, 2020

2020
[35]

Osumi-Sutherland, M

D. Osumi-Sutherland, M. Courtot, J. P . Balho ﬀ, and C. J. Mungall. Dead simple OWL design patterns. J. Biomed. Semant., 8(1):18:1–18:7, 2017

2017
[36]

S. Pan, L. Luo, Y . Wang, C. Chen, J. Wang, and X. Wu. Unifyi ng large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 36(7):3580–3599, July 2024

2024
[37]

Parent and S

C. Parent and S. Spaccapietra. An overview of modularit y. In H. Stuck- enschmidt, C. Parent, and S. Spaccapietra, editors, Modular Ontologies: Concepts, Theories and Techniques for Knowledge Modularization, pages 5–23. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 200 9
[38]

M. A. N. Pour, A. Algergawy, F. Amardeilh, R. Amini, O. Fa llatah, D. Faria, I. Fundulaki, I. Harrow, S. Hertling, P . Hitzler, M . Huschka, L. Ibanescu, E. Jiménez-Ruiz, N. Karam, A. Laadhar, P . Lambr ix, H. Li, Y . Li, F. Michel, E. Nasr, H. Paulheim, C. Pesquita, J. P orti...

2021
[39]

M. A. N. Pour, A. Algergawy, R. Amini, D. Faria, I. Fundul aki, I. Har- row, S. Hertling, E. Jiménez-Ruiz, C. Jonquet, N. Karam, A. K hiat, A. Laadhar, P . Lambrix, H. Li, Y . Li, P . Hitzler, H. Paulheim,C. Pesquita, T. Saveta, P . Shvaiko, A. Splendiani, É. Thiéblin, C. Troj...

2020
[40]

Presutti, E

V . Presutti, E. Daga, A. Gangemi, and E. Blomqvist. eXtr eme Design with content ontology design patterns. In E. Blomqvist, K. S andkuhl, F. Scharﬀe, and V . Svátek, editors, Proceedings of the W orkshop on On- tology Patterns (WOP 2009) , collocated with the 8th Interna tion...

2009
[41]

M. K. Sarker, J. Schwartz, P . Hitzler, L. Zhou, S. Nadell a, B. S. Minnery, I. Juvina, M. L. Raymer, and W. R. Aue. Wikipedia knowledge gr aph for explainable AI. In B. Villazón-Terrazas, F. Ortiz-Rodr íguez, S. M. Tiwari, and S. K. Shandilya, editors, Knowledge Graphs and Se...

2020
[42]

Schae ﬀer, M

M. Schae ﬀer, M. SesboÃ¼Ã ©, J.-P . Kotowicz, N. Delestre, and C. Zanni-Merk. Olaf: An ontology learning applied framewor k. Procedia Computer Science, 225:2106–2115, 2023. 27th International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Sytems (KES 2023)

2023
[43]

Shimizu and K

C. Shimizu and K. Hammar. CoModIDE – the Comprehensive M odular Ontology Engineering IDE. In M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, G. Chen g, A. L. Gentile, C. Guéret, C. M. Keet, and A. Bernstein, editors, Proceedings of the ISWC 2019 Satellite Tracks (Posters & Demonstrations, Industry, an...

2019
[44]

Shimizu, K

C. Shimizu, K. Hammar, and P . Hitzler. Modular graphica l ontology en- gineering evaluated. In A. Harth, S. Kirrane, A. N. Ngomo, H. Paulheim, A. Rula, A. L. Gentile, P . Haase, and M. Cochez, editors, The Seman- tic W eb - 17th International Conference, ESWC 2020, Herakli on...

2020
[46]

Shimizu, Q

C. Shimizu, Q. Hirt, and P . Hitzler. MODL: A modular onto logy design library. In K. Janowicz, A. A. Krisnadhi, M. P . Villalón, K. H ammar, and C. Shimizu, editors, Proceedings of the 10th W orkshop on Ontology Design and Patterns (WOP 2019) co-located with 18th Interna tion...

2019
[47]

Shimizu, P

C. Shimizu, P . Hitzler, Q. Hirt, D. Rehberger, S. G. Estr echa, C. Foley, A. M. Sheill, W. Hawthorne, J. Mixter, E. Watrall, R. Carty, a nd D. Tarr. The enslaved ontology: Peoples of the historic slave trade. J. W eb Se- mant., 63:100567, 2020

2020
[48]

Shimizu, S

C. Shimizu, S. Stephe, A. Barua, L. Cai, A. Christou, K. C urrier, A. Dalal, C. K. Fisher, P . Hitzler, K. Janowicz, W. Li, Z. Liu, M. S. Mahd avinejad, G. Mai, D. Rehberger, M. Schildhauer, M. Shi, S. S. Norouzi, Y . Tian, 6 S. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Zalewski, L. Zhou, and R. Zhu....

2024 arXiv
[49]

M. C. Silva, D. Faria, and C. Pesquita. Complex multi-on tology align- ment through geometric operations on language embeddings. In U. En- driss, F. S. Melo, K. Bach, A. J. B. Diz, J. M. Alonso-Moral, S. Barro, and F. Heintz, editors, ECAI 2024 - 27th European Conference on Ar...

2024
[50]

M. G. Skjæveland, D. P . Lupp, L. H. Karlsen, and H. Forsse ll. Practical ontology pattern instantiation, discovery, and maintenan ce with reason- able ontology templates. In D. Vrandecic, K. Bontcheva, M. C . Suárez- Figueroa, V . Presutti, I. Celino, M. Sabou, L. Ka ﬀee, and...

2018
[51]

Wotrobski

J. Wotrobski. Ontology learning methods from text - an e xtensive knowledge-based approach. Procedia Computer Science , 176:3356– 3368, 2020. Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineer- ing Systems: Proceedings of the 24th International Confere nce KES2020

2020
[52]

L. Zhou, M. Cheatham, A. Krisnadhi, and P . Hitzler. A com plex align- ment benchmark: Geolink dataset. In D. Vrandecic, K. Bontch eva, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, V . Presutti, I. Celino, M. Sabou, L. Kaﬀee, and E. Sim- perl, editors, The Semantic W eb - ISWC 2018 - 17th Internati...

2018
[53]

L. Zhou, M. Cheatham, A. Krisnadhi, and P . Hitzler. Geol ink data set: A complex alignment benchmark from real-world ontology. Data Intell., 2(3):353–378, 2020

2020
[54]

L. Zhou, C. Shimizu, P . Hitzler, A. M. Sheill, S. G. Estre cha, C. Foley, D. Tarr, and D. Rehberger. The enslaved dataset: A real-worl d complex ontology alignment benchmark using wikibase. In M. d’Aquin , S. Di- etze, C. Hau ﬀ, E. Curry, and P . Cudré-Mauroux, editors, CIKM ...

2020
[55]

L. Zhou, É. Thiéblin, M. Cheatham, D. Faria, C. Pesquita , C. T. dos San- tos, and O. Zamazal. Towards evaluating complex ontology al ignments. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 35:e21, 2020. 7

2020
[2014]

Springer, 2014

Proceedings, Part II , volume 8797 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 33–48. Springer, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Amini, S

R. Amini, S. S. Norouzi, P . Hitzler, and R. Amini. Towards complex ontology alignment using large language models. In Proceedings KGSWC 2024, to appear, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [32]

S. S. Norouzi, A. Barua, A. Christou, N. Gautam, A. Eells , P . Hitzler, and C. Shimizu. Ontology population using LLMs, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [27]

Krisnadhi, Y

A. Krisnadhi, Y . Hu, K. Janowicz, P . Hitzler, R. A. Arko, S. Carbotte, C. Chandler, M. Cheatham, D. Fils, T. W. Finin, P . Ji, M. B. Jon es, N. Karima, K. A. Lehnert, A. Mickle, T. W. Narock, M. O’Brien, L. Ray- mond, A. Shepherd, M. Schildhauer, and P . Wiebe. The geolink mod- ular oceanography ontology. In M. Arenas, Ó. Corcho, E. Simp erl, M. Strohma...

work page 2015

[4] [28]

M. Levy, A. Jacoby, and Y . Goldberg. Same task, more tokens: the impact of input length on the reasoning performance of large langua ge models, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [45]

Shimizu, K

C. Shimizu, K. Hammar, and P . Hitzler. Modular ontology modeling. Semantic W eb, 14(3):459–489, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [13]

Eells, B

A. Eells, B. Dave, P . Hitzler, and C. Shimizu. Commonsen se ontology micropatterns. In T. R. Besold, A. d’Avila Garcez, E. Jiméne z-Ruiz, R. Confalonieri, P . Madhyastha, and B. Wagner, editors,Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning - 18th International Conference, Ne Sy 2024, Barcelona, Spain, September 9-12, 2024, Proceedings, Part II, volume 14980 of ...

work page 2024

[7] [2]

M. N. Asim, M. Wasim, M. U. G. Khan, W. Mahmood, and H. M. Abb asi. A survey of ontology learning techniques and applications. Database J. Biol. Databases Curation, 2018:bay101, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [3]

Blomqvist

E. Blomqvist. Semi-automatic Ontology Construction based on Patterns . PhD thesis, Linköping University, 2009

work page 2009