Logic Augmented Generation

Aldo Gangemi; Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Logic Augmented Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Logic Augmented Generation claims that LLMs can be used as reactive continuous knowledge graphs whose generated tacit knowledge is kept logically bounded by an injected semantic knowledge graph, enabling interpretable and reliable…

desk verdict A useful neuro-symbolic vision paper with an honest taxonomy but a load-bearing claim—SKG constraint enforcement—that is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14012 v2 pith:YMCWGWO5 submitted 2024-11-21 cs.AI cs.CL

Aldo Gangemi , Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.CL

keywords KnowledgeGraphsLargeLanguageModelsLogicAugmentedGenerationTacitCollectiveIntelligenceNeuro-symbolicAISemanticWebIn-contextLearning

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

Semantic knowledge graphs are interpretable and queryable but rigid, while large language models are flexible and context-aware but hard to trust. This paper proposes Logic Augmented Generation (LAG) to combine them: the LLM is treated as a Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graph that can generate potentially infinite relations and tacit knowledge on demand, and the semantic knowledge graph is injected as a discrete heuristic layer that supplies logical and factual boundaries. The authors argue this hybrid yields outputs that are both context-sensitive and logically constrained, mitigating the lack of truth-theoretic semantics in LLM outputs. They illustrate the idea on medical diagnostics and climate projections, where tacit knowledge such as inferring that recent travel may cause a fever is converted into explicit graph triples. The paper is a vision and architecture proposal; its reliability claims rest on prompt-based constraint, which the authors flag as challenging and do not yet test experimentally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graph (RCKG), defined as a semantic knowledge graph extracted from multimodal signals and extended with tacit knowledge by a generative LLM. Extraction proceeds through three named transformations: a supramodal step that renders multimodal signals in natural language, an amodal step that converts natural language into an OWL/RDF graph, and a tacit-extension step in which the LLM adds new triples. The LAG architecture then feeds this graph, together with an existing semantic knowledge graph and prompt heuristics, to the LLM so that the reference graph scopes the semantics and constrains the generated triples. The mechanism's job is to make plausibility-based generation answer to truth-preserving logical boundaries, producing an extended graph that experts can query and reason over.

What would settle it

Take the medical ontology used in the paper, keep a disjointness axiom such as Finding disjoint from Activity, run the LAG prompt to generate tacit causal triples for the sample case, and check the resulting graph with an OWL reasoner; a nontrivial number of unsatisfiable classes would show the knowledge graph is not actually constraining the LLM.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LAG can have the best of both worlds: a fixed-weight LLM is prompted, through in-context learning, with an automatically extracted semantic knowledge graph that represents the user's input and an existing reference knowledge graph, and responds by extending the graph with new triples that make tacit knowledge explicit while complying with the reference graph's axioms. The paper frames the LLM as a Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graph (RCKG): continuous because the model can combine learned patterns into effectively infinite outputs without retraining, and reactive because each prompt adapts its response. The semantic graph supplies a discrete, heuristic dimension that enforces hybrid logical consistency, factual boundaries, and interoperability. The authors are explicit that RCKG semantics is plausibility-preserving rather than truth-preserving, and that negotiating between plausibility and classical truth is an open problem they intend to address.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach depends on the hope that putting a structured knowledge graph into an LLM's prompt will keep the LLM's invented facts inside the graph's rules and boundaries, something the paper admits is hard and does not test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In medical diagnostics, LAG could turn a clinician's unspoken inference that a patient's recent travel is a triggering cause into explicit, queryable triples connected to standard coding systems.
In climate services, the same mechanism could harmonise expert opinions and target expected environmental scenarios, producing projections that are explainable and linked to established data.
Because LAG relies on in-context learning rather than fine-tuning, it can incorporate new knowledge without weight updates, making it applicable to evolving knowledge spaces.
Unlike retrieval-augmented generation, which is limited to static corpora, LAG is designed to synthesise and adapt knowledge dynamically while keeping outputs grounded in a semantic graph.
If the constraint holds, LAG offers a route from open-ended LLM outputs to formal knowledge that can be checked by a reasoner, supporting collaborative decision-making with accountability.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would measure how often generated triples violate the reference graph's axioms; if violations are frequent even with strong prompting, the reliability promise shifts from architecture to prompt engineering.
The continuity metaphor suggests a compositional semantics in which a discrete logical layer and a continuous plausibility layer interact; formalising how mixed transitivity chains behave could generalise to other neuro-symbolic systems.
The same pattern could generalise beyond medicine and climate to any open-ended task where communities must reconcile divergent views, such as scientific hypothesis generation or policy deliberation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clearly written vision paper that gives a name and architecture to a design pattern people are circling—LLM as a continuous knowledge graph, SKG as the logical guardrail. But the guardrail is wishful: the paper claims LAG 'enforces logical consistency and factual boundaries' while providing no mechanism that actually enforces anything, and no experiment showing it happens. The authors are honest about the open challenges, but the central claim is unsupported.

