Natural-language-to-domain-specific-language (NL-to-DSL) semantic parsing systems increasingly translate informal user descriptions into structured artifacts such as Structured Query Language (SQL) queries, Application Programming Interface (API) calls, workflows, formal specifications, and ontology-grounded domain-specific language (DSL) statements. This paper focuses on ontology-grounded Assertion Box (ABox) DSL generation: the translation of natural language domain descriptions into assertion-level DSL statements grounded in a pre-existing ontology vocabulary. In this setting, syntactic validity is often easier to achieve than semantic adequacy. Failures are frequently attributed to weak generator models, but recurring sources of difficulty are also structural: insufficient input, weak domain grounding, output template and vocabulary gaps, weak validation, and non-local repair. We propose a role-level difficulty profile for diagnosing difficulty in ontology-grounded NL-to-DSL semantic parsing at the workflow level. The profile organizes diagnostic variables across five recurring workflow roles: Input, Generator, Output, Validator, and Repairer. The seven variables are input sufficiency, context availability, grounding complexity, template fit, vocabulary coverage, validation strength, and error observability. Practitioners construct the difficulty profile through qualitative judgment over available evidence. This experience-informed, non-exhaustive difficulty profile is intended to support workflow diagnosis and guide redesign or human-in-the-loop intervention.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Typical workflow and recurring roles in LLM-based ontology-grounded semantic parsing.
Semantic parsing maps natural language into structured representations, such as logical forms, graphs, or queries, that machines can execute or reason over.
SHACL is a core technology for validating the conformance of RDF knowledge graphs (KGs). Yet, authoring SHACL shapes requires technical expertise that most domain experts lack. Translating natural language requirements into SHACL (NL2SHACL) would lower this barrier. However, there is no dedicated benchmark for NL2SHACL, and evaluating generated shapes requires methods beyond string comparison, as semantically equivalent shapes can differ in serialisation and structure. To tackle these challenges, we present NL2SHACL-Bench, a benchmark suite for natural language to SHACL translation. Using NL2SHACL-Bench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) for this task. Our results show that current LLMs are highly capable of generating syntactically valid SHACL, but still struggle to produce semantically equivalent constraints for complex logical and structural patterns. This indicates that NL2SHACL-Bench provides a meaningful basis for measuring advances in the NL2SHACL state of the art.
Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential---yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of FOLIO and a subset of MALLS test instances, finding that approximately 42.5% and 42% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (17.8% and 51%) and incorrect NLI labels in FOLIO (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +11 to +23 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 20% of instances, compared to over 76% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.
Natural-language instructions often rely on high-level abstractions, such as asking an agent to ``stack blocks in a pyramid.'' Interpreting abstract instructions requires models to both identify the abstraction intended by the speaker, and unroll it into the many concrete actions that instantiate it. Language models struggle here: prior work has shown that performance degrades as the level of abstraction in the instruction rises. To bridge the gap between natural language abstraction and concrete actions, we propose to borrow from coding environments the notion of a {\em domain-specific language} (DSL), an explicit representation layer whose documented primitives name recurring abstractions that expand into concrete actions. We demonstrate the efficacy of DSLs for NL interpretation on Hexagons, a visually-grounded instruction-following task graded for abstraction. We further ask whether language models can induce such DSLs themselves from domain data. Our results show that while code generation consistently improves over direct inference, code generation over a human-curated DSL yields dramatic gains, up to 10 absolute F1 points, reaching the human skyline, with gains concentrated at {\em higher} abstraction levels. We confirm this pattern on the Text2CAD benchmark. At the same time, model-induced DSLs recover only part of this gain, remaining inconsistent across runs and short of their human-curated counterpart. Overall, the right representation closes much of the gap caused by high abstraction --- but inducing that layer of representation automatically is where models still fall short, and where we see a strong opportunity for the community to make progress.