Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Ontology Matching with Large Language Models and Prioritized Depth-First Search

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper presents MILA, a zero-shot matcher that wins five of seven unsupervised ontology-matching tasks by reserving large-language-model queries for borderline pairs.

desk verdict MILA is a practical LLM-based OM system with a clever HCB gate and PDFS that cuts LLM queries, but the SOTA F-Measure claim rests on uncontrolled baseline tables and needs tightening before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11441 v2 pith:RYEIPWG6 submitted 2025-01-20 cs.IR cs.CL

Maria Taboada , Diego Martinez , Mohammed Arideh , Rosa Mosquera This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords ontologymatchinglargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationprioritizeddepth-firstsearchbidirectionalcorrespondencezero-shotlearningSBERTembeddingsbiomedicalontologies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Ontology matching—deciding that two concepts in different ontologies are the same—is expensive to do with large language models because checking every candidate pair costs time and money. This paper claims that most correct matches can be decided by a fast embedding-based retrieval step, with the language model consulted only on uncertain pairs. The strategy, called MILA, achieved the best F-measure in five of the seven unsupervised tasks in the 2024 international ontology-alignment evaluation campaign, outperforming state-of-the-art systems by up to 17 percentage points while using far fewer LLM requests than a plain retrieve-then-prompt pipeline. The system needs no fine-tuning and no domain-specific heuristics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the high-confidence bidirectional (HCB) correspondence: a source entity and a target entity that are the top-ranked candidates in each other's embedding-similarity candidate lists, which MILA treats as a confirmed equivalence without any LLM call. Around it, the paper builds a prioritized depth-first search (PDFS) over each entity's ranked candidate list, querying the LLM only when a pair is bidirectional but not mutual-top-rank and stopping as soon as the LLM answers 'Yes'. A cosine-similarity retrieval step over entity labels using an SBERT embedding model supplies the ranked lists, and a threshold ($\tau = 0.75$) with a fixed top-$k=5$ bounds the candidate sets.

What would settle it

Run the paper's retrieval step on the reference alignments and measure the precision of the HCB pairs alone: compute, for every pair of entities that are each other's top-ranked candidates, how many appear in the gold-standard equivalence alignments. If that precision is far below the reported system precision (0.93–0.98), the HCB shortcut is the source of false positives; if it is close to 1, the shortcut is sound and the claimed gains are real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In its own terms, MILA claims that ontology matching can be solved by a retrieve-identify-prompt pipeline: a fast embedding retriever proposes ranked candidate entities, an identify stage recognises when two entities mutually rank each other first—the high-confidence bidirectional (HCB) correspondence—and emits that equivalence directly, and a prioritized depth-first search prompts a large language model with a binary equivalence question only for the remaining bidirectional candidates, stopping at the first confirmation. The claim is that this zero-shot combination reaches the best F-measure in five of the seven unsupervised tasks of the 2024 international ontology-matching evaluation campaign, beats the strongest published systems by up to 17 percentage points, and with a smaller model cuts a 47-hour retrieve-then-prompt run to about 45 minutes on the largest task, all without fine-tuning, domain-specific heuristics, or post-processing.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that two entities that rank each other first in the embedding-similarity lists are in fact equivalent; if mutually top-ranked pairs can be not equivalent, those false matches enter the final alignment without any LLM check and the reported precision would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLM-based ontology matching cost can be cut by an order of magnitude or more by outsourcing confident matches to retrieval and using the LLM only for borderline candidates.
  • A zero-shot matcher with no domain-specific heuristics can reach or exceed the F-measure of fine-tuned biomedical matchers on most tasks, including a 17-point lead on OMIM-ORDO and SNOMED-NCIT Neoplasm.
  • The quality of the retriever is decisive: when the embedding model ranks the correct candidate first, HCB matches short-circuit the pipeline; when it does not, LLM queries multiply and runtime grows, as observed on the pharmacology task.
  • The same architecture yields stable results across biomedical, anatomy, and biodiversity tasks, indicating that the approach is task-agnostic.
  • Removing the LLM entirely (the MILA-HCB configuration) still achieves precision near 0.99 on some tasks, so the LLM's marginal role is mainly to raise recall on hard cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The HCB shortcut is a form of symmetric nearest-neighbor agreement; in domains with many near-duplicates or homonyms, mutual top-rank could be far less reliable, so transferring the approach beyond terminology-dense biomedical ontologies is an open test.
  • The reported speedup depends on retrieval quality: on tasks where the true match never enters the top candidate list, MILA inherits the retriever's recall ceiling and cannot recover matches the retriever never proposed.
  • A concrete extension would be to run the retrieval step with varying thresholds and top-k values and measure whether HCB precision changes; if HCB precision depends strongly on k, the shortcut is a tuning artifact rather than a stable property of the embedding space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MILA, a zero-shot ontology matching system that combines SBERT embedding-based retrieval with a retrieve-identify-prompt pipeline embedded in a prioritized depth-first search. The identify step emits high-confidence bidirectional correspondences without LLM confirmation, and the PDFS strategy limits LLM queries to borderline cases. The system is evaluated on seven OAEI 2024 tasks in the biomedical, anatomy, and biodiversity domains. The authors claim that MILA achieves the highest F-Measure in five of seven unsupervised tasks, outperforms state-of-the-art systems by up to 17%, and reduces runtime compared with a retrieve-then-prompt baseline, all without fine-tuning or domain-specific heuristics.

