arXiv:2608. 12961v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The OWL 2 EL profile is used in some of the largest production ontologies, including the Gene Ontology and SNOMED CT.
By Olga Mashkova, Asaad Mohammedsaleh, Fernando Zhapa-Camacho, Robert Hoehndorf
Baobab compiles an OWL 2 DL (ΣROIQ) ontology with a finite ABox into a Sentential Decision Diagram (SDD), saturating a propositional core and instantiating remaining DL features over the active domain. The resulting evidence‑conditioned weighted model count trains a perception network to recognize real images under partial ABox supervision, enabling a CNN to recover latent ontology concepts that an independent perception would miss. When supervision allows multiple ontology‑consistent completions, Baobab’s mixture indexed by query justifications represents the calibrated posterior, achieving Bayes‑optimal performance on a real‑image MNIST task where single‑WMC and learned mixtures fail, thereby characterizing and mitigating reasoning shortcuts in a non‑Horn description logic.
By Olga Mashkova, Asaad Mohammedsaleh, Fernando Zhapa-Camacho, Robert Hoehndorf
arXiv:2607. 15776v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: OWL ontologies provide a formal knowledge representation framework that enables semantic reasoning, and have been widely adopted across domains such as healthcare and bioinformatics.
By Hui Yang, Jiaoyan Chen, Yiping Song, Renate Schmidt, Wen Zhang
The paper introduces a pipeline that automatically creates ontology‑grounded multiple‑choice question benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on logical reasoning tasks in scientific AI. By using OWL 2 ontologies, correct answers are guaranteed by design and distractors are generated and formally verified as incorrect through an OWL reasoner. Experiments on three ontologies—Pizza, PMDco, and DOID—yielded 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs, respectively, with high natural‑language quality and challenging zero‑shot performance for six LLMs.
By Nishtha N. Vaidya, Stephan Grimm, Thomas Hubauer, Thomas A. Runkler
The paper introduces a neuro‑symbolic framework for scientific reasoning that separates symbolic validity and semantic groundedness. A deterministic symbolic verifier acts as a hard filter to guarantee syntactic and arithmetic correctness, while a Process Reward Model (PRM) is trained on verifier‑accepted steps to assess contextual grounding. The authors propose Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP) to generate hard negative examples that pass the verifier but are logically flawed, enabling efficient PRM training and a verifier‑first constrained search at inference.
By Yuxin Zi, Cong Xu, Suparna Bhattacharya, Martin Foltin, Amit Sheth
arXiv:2607. 20402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In many reasoning problems, the premises are not observed as discrete symbols, but must be inferred from high-dimensional inputs.
By Wael AbdAlmageed