Hamed Babaei Giglou

Do General NLP Embeddings Capture Ontological Reasoning?

General-purpose NLP embedding models perform well on linguistic tasks, but their ability to capture symbolic ontological structure remains unclear. We introduce AVA, a systematic framework for evaluating whether embeddings distinguish logic-sensitive relational semantics in ontologies and knowledge graphs. AVA comprises 171,007 contrastive triplets derived from 163 heterogeneous ontologies using hierarchy inversion, relation substitution, and disjointness injection. Each triplet contains an ontology statement, a semantically equivalent paraphrase, and a logic-sensitive hard negative with contradictory relational meaning. We evaluate more than 25 state-of-the-art embedding models and find substantial limitations: the best model achieves only 0.739 triplet accuracy, while hard negative accuracy falls to 0.135. Fine-tuning improves discrimination by a large margin but transfers poorly to downstream Semantic Web tasks, including taxonomy discovery and ontology alignment. Further analysis suggests that improvements stem partly from perturbation-specific pattern recognition rather than robust ontological understanding. These findings reveal a persistent gap between linguistic representation learning and ontology-level discrimination, challenging the assumption that strong NLP benchmark performance translates to Semantic Web competence.

When Does Bigger Help? A Controlled Study of LLM Scale for Ontology Learning

The effect of Large Language Model (LLM) scale on ontology learning (OL) performance remains insufficiently characterized. We present a controlled evaluation of 13 models spanning dense and Mixture-of-Experts variants from the Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 lineages, together with proprietary GPT release variants, using the OntoLearner retrieval-augmented generation pipeline. All models are evaluated with the same embedding model, retrieval configuration, prompt templates, decoding settings, datasets, and metrics on term typing, taxonomy discovery, and non-taxonomic relationship extraction across four biomedical and materials science and engineering ontologies. Within the dense Qwen3.5 lineage, increasing parameter count primarily improves precision rather than recall, with the largest gains occurring between 9B and 27B parameters. However, the effect of scale is neither monotonic nor uniform across tasks and domains. Dense 27B models outperform substantially larger sparse models on term typing, whereas larger Mixture-of-Experts models achieve the strongest open-weight results on taxonomy discovery. Non-taxonomic relationship extraction remains difficult across model scales, particularly for the Materials Data Science ontology. Performance differences across matched Qwen variants and proprietary GPT releases further indicate that architecture and model lineage can outweigh nominal parameter count. These findings show that model size alone is an insufficient selection criterion for OL and provide empirical guidance for reproducible LLM-assisted ontology engineering.

The Unreasonable Benchmark