Significance. If the reported results hold, MILA is a valuable contribution to LLM-based ontology matching: it demonstrates that a combination of programmed search, learned embeddings, and a single LLM verification step can yield competitive or superior F-Measure while drastically reducing the number of LLM calls. The paper's strengths include the availability of code, the use of parameters (k, tau) taken from prior work rather than fitted to the test labels, evaluation against standard OAEI reference alignments, and a detailed runtime analysis. The claim of task-agnostic performance is also supported by stable results across several benchmark families. The main caveats lie in the provenance of baseline scores and the lack of statistical quantification, both of which affect the strength of the headline comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4, Tables 1-5] The baseline performance scores are compiled from OAEI 2023 and 2024 reports and separate literature sources rather than re-run in a controlled setup on the same benchmark version. Because OAEI editions differ in ontology releases, reference alignments, and evaluation protocols, the claimed 'best in five of seven' ranking and the specific margins (e.g., 17% over LogMapBio on OMIM-ORDO) are not established on a common benchmark. The authors should either re-run the comparison systems on the exact same task versions or clearly restrict the claims to a subset with per-cell provenance (edition, ontology version, reference alignment) for every baseline score.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Tables 1-5] The paper reports that each experiment was executed a minimum of 20 times to estimate variance, yet all F-Measure tables report only point estimates. The 'Average Variance in LLM' column in Table 7 does not quantify the uncertainty of the headline F-Measure differences, so margins of up to 17% could be within run-to-run variability. The authors should report means with standard deviations or confidence intervals, and where appropriate perform significance tests for the claimed improvements over the strongest baselines.
  3. [Section 5.6.3 and Table 8] The runtime comparison between MILA and the retrieve-then-prompt baseline is not controlled. The MILA results in Tables 7 and 9 use LLaMa-3.1-70B via an inference endpoint, while the runtime comparison in Table 8 uses LLaMa-3.3-8B-Instruct, and the baseline pipeline is not described with the same algorithmic detail. Hardware, model, and serving differences confound the reported runtime reduction. The comparison should be made with the same LLM and execution environment, or the differences should be explicitly stated as limitations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs Highlights] The abstract states 'achieved the highest F-Measure in four of the five unsupervised tasks,' while the Highlights section states 'five of the seven tasks in the unsupervised setting.' The counts should be reconciled to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Table 3] The NCIT-DOID row reports F-Measure 0.970 for P=0.967 and R=0.928, but the harmonic mean is approximately 0.947. Please verify the reported values.
  3. [Section 5.4] The text contains a typo: 'OEAI' should be 'OAEI' in several places, including the phrase 'biomedical evaluation benchmark proposed by the OEAI in the 2024 edition'.
  4. [Table 7] The column header 'Average Variance in LLM' is unclear; it should specify what quantity is averaged (e.g., variance of F-Measure or of LLM responses) and over how many runs.
