Transforming Expert Knowledge into Scalable Ontology via Large Language Models

Having a unified, coherent taxonomy is essential for effective knowledge representation in domain-specific applications as diverse terminologies need to be mapped to underlying concepts. Traditional manual approaches to taxonomy alignment rely on expert review of concept pairs, but this becomes prohibitively expensive and time-consuming at scale, while subjective interpretations often lead to expert disagreements. Existing automated methods for taxonomy alignment have shown promise but face limitations in handling nuanced semantic relationships and maintaining consistency across different domains. These approaches often struggle with context-dependent concept mappings and lack transparent reasoning processes. We propose a novel framework that combines large language models (LLMs) with expert calibration and iterative prompt optimization to automate taxonomy alignment. Our method integrates expert-labeled examples, multi-stage prompt engineering, and human validation to guide LLMs in generating both taxonomy linkages and supporting rationales. In evaluating our framework on a domain-specific mapping task of concept essentiality, we achieved an F1-score of 0.97, substantially exceeding the human benchmark of 0.68. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in scaling taxonomy alignment while maintaining high-quality mappings and preserving expert oversight for ambiguous cases.

Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data

Rapid advancements in large language models have unlocked remarkable capabilities when it comes to processing and summarizing unstructured text data. This has implications for the analysis of rich, open-ended datasets, such as survey responses, where LLMs hold the promise of efficiently distilling key themes and sentiments. However, as organizations increasingly turn to these powerful AI systems to make sense of textual feedback, a critical question arises, can we trust LLMs to accurately represent the perspectives contained within these text based datasets? While LLMs excel at generating human-like summaries, there is a risk that their outputs may inadvertently diverge from the true substance of the original responses. Discrepancies between the LLM-generated outputs and the actual themes present in the data could lead to flawed decision-making, with far-reaching consequences for organizations. This research investigates the effectiveness of LLMs as judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. We utilized an Anthropic Claude model to generate thematic summaries from open-ended survey responses, with Amazon's Titan Express, Nova Pro, and Meta's Llama serving as LLM judges. The LLM-as-judge approach was compared to human evaluations using Cohen's kappa, Spearman's rho, and Krippendorff's alpha, validating a scalable alternative to traditional human centric evaluation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs as judges offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on AI assisted text analysis. We discuss limitations and provide recommendations for future research, emphasizing the need for careful consideration when generalizing LLM judge models across various contexts and use cases.