OneEval: Benchmarking LLM Knowledge-intensive Reasoning over Diverse Knowledge Bases

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress on reasoning tasks involving unstructured text, yet their capabilities significantly deteriorate when reasoning requires integrating structured external knowledge such as knowledge graphs, code snippets, or formal logic. This limitation is partly due to the absence of benchmarks capable of systematically evaluating LLM performance across diverse structured knowledge modalities. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{OneEval}}, a comprehensive benchmark explicitly designed to assess the knowledge-intensive reasoning capabilities of LLMs across four structured knowledge modalities, unstructured text, knowledge graphs, code, and formal logic, and five critical domains (general knowledge, government, science, law, and programming). \textsc{OneEval} comprises 4,019 carefully curated instances and includes a challenging subset, \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}, consisting of 1,285 particularly difficult cases. Through extensive evaluation of 18 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, we establish three core findings: a) \emph{persistent limitations in structured reasoning}, with even the strongest model achieving only 32.2\% accuracy on \textsc{OneEval}\textsubscript{Hard}; b) \emph{performance consistently declines as the structural complexity of the knowledge base increases}, with accuracy dropping sharply from 53\% (textual reasoning) to 25\% (formal logic); and c) \emph{diminishing returns from extended reasoning chains}, highlighting the critical need for models to adapt reasoning depth appropriately to task complexity. We release the \textsc{OneEval} datasets, evaluation scripts, and baseline results publicly, accompanied by a leaderboard to facilitate ongoing advancements in structured knowledge reasoning.

Ontology Revision based on Pre-trained Language Models

Ontology revision aims to seamlessly incorporate new information into an existing ontology and plays a crucial role in tasks such as ontology evolution, ontology maintenance, and ontology alignment. Similar to repair single ontologies, resolving logical incoherence in the task of ontology revision is also important and meaningful since incoherence is a main potential factor to cause inconsistency and reasoning with an inconsistent ontology will obtain meaningless answers. To deal with this problem, various ontology revision methods have been proposed to define revision operators and design ranking strategies for axioms in an ontology. However, they rarely consider axiom semantics which provides important information to differentiate axioms. On the other hand, pre-trained models can be utilized to encode axiom semantics, and have been widely applied in many natural language processing tasks and ontology-related ones in recent years. Therefore, in this paper, we define four scoring functions to rank axioms based on a pre-trained model by considering various information from a rebuttal ontology and its corresponding reliable ontology. Based on such a scoring function, we propose an ontology revision algorithm to deal with unsatisfiable concepts at once. If it is hard to resolve all unsatisfiable concepts in a rebuttal ontology together, an adapted revision algorithm is designed to deal with them group by group. We conduct experiments over 19 ontology pairs and compare our algorithms and scoring functions with existing ones. According to the experiments, it shows that our algorithms could achieve promising performance. The adapted revision algorithm could improve the efficiency largely, and at most 96% time could be saved for some ontology pairs. Some of our scoring functions help a revision algorithm obtain better results in many cases, especially for the challenging pairs.

An Embedding-based Approach to Inconsistency-tolerant Reasoning with Inconsistent Ontologies

Inconsistency handling is an important issue in knowledge management. Especially in ontology engineering, logical inconsistencies may occur during ontology construction. A natural way to reason with an inconsistent ontology is to utilize the maximal consistent subsets of the ontology. However, previous studies on selecting maximum consistent subsets have rarely considered the semantics of the axioms, which may result in irrational inference. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to reasoning with inconsistent ontologies in description logics based on the embeddings of axioms. We first give a method for turning axioms into distributed semantic vectors to compute the semantic connections between the axioms. We then define an embedding-based method for selecting the maximum consistent subsets and use it to define an inconsistency-tolerant inference relation. We show the rationality of our inference relation by considering some logical properties. Finally, we conduct experiments on several ontologies to evaluate the reasoning power of our inference relation. The experimental results show that our embedding-based method can outperform existing inconsistency-tolerant reasoning methods based on maximal consistent subsets.