  5. [References] Reference [41] lists 'T. Benson, G. Grieve, T. Benson, G. Grieve' as authors; the duplicated names should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; MILA's F-measure and runtime claims are evaluated against external OAEI reference alignments and do not reduce to their own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the load-bearing sense. The candidate retrieval, HCB identification, LLM prompting, and runtime comparisons are computed from the input ontologies and evaluated against external OAEI reference alignments; no parameter is fitted to those reference labels. The HCB shortcut is a retrieval-based heuristic defined through mutual top-rank in SBERT candidate sets, and while the paper does not prove that mutual top-rank implies true equivalence, it reports HCB precision separately in Table 9 rather than treating the definition as a measure of correctness. No claim is made that HCB pairs are correct by definition. Hyperparameters such as k=5 and the 0.75 threshold are justified by external prior work or fixed thresholds, not by optimizing the test set. The comparison tables mix OAEI 2023, 2024, and literature baselines, which raises an evaluation-provenance concern, but that is a correctness and comparability issue, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renamed known result presented as a derivation. The PDFS strategy and the retrieve-identify-prompt pipeline are algorithmic contributions assessed against external benchmarks, so the central claims are self-contained and independently falsifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The constants tau=0.75 and k=5 are adopted from prior work rather than fit to these tasks, which is good, but they are still hand-chosen values that shape the candidate sets and therefore the HCB gate. The main domain assumption is that mutual top-k retrieval implies high-precision equivalence; the paper justifies it with symmetry intuition but does not measure HCB precision separately. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • top-k candidate count k = 5
    Set following [23]; controls the size of the retrieval candidate pool for every label, and therefore the recall ceiling and the HCB gate.
  • similarity threshold tau = 0.75
    Discards SBERT candidates below this threshold; adopted from [23], and directly affects the precision/recall tradeoff of the candidate sets.
  • SBERT encoder = multi-qa-distilbert-cos-v1
    Chosen based on an ablation in [20]; the ranking it produces determines which pairs become HCB and which go to the LLM.
  • LLM temperature = 0.7
    Default value chosen to balance creativity and logical coherence; influences the stochastic LLM judgments on borderline pairs.
  • LLM model = LLaMa-3.1-70B for main results; LLaMa-3.3-8B for runtime comparison
    The choice of LLM affects both F-Measure and runtime; using different sizes for evaluation and runtime analysis complicates the efficiency claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Entities with semantically similar labels are likely to be equivalent, so SBERT cosine similarity ranks true correspondences near the top.
    Used throughout Section 4.2; if the retriever ranks correct matches outside the top-k, neither the HCB shortcut nor PDFS can recover them.
  • domain assumption A mutual top-ranked (HCB) correspondence can be accepted without LLM confirmation.
    Defined in Section 4.3.1 and applied in Algorithm 1; this is the key shortcut that saves LLM calls, and any false HCB adds a false positive directly to the alignment.
  • domain assumption LLM zero-shot binary judgments on entity pairs are reliable for borderline cases.
    The prompt template in Section 4.3.2 makes the LLM the final arbiter for all non-HCB candidates; if these judgments are unreliable, precision drops.
  • domain assumption OAEI reference alignments are correct ground truth for precision, recall, and F-Measure computation.
    Section 5.1 and 5.2; all conclusions inherit the quality and completeness of these benchmarks.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between SBERT label embeddings is an adequate cross-ontology similarity measure.
    Section 4.2 defines f_w using cosine similarity; this is the foundation of all candidate generation and ranking.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ontology Matching with Large Language Models and Prioritized Depth-First Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYEIPWG6

@misc{pith2026250111441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ontology Matching with Large Language Models and Prioritized Depth-First Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYEIPWG6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11441}
}
read the original abstract

Ontology matching (OM) plays a key role in enabling data interoperability and knowledge sharing, but it remains challenging due to the need for large training datasets and limited vocabulary processing in machine learning approaches. Recently, methods based on Large Language Model (LLMs) have shown great promise in OM, particularly through the use of a retrieve-then-prompt pipeline. In this approach, relevant target entities are first retrieved and then used to prompt the LLM to predict the final matches. Despite their potential, these systems still present limited performance and high computational overhead. To address these issues, we introduce MILA, a novel approach that embeds a retrieve-identify-prompt pipeline within a prioritized depth-first search (PDFS) strategy. This approach efficiently identifies a large number of semantic correspondences with high accuracy, limiting LLM requests to only the most borderline cases. We evaluated MILA using the biomedical challenge proposed in the 2023 and 2024 editions of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative. Our method achieved the highest F-Measure in four of the five unsupervised tasks, outperforming state-of-the-art OM systems by up to 17%. It also performed better than or comparable to the leading supervised OM systems. MILA further exhibited task-agnostic performance, remaining stable across all tasks and settings, while significantly reducing LLM requests. These findings highlight that high-performance LLM-based OM can be achieved through a combination of programmed (PDFS), learned (embedding vectors), and prompting-based heuristics, without the need of domain-specific heuristics or fine-tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of MILA. We used cosine similarity in this step of the RAG model since it guarantees the retrieval of contextually relevant candidates, even when their labels differ, which is essential to achieve high-quality correspondences [38] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prediction of correspondence candidates for the entity ncit:C3745 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example showing the identification of an HCB correspondence between the source entity ncit:C99383 and the target entity DOID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example showing the retrieve-identify-prompt pipeline embedded into the PDFS strategy. particular, the low performance achieved by LLM-based solutions in this domain encourages the development of new approaches [23]. To further assess the robustness and broader applica…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sapel, L

    P. Sapel, L. Molinas Comet, I. Dimitriadis, C. Hopmann, S. Decker, A review and classification of manufacturing ontologies, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) 1–25

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Esteves, V

    B. Esteves, V . Rodr´ıguez-Doncel, Analysis of ontologies and policy languages to represent information flows in GDPR, Semantic Web 15 (3) (2024) 709–743

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    J. A. Dominguez, S. Gonnet, M. Vegetti, The role of ontologies in smart contracts: A systematic literature review, Journal of Industrial Information Integration (2024) 100630

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Strader, N

    J. Strader, N. Hughes, W. Chen, A. Speranzon, L. Carlone, Indoor and outdoor 3D scene graph generation via language-enabled spatial ontologies, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Euzenat, P

    J. Euzenat, P. Shvaiko, et al., Ontology matching, V ol. 18, Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Osman, S

    I. Osman, S. B. Yahia, G. Diallo, Ontology integration: approaches and challenging issues, Information Fusion 71 (2021) 38–63

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Portisch, M

    J. Portisch, M. Hladik, H. Paulheim, Background knowledge in ontology matching: A survey, Semantic Web (2022) 1–55

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    X. Zhao, W. Zeng, J. Tang, W. Wang, F. M. Suchanek, An experimental study of state-of-the-art entity alignment approaches, IEEE Transac- tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34 (6) (2020) 2610–2625

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, A

    Y . Zhang, A. Floratou, J. Cahoon, S. Krishnan, A. C. M¨uller, D. Banda, F. Psallidas, J. M. Patel, Schema matching using pre-trained language models, in: 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1558–1571

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, O

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, O. Hassanzadeh, C. Trojahn, S. Hertling, H. Li, P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Work- shop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 23rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2024), no. 3897 in CEUR Workshop Proceed...

    2024

  3. [11]

    J. Chen, O. Mashkova, F. Zhapa-Camacho, R. Hoehndorf, Y . He, I. Horrocks, Ontology embedding: A survey of methods, applications and resources, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10964 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B. Cuenca Grau, Logmap: Logic-based and scalable ontology matching, in: The Semantic Web–ISWC 2011: 10th Interna- tional Semantic Web Conference, Bonn, Germany, October 23-27, 2011, Proceedings, Part I 10, Springer, 2011, pp. 273–288

    2011

  5. [13]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, B. Grau, V . Cross, Logmap family participation in the OAEI 2017, in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, V ol. 2032, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2017, pp. 1–5

    2017

  6. [14]

    Kolyvakis, A

    P. Kolyvakis, A. Kalousis, B. Smith, D. Kiritsis, Biomedical ontology alignment: an approach based on representation learning, Journal of biomedical semantics 9 (2018) 1–20

