Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the impact of Large Language Model (LLM) scale on ontology learning (OL) performance by analyzing 13 models, including dense and Mixture-of-Experts variants, using a standardized retrieval-augmented generation pipeline. The results reveal that while increasing model size generally enhances precision, the benefits are not uniform across tasks, with dense models showing superior performance in term typing compared to larger sparse models. Additionally, the findings highlight that architectural differences and model lineage can significantly influence OL outcomes, suggesting that model size alone is not a reliable criterion for selection in ontology engineering tasks.
Increasing LLM size boosts precision in ontology learning, but the relationship is complex and task-dependent, challenging the notion that bigger is always better.
The effect of Large Language Model (LLM) scale on ontology learning (OL) performance remains insufficiently characterized. We present a controlled evaluation of 13 models spanning dense and Mixture-of-Experts variants from the Qwen3.5 and Qwen3.6 lineages, together with proprietary GPT release variants, using the OntoLearner retrieval-augmented generation pipeline. All models are evaluated with the same embedding model, retrieval configuration, prompt templates, decoding settings, datasets, and metrics on term typing, taxonomy discovery, and non-