Characterising LLM-Generated Competency Questions: a Cross-Domain Empirical Study using Open and Closed Models
Authors: Reham Alharbi, Valentina Tamma, Terry R. Payne, Jacopo de Berardinis
Organizations: Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia · University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Abstract
Competency Questions (CQs) are a cornerstone of requirement elicitation in ontology engineering. CQs represent requirements as a set of natural language questions that an ontology should satisfy; they are traditionally modelled by ontology engineers together with domain experts as part of a human-centred, manual elicitation process. The use of Generative AI automates CQ creation at scale, therefore democratising the process of generation, widening stakeholder engagement, and ultimately broadening access to ontology engineering. However, given the large and heterogeneous landscape of LLMs, varying in dimensions such as parameter scale, task and domain specialisation, and accessibility, it is crucial to characterise and understand the intrinsic, observable properties of the CQs they produce (e.g., readability, structural complexity) through a systematic, cross-domain analysis. This paper introduces a set of quantitative measures for the systematic comparison of CQs across multiple dimensions. Using CQs generated from well defined use cases and scenarios, we identify their salient properties, including readability, relevance with respect to the input text and structural complexity of the generated questions. We conduct our experiments over a set of use cases and requirements using a range of LLMs, including both open (KimiK2-1T, LLama3.1-8B, LLama3.2-3B) and closed models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 4.1). Our analysis demonstrates that LLM performance reflects distinct generation profiles shaped by the use case.
Competency Questions (CQs) are the central component of CQ-verification, an established process in which an ontology is evaluated against a set of natural language questions to determine whether the intended purpose of the ontology has been properly modelled. However, CQ-verification is often time-consuming and error-prone, as it requires careful interpretation of linguistic nuances and precise alignment with formal ontology constructs. Ambiguities and complexity in CQs can further complicate this process, leading to inconsistent modelling decisions and verification outcomes. In this paper, we investigate what makes a CQ challenging and possible solutions to enhance the users' performance in the CQ-verification process. We experimented with the data of 19 participants who performed CQ-verification on 20 tasks using an LLM assistant to support ontology evaluation. The results show the necessity of a tool to refine CQs before publishing them to avoid ambiguity or excessive complexity in later phases of the ontology engineering process.
Anna Sofia Lippolis, Mohammad Javad Saeedizade, Robin Keskisärkkä +3
Ontology extension refers to the process of enriching an existing ontology in response to emerging requirements, making it more complete. This task is a resource-intensive and error-prone process. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance on generating ontologies from scratch, but current approaches rarely tie ontology extension explicitly to requirements or reusable core models, and offer limited, systematic evaluation of LLM outputs. This paper introduces OntoExtend, a requirements-driven framework for ontology extension with LLMs. It uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over relevant input ontologies and requirements in the form of competency questions to propose grounded extensions. We evaluate OntoExtend on 39 CQs from two use cases: a public EU-project ontology, Onto-DESIDE, and an industrial ontology from Bosch. The generated fragments show few structural issues, satisfy all functional evaluation tests, and are rated by ontology engineers as requiring minor to moderate revision before integration. These results suggest that OntoExtend is useful as a drafting assistant for requirement-driven ontology extension in real world scenarios, while remaining sensitive to CQ specificity and modelling profile.
Anna Sofia Lippolis, Mohammad Javad Saeedizade, Stefan Schmid +5
Automatically generating formal ontologies from unstructured natural language remains a central challenge in knowledge engineering. While large language models (LLMs) show promise, it remains unclear which architectural design choices drive generation quality and why current approaches fail. We present a controlled experimental study using domain-specific insurance contracts to investigate these questions. We first establish a single-agent LLM baseline, identifying key failure modes such as poor Ontology Design Pattern compliance, structural redundancy, and ineffective iterative repair. We then introduce a multi-agent architecture that decomposes ontology construction into four artifact-driven roles: Domain Expert, Manager, Coder, and Quality Assurer. We evaluate performance across architectural quality (via a panel of heterogeneous LLM judges) and functional usability (via competency question driven SPARQL evaluation with complementary retrieval augmented generation based assessment). Results show that the multi-agent approach significantly improves structural quality and modestly enhances queryability, with gains driven primarily by front-loaded planning. These findings highlight planning-first, artifact-driven generation as a promising and more auditable path toward scalable automated ontology engineering.
Abid Talukder, Maruf Ahmed Mridul, Oshani Seneviratne