    2018

  7. [15]

    Y . He, J. Chen, H. Dong, E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, A. Hadian, I. Horrocks, Machine learning-friendly biomedical datasets for equivalence and subsumption ontology matching, in: International Semantic Web Conference, Springer, 2022, pp. 575–591

    2022

  8. [16]

    J. Chen, E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, I. Horrocks, D. Antonyrajah, A. Hadian, J. Lee, Augmenting ontology alignment by semantic embedding and distant supervision, in: The Semantic Web: 18th International Conference, ESWC 2021, Virtual Event, June 6–10, 2021, Proceedings 18, Springer, 20...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Y . He, J. Chen, D. Antonyrajah, I. Horrocks, Bertmap: a BERT-based ontology alignment system, in: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 36, 2022, pp. 5684–5691

    2022

  10. [18]

    Faria, M

    D. Faria, M. C. Silva, P. Cotovio, L. Ferraz, L. Balbi, C. Pesquita, Results for Matcha and Matcha-DL in OAEI 2023., in: OM@ ISWC, 2023, pp. 164–169

    2023

  11. [19]

    Gosselin, A

    F. Gosselin, A. Zouaq, Sorbet: A siamese network for ontology embeddings using a distance-based regression loss and BERT, in: International Semantic Web Conference, Springer, 2023, pp. 561–578

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hertling, H

    S. Hertling, H. Paulheim, Olala: Ontology matching with large language models, in: Proceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 2023, 2023, pp. 131–139

    2023

  13. [21]

    Peeters, C

    R. Peeters, C. Bizer, Using ChatGPT for entity matching, in: European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems, Springer, 2023, pp. 221–230. 21

    2023

  14. [22]

    Q. Wang, Z. Gao, R. Xu, Exploring the in-context learning ability of large language model for biomedical concept linking, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01137 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    H. B. Giglou, J. D’Souza, S. Auer, LLMs4OM: Matching ontologies with Large Language Models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10317 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Reimers, Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-Networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019)

    N. Reimers, Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-Networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, in: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY , USA, 2017...

    2017

  18. [26]

    S. S. Norouzi, M. S. Mahdavinejad, P. Hitzler, Conversational ontology alignment with ChatGPT, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09217 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y . He, J. Chen, H. Dong, I. Horrocks, Exploring large language models for ontology alignment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07172 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. Liu, W. Yuan, J. Fu, Z. Jiang, H. Hayashi, G. Neubig, Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing, ACM Computing Surveys 55 (9) (2023) 1–35

    2023

  21. [29]

    M. A. Khoudja, M. Fareh, H. Bouarfa, Deep embedding learning with auto-encoder for large-scale ontology matching, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 18 (1) (2022) 1–18

    2022

  22. [30]

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, M. Wang, H. Wang, Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. d. Coronado, M. W. Haber, N. Sioutos, M. S. Tuttle, L. W. Wright, NCI Thesaurus: using science-based terminology to integrate cancer research results, in: MEDINFO 2004, IOS Press, 2004, pp. 33–37

    2004

  24. [32]

    L. M. Schriml, C. Arze, S. Nadendla, Y .-W. W. Chang, M. Mazaitis, V . Felix, G. Feng, W. A. Kibbe, Disease ontology: a backbone for disease semantic integration, Nucleic acids research 40 (D1) (2012) D940–D946

    2012

  25. [33]

    Sampels, S

    J. Sampels, S. Efeoglu, S. Schimmler, Exploring prompt generation utilizing graph search algorithms for ontology matching, in: Knowledge Graphs in the Age of Language Models and Neuro-Symbolic AI, IOS Press, 2024, pp. 2–19

    2024

  26. [34]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, A

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, A. Agibetov, J. Chen, M. Samwald, V . Cross, Dividing the ontology alignment task with semantic embeddings and logic- based modules, in: ECAI 2020, IOS Press, 2020, pp. 784–791

    2020

  27. [35]

    Jim ´enez-Ruiz, C

    E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, C. Meilicke, B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, Evaluating mapping repair systems with large biomedical ontologies., Description Logics 13 (2013) 246–257

    2013

  28. [36]

    Santos, D

    E. Santos, D. Faria, C. Pesquita, F. M. Couto, Ontology alignment repair through modularization and confidence-based heuristics, PloS one 10 (12) (2015) e0144807

    2015

  29. [37]

    W. Li, S. Zhang, Repairing mappings across biomedical ontologies by probabilistic reasoning and belief revision, Knowledge-Based Systems 209 (2020) 106436

    2020

  30. [38]

    Lewis, E

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt¨aschel, et al., Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 9459–9474

    2020

  31. [39]

    Hamosh, A

    A. Hamosh, A. F. Scott, J. Amberger, D. Valle, V . A. McKusick, Online mendelian inheritance in man (OMIM), Human mutation 15 (1) (2000) 57–61

    2000

  32. [40]

    Vasant, L

    D. Vasant, L. Chanas, J. Malone, M. Hanauer, A. Olry, S. Jupp, P. N. Robinson, H. Parkinson, A. Rath, ORDO: an ontology connecting rare disease, epidemiology and genetic data, in: Proceedings of ISMB, V ol. 30, researchgate. net, 2014, pp. 1–4

    2014

  33. [41]

    Benson, G

    T. Benson, G. Grieve, T. Benson, G. Grieve, SNOMED CT, Principles of Health Interoperability: FHIR, HL7 and SNOMED CT (2021) 293–324

    2021

  34. [42]

    Rosse, J

    C. Rosse, J. L. Mejino Jr, A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the Foundational Model of Anatomy, Journal of biomedical informatics 36 (6) (2003) 478–500

    2003

  35. [43]

    J.-B. Lamy, Owlready: Ontology-oriented programming in python with automatic classification and high level constructs for biomedical ontologies, Artificial intelligence in medicine 80 (2017) 11–28

    2017

  36. [44]

    Dubey, A

    A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan, et al., The Llama 3 herd of models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wang, AMD results for OAEI 2022., in: OM@ ISWC, 2022, pp

    Z. Wang, AMD results for OAEI 2022., in: OM@ ISWC, 2022, pp. 145–152

    2022

  38. [46]

    Y . He, J. Chen, H. Dong, I. Horrocks, C. Allocca, T. Kim, B. Sapkota, Deeponto: A python package for ontology engineering with deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03067 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Oulefki, L

    S. Oulefki, L. Berkani, L. Bellatreche, N. Boudjenah, A. Mokhtari, Results for BioGITOM in OAEI 2024, in: E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, O. Hassan- zadeh, C. Trojahn, S. Hertling, H. Li, P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Menad, S

    S. Menad, S. Abdedda ¨ım, L. F. Soualmia, BioSTransMatch results in OAEI 2024, in: E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, O. Hassanzadeh, C. Trojahn, S. Hertling, H. Li, P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-located with the 23rd Int...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Totoian, A

    M. Totoian, A. Marginean, P. Blohm, M. N. Hussain, HybridOM: Ontology matching using hybrid search, in: E. Jim ´enez-Ruiz, O. Hassan- zadeh, C. Trojahn, S. Hertling, H. Li, P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Ontology Matching co-lo...

    2024

  42. [50]

    X. Liu, J. Grode, M. R. Hansen, Mdmapper: A framework for aligning master data models using ontology matching techniques, in: E. Jim´enez-Ruiz, O. Hassanzadeh, C. Trojahn, S. Hertling, H. Li, P. Shvaiko, J. Euzenat (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Work- shop on On...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Khatwani, J

    N. Khatwani, J. Geller, What makes a good concept anyway?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06150 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P. G. Cotovio, L. Ferraz, D. Faria, L. Balbi, M. C. Silva, C. Pesquita, Matcha-DL a tool for supervised ontology alignment, preprint (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Silva, D

    M. Silva, D. Faria, C. Pesquita, Complex multi-ontology alignment through geometric operations on language embeddings, in: ECAI, 2024, 22 pp. 1333–1340. 23 OM Ontology Prediction Fine- Domain- Mapping System Knowledge Model Tuning specific Refinement in Prediction Knowledge AM...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.