What's good: the RCKG framing is a clean handle on LLM-as-KG. The paper distinguishes itself from RAG and fine-tuning without strawmanning them, and it engages with prior continuous-KG work like iText2KG rather than pretending the idea came from nowhere. The HACID medical/climate context gives the proposal a concrete home. The example in Figure 2 is plausible as an illustration, not as evidence.

Soft spots: the stress-test note is on target. In Figure 1, the only constraint on the LLM is the prompt. There is no reasoner call, no validation loop, no check that generated triples satisfy the SKG's OWL axioms. In-context learning is a heuristic; it cannot guarantee satisfiability. The authors concede that 'Constraining RCKGs to generate knowledge within precise boundaries poses significant challenges,' yet the abstract and Section 4 still say LAG 'enforces' these boundaries. That is an overclaim. There are no experiments, no quantitative comparisons, and the only example is hand-crafted. For a vision paper this is acceptable, but it means the reliability value proposition is unmeasured.

The paper leans heavily on the authors' own stack—FRED, DOLCE, Framester, ODPs. Not disqualifying, but the architecture is partly an argument for a particular toolchain, and readers should judge it accordingly.

Who this is for: people working on neuro-symbolic integration, LLM+KG, or ontology-grounded generation. They will get a concise reference point and a clear list of open problems. I would not cite it as evidence of a working method; I'd cite it as a design proposal.

Recommendation: peer review, yes, as a position paper. The main ask: either add a verification/reasoning component to the architecture or change 'enforcing' to 'encouraging,' and run a small pilot measuring triple-consistency violation rates with and without the SKG in the prompt. That would make the claim testable.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Logic Augmented Generation (LAG), a conceptual architecture that combines Semantic Knowledge Graphs (SKGs) with Large Language Models (LLMs), which the authors call Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graphs (RCKGs). LAG proposes to use an SKG as a discrete, logical and factual scaffolding that is injected into the LLM prompt via in-context learning, so that the LLM's generated triples (tacit knowledge) stay within the SKG's boundaries. The paper motivates LAG through collective-intelligence use cases in medical diagnostics and climate services, illustrates the architecture with Figure 1, and presents a hand-crafted medical example in Figures 2 and 3. The contribution is framed as a vision/paradigm paper: it contains no experiments, no quantitative comparisons, and no validation of the central claim that the SKG enforces logical consistency on LLM outputs. The authors repeatedly acknowledge that constraining RCKGs is an open challenge, yet the architecture as drawn has no verification or reasoning component.

