Papers › Do LLMs Dream of Ontologies?
Do LLMs Dream of Ontologies?
Marco Bombieri, Paolo Fiorini, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, Marco Rospocher
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across diverse natural language processing tasks, yet their ability to memorize structured knowledge remains underexplored. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which general-purpose pre-trained LLMs retain and correctly reproduce concept identifier (ID)-label associations from publicly available ontologies. We conduct a systematic evaluation across multiple ontological resources, including the Gene Ontology, Uberon, Wikidata, and ICD-10, using LLMs such as Pythia-12B, Gemini-1.5-Flash, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Our findings reveal that only a small fraction of ontological concepts is accurately memorized, with GPT-4 demonstrating the highest performance. To understand why certain concepts are memorized more effectively than others, we analyze the relationship between memorization accuracy and concept popularity on the Web. Our results indicate a strong correlation between the frequency of a concept's occurrence online and the likelihood of accurately retrieving its ID from the label. This suggests that LLMs primarily acquire such knowledge through indirect textual exposure rather than directly from structured ontological resources. Furthermore, we introduce new metrics to quantify prediction invariance, demonstrating that the stability of model responses across variations in prompt language and temperature settings can serve as a proxy for estimating memorization robustness.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections