OntologyBench: Can Dense Retrieval Satisfy Structured Biomedical Constraints?
TL;DR
It is indicated that the evaluated embedding and reranking configurations do not reliably recover the compatibility encoded by the selected ontology relations and phenotype combinations and motivate retrieval systems that better integrate learned representations with structured biomedical knowledge.
Abstract
We introduce OntologyBench, a tiered biomedical retrieval benchmark comprising 471,854 training and 125,744 evaluation query-document relevance pairs across concept grounding, relational retrieval, and compositional phenotype-based retrieval. Although these tasks can be tractable using ontology-aware reference methods, across task tiers, embedding performance is generally lower on relational and compositional tasks than on concept-grounding tasks. Fine-tuning on ontology-derived supervision improves performance on several relational and compositional tasks, whereas the evaluated reranking and LLM-based candidate-scoring methods provide little or no end-to-end improvement. Errors frequently reflect diseases matching only subsets of the phenotype evidence. These findings indicate that the evaluated embedding and reranking configurations do not reliably recover the compatibility encoded by the selected ontology relations and phenotype combinations and motivate retrieval systems that better integrate learned representations with structured biomedical knowledge.