Significance. If LAG were realized as described, it would address a real and important gap: grounding the flexible, knowledge-rich outputs of LLMs in a formal ontology with clear logical and factual boundaries, thereby improving interpretability and reliability for high-stakes collective-intelligence tasks. The paper's conceptual contribution is the RCKG abstraction and the explicit articulation of a design space where SKGs act as a discrete heuristic layer. The authors are commendably candid about several open problems, including the formal semantics of tacit knowledge and the difficulty of prompt-based constraint enforcement. However, the central value proposition—that LAG 'enforces hybrid logical consistency' and produces triples that 'comply with the SKG'—is neither demonstrated nor backed by any architectural mechanism. As it stands, the paper is a plausible research agenda rather than a validated method, and its significance will depend on whether the missing consistency-checking mechanism can be supplied in future work.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Figure 1] The central claim that the extended SKG contains 'newly generated triples that comply with the SKG' is unsupported by any mechanism that checks such compliance. The only constraint described is in-context learning: the SKG is serialized into the prompt and the LLM is expected to respect it. There is no reasoner call, no consistency check, and no validation loop in the architecture. The paper itself concedes that 'Constraining RCKGs to generate knowledge within precise boundaries poses significant challenges' (Section 4). Because the reliability and interpretability claims rest on this constraint, the missing verification step is load-bearing. The authors should either add an explicit reconciliation/validation component (e.g., an OWL reasoner that checks the merged graph's consistency and rejects or repairs violating triples) or substantially soften the wording to state that logical consistency is an aspiration, not an achieved property of LAG.
[Section 4] The terms 'hybrid logical consistency' and 'comply with the SKG' are never formally defined. Is a generated triple 'compliant' if it is satisfiable with respect to the ontology TBox? If it is entailed by the SKG? If it does not violate declared domain/range or disjointness axioms? Without a precise formal criterion, the paper's central claim is untestable, and a reader cannot tell what would count as a violation or a successful LAG run. The paper should define the notion of logical consistency used—for instance, consistency of the merged ABox with the existing TBox—and state exactly how compliance is to be checked.
[Section 3] The definition of 'Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graph' is not precise enough to bear the paper's conceptual weight. The paper says LLMs are 'continuous' because they can generate a 'potentially infinite' number of outputs, but infinity of possible finite strings does not make a knowledge graph continuous in any mathematical sense (no topology, metric, or limit structure is defined). If 'continuous' is meant metaphorically, this should be stated explicitly; as written, the term risks overclaiming and obscures the difference between a conventional graph and a generative model. A formal or at least operational definition of RCKG is needed, e.g., in terms of a function from prompts to sets of triples.
[Section 4, Figures 2 and 3] The medical example is presented as 'A possible extended KG generated by LAG' (Figure 2), but the paper provides no evidence that this output was actually produced by the described pipeline—no LLM name, prompt template, model run, or raw output. The red triples may be entirely hand-crafted for illustration. Given that the paper advertises a first implementation (reference [4]), the authors should either show real output from that implementation or explicitly label Figure 2 as a schematic illustration, not a system output. As written, the example gives a false impression of empirical support.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract states that LAG is exemplified in two tasks (medical diagnostics and climate projections), but the paper provides a concrete example only for the medical case; climate services are mentioned but not exemplified. The wording should be adjusted to 'discussed' or a second example should be added.
[Section 1] The phrase 'LLMs are hardly interpretable' is informal; consider 'have limited interpretability' or 'are not interpretable in the same sense as SKGs'.
[Section 3] The notions 'supramodal' and 'amodal' are used heavily but defined only informally. A brief formal definition or a more explicit explanation of how these terms apply to natural language and knowledge graphs would improve readability.
[References] Reference [12] contains a corrupted character: 'd?Amato' should be 'd'Amato'.
[Section 4] The paper oscillates between assertive claims (e.g., 'SKGs ensure logical consistency' in Section 1) and cautious admissions (e.g., 'Constraining RCKGs ... poses significant challenges' in Section 4). The tone should be aligned with what is actually demonstrated, especially if the claims are softened in response to the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Definitional framing of RCKG does the work; no derived predictions reduce to inputs, so circularity is minor.

self definitional [Section 3, 'LLMs as Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graphs', second paragraph]
"we use LLMs as potential Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graphs (RCKGs). RCKGs are SKGs extracted from multimodal signal (e.g., text, speech, pictures, sensory data, etc.), using (typically or mostly) continuous vector spaces, such as generative pre-trained transformers."

RCKG is defined as an SKG extracted by an LLM-style continuous-vector pipeline, and then the LLM itself is called an RCKG. The identification is built into the definition: there is no independent characterization of RCKG from which 'LLMs are RCKGs' could be derived or falsified. This gives LAG's central wording some internal grounding, but it is a stipulative conceptualization rather than a derived result. It does not amount to a fitted parameter or prediction being renamed, so the circularity is definitional and low severity.

full rationale

The paper is a position/perspective paper with no equations, no fitted parameters, and no benchmark predictions; consequently no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs. The closest circularity-adjacent move is the definition of RCKG: RCKGs are defined as SKGs extracted using generative pre-trained transformers, after which saying that LAG 'uses LLMs as RCKGs' is true by definition. This is a naming/framing choice, not a derived result, and the paper is explicit that it is envisioning a paradigm and that properties and limitations are 'still mostly unknown.' The heavy use of the authors' own prior tools (FRED, Framester, DOLCE, Aemoo, Ontogenia) is self-citation, but these are component choices and preliminary pointers rather than load-bearing proofs; no uniqueness theorem or fitted quantity is imported. The main weakness is that the claimed 'enforcing hybrid logical consistency' (Section 4) has no verification mechanism and is admittedly challenging ('Constraining RCKGs to generate knowledge within precise boundaries poses significant challenges'), but an unsupported empirical assumption is a correctness/evidence issue, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the minor self-definitional framing and self-citation density, not a reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces two non-standard concepts (RCKG and LAG) and relies on several assumptions about natural language and LLM behavior. There are no free parameters because no quantitative model is fitted. The key assumptions are domain-level and ad hoc to the proposal: that LLMs can externalize tacit knowledge through prompting, and that SKG constraints actually bind the LLM's output. These are load-bearing but untested.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Natural language is supramodal, integrating and synthesizing information from multiple sensory modalities.
Cited from Fairhall & Caramazza (2013) and Binder (2016); underpins the first transformation in RCKG extraction (Section 3).
ad hoc to paper LLMs can be used as RCKGs to make tacit knowledge explicit when prompted effectively.
Stated as an assumption in Section 4: 'we assume that the generative capabilities of LLMs allow them be used as RCKG to make tacit knowledge more explicit when prompted effectively'.
ad hoc to paper In-context learning with an SKG-as-prompt enforces logical consistency of generated triples.
Central to LAG's reliability and consistency claims; asserted in Section 4 but not demonstrated by experiments.

invented entities (1)

Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graph (RCKG)
purpose: Models LLMs as dynamic knowledge generators that can produce potentially infinite relations and tacit knowledge on demand.
Introduced in this paper as a conceptual entity. It overlaps with existing 'continuous knowledge graph' notions (e.g., iText2KG) but adds a 'reactive' framing. No falsifiable handle outside the paper is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Logic Augmented Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMCWGWO5

@misc{pith2026241114012,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Logic Augmented Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMCWGWO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14012}
}

read the original abstract

Semantic Knowledge Graphs (SKG) face challenges with scalability, flexibility, contextual understanding, and handling unstructured or ambiguous information. However, they offer formal and structured knowledge enabling highly interpretable and reliable results by means of reasoning and querying. Large Language Models (LLMs) overcome those limitations making them suitable in open-ended tasks and unstructured environments. Nevertheless, LLMs are neither interpretable nor reliable. To solve the dichotomy between LLMs and SKGs we envision Logic Augmented Generation (LAG) that combines the benefits of the two worlds. LAG uses LLMs as Reactive Continuous Knowledge Graphs that can generate potentially infinite relations and tacit knowledge on-demand. SKGs are key for injecting a discrete heuristic dimension with clear logical and factual boundaries. We exemplify LAG in two tasks of collective intelligence, i.e., medical diagnostics and climate projections. Understanding the properties and limitations of LAG, which are still mostly unknown, is of utmost importance for enabling a variety of tasks involving tacit knowledge in order to provide interpretable and effective results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14012 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The architecture of LAG. 4. LAG: SKG+RCKG RCKGs are an example of a neuro-symbolic approach that generates a much richer and deeper knowledge graph than the basic meaning of the original text. RCKGs extract tacit knowledge by capturing insights, reasoning, or behaviours that resemble the informal, experiential, and often unspoken knowledge humans acquire through experience and practice [23]. While tacit knowledge … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Example of possible extended KG generated by LAG. This puts RCKG apart from most logics. For example, RCKG semantics is plausibility-preserving rather than truthpreserving. Its operators for entailment, necessity, possibility, etc. would be interpreted differently from traditional truth-theoretic ones, and the interaction between classical truth-preserving and plausibility-preserving axioms needs to be negotiated.… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A part of the SKG used as input of LAG to demonstrate our example (i.e. CASE). spaces and accommodates tacit knowledge, probabilistic inferences, and hybrid logical reasoning. Additionally, by using a neuro-symbolic approach, LAG facilitates the integration of structured knowledge with generative reasoning, allowing it to address challenges such as handling dynamic and conflicting information. This positions LAG as… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[4]

De Giorgis, S., Gangemi, A., Russo, A.: Neurosym- bolic Graph Enrichment for Grounded World Models (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12671

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

Banarescu,L.,Bonial,C.,Cai,S.,Georgescu,M.,Grif- fitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., Schneider, N.: Abstract Meaning Representation forSembanking.In:Proc.ofthe7thLinguisticAnnota- tionWorkshopandInteroperabilitywithDiscourse.pp. 178–186. ACL, Sofia, Bulgaria (August 2013),https: //aclanthology.org/W13-2322

work page 2013
[2]

Psychonomic bulletin & review 23(4), 1096–1108 (2016)

Binder, J.R.: In defense of abstract conceptual rep- resentations. Psychonomic bulletin & review 23(4), 1096–1108 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15(3), 1–45 (2024)

Chang,Y.,Wang,X.,Wang,J.,Wu,Y.,Yang,L.,Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al.: A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15(3), 1–45 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Geo- scientificModelDevelopment 9(5),1937–1958(2016)

Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G.A., Senior, C.A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R.J., Taylor, K.E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geo- scientificModelDevelopment 9(5),1937–1958(2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Journal of Neu- roscience 33(25), 10552–10558 (2013)

Fairhall, S.L., Caramazza, A.: Brain regions that rep- resent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neu- roscience 33(25), 10552–10558 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Pa- padakis, I., Tordai, A

Falco, R., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Shotton, D.M., Vitali, F.: Modelling owl ontologies with graffoo. In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Pa- padakis, I., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC (Satellite Events). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8798, pp. 320–325. Springer (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F

Gangemi, A., Alam, M., Asprino, L., Presutti, V., Recupero, D.R.: Framester: A wide coverage linguis- tic linked data hub. In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F. (eds.) EKAW. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10024, pp. 239–254 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 25 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the ISWC 2023 Posters, Demos and Industry Tracks: FromNovelIdeastoIndustrialPracticeco-locatedwith 22nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC

Gangemi, A., Graciotti, A., Meloni, A., Nuzzolese, A.G., Presutti, V., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Russo, A., Tripodi, R.: Text2AMR2FRED, a Tool for Trans- forming Text into RDF/OWL Knowledge Graphs via Abstract Meaning Representation. In: Proceedings of the ISWC 2023 Posters, De...

2023
[10]

In: Handbook on ontologies, pp

Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Ontology Design Patterns. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 221–243. Springer (2009)

2009
[11]

Semantic Web 8(6), 873–893 (2017)

Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Nuzzolese,A.G.,Draicchio,F.,Mongiovì,M.:Seman- tic Web Machine Reading with FRED. Semantic Web 8(6), 873–893 (2017)

2017
[12]

ACM Computing Surveys (Csur)54(4), 1–37 (2021)

Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d?Amato, C., Melo, G.D., Gutierrez, C., Kirrane, S., Gayo, J.E.L., Navigli, R., Neumaier, S., et al.: Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (Csur)54(4), 1–37 (2021)

2021
[13]

IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems33(2), 494–514 (2021)

Ji, S., Pan, S., Cambria, E., Marttinen, P., Philip, S.Y.: Asurveyonknowledgegraphs:Representation,acqui- sition, and applications. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems33(2), 494–514 (2021)

2021
[14]

In: To- wards a Knowledge-Aware AI, pp

Krause, F., Weller, T., Paulheim, H.: On a generalized framework for time-aware knowledge graphs. In: To- wards a Knowledge-Aware AI, pp. 69–74. IOS Press (2022)

2022
[15]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(34), e2221473120 (2023) A

Kurvers,R.H.,Nuzzolese,A.G.,Russo,A.,Barabucci, G., Herzog, S.M., Trianni, V.: Automating hybrid col- lectiveintelligenceinopen-endedmedicaldiagnostics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(34), e2221473120 (2023) A. Gangemi and A.G. Nuzzolese: Preprint submitte...

2023
[16]

Lairgi, Y., Moncla, L., Cazabet, R., Benabdeslem, K., Cléau, P.: iText2KG: Incremental Knowledge Graphs Construction Using Large Language Models (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03284

2024 arXiv
[17]

Business & Information Systems Engineering2, 245–248 (2010)

Leimeister, J.M.: Collective intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering2, 245–248 (2010)

2010
[18]

Advances in Neural InformationProcessingSystems 33,9459–9474(2020)

Lewis,P.,Perez,E.,Piktus,A.,Petroni,F.,Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.t., Rock- täschel, T., et al.: Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural InformationProcessingSystems 33,9459–9474(2020)

2020
[19]

In: Proc

Lippolis, A.S., Ceriani, M., Zuppiroli, S., Nuzzolese, A.G.: Ontogenia: Ontology generation with metacog- nitive prompting in large language models. In: Proc. of the Extended Semantic Web Conference - Satellite Events. Springer, Crete, Grece (2024)

2024
[20]

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14264691, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14264691

Nuzzolese, A.G., Lippolis, A.S., Xu, W., Ceriani, M., Russo, A., Trianni, V.: Top-down and bottom-up approaches to domain knowledge engineering (Dec 2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14264691, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14264691

2024 doi
[21]

Semantic Web8(1), 87–112 (2017)

Nuzzolese,A.G.,Presutti,V.,Gangemi,A.,Peroni,S., Ciancarini, P.: Aemoo: Linked data exploration based on knowledge patterns. Semantic Web8(1), 87–112 (2017)

2017
[22]

Paulheim, H., Gangemi, A.: Serving DBpedia with DOLCE–morethanjustaddingacherryontop.In:The SemanticWeb-ISWC2015:14thInternationalSeman- ticWebConference,Bethlehem,PA,USA,October11- 15,2015,Proceedings,PartI14.pp.180–196.Springer (2015)

2015
[23]

In: Knowledge in organisations, pp

Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. In: Knowledge in organisations, pp. 135–146. Routledge (2009)

2009
[24]

In: OWLED

Stoilos, G., Stamou, G.B., Tzouvaras, V., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: Fuzzy owl: Uncertainty and the semantic web. In: OWLED. vol. 5, pp. 11–12 (2005)

2005
[25]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05342 (2023) A

Wang, Y., Zhao, Y.: Metacognitive prompting im- proves understanding in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05342 (2023) A. Gangemi and A.G. Nuzzolese: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 8 of 8

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

De Giorgis, S., Gangemi, A., Russo, A.: Neurosym- bolic Graph Enrichment for Grounded World Models (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12671

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

Banarescu,L.,Bonial,C.,Cai,S.,Georgescu,M.,Grif- fitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., Schneider, N.: Abstract Meaning Representation forSembanking.In:Proc.ofthe7thLinguisticAnnota- tionWorkshopandInteroperabilitywithDiscourse.pp. 178–186. ACL, Sofia, Bulgaria (August 2013),https: //aclanthology.org/W13-2322

work page 2013

[3] [2]

Psychonomic bulletin & review 23(4), 1096–1108 (2016)

Binder, J.R.: In defense of abstract conceptual rep- resentations. Psychonomic bulletin & review 23(4), 1096–1108 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [3]

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15(3), 1–45 (2024)

Chang,Y.,Wang,X.,Wang,J.,Wu,Y.,Yang,L.,Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al.: A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 15(3), 1–45 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Geo- scientificModelDevelopment 9(5),1937–1958(2016)

Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G.A., Senior, C.A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R.J., Taylor, K.E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geo- scientificModelDevelopment 9(5),1937–1958(2016)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Journal of Neu- roscience 33(25), 10552–10558 (2013)

Fairhall, S.L., Caramazza, A.: Brain regions that rep- resent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neu- roscience 33(25), 10552–10558 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Pa- padakis, I., Tordai, A

Falco, R., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Shotton, D.M., Vitali, F.: Modelling owl ontologies with graffoo. In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Pa- padakis, I., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC (Satellite Events). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8798, pp. 320–325. Springer (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F

Gangemi, A., Alam, M., Asprino, L., Presutti, V., Recupero, D.R.: Framester: A wide coverage linguis- tic linked data hub. In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F. (eds.) EKAW. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10024, pp. 239–254 (2016)

work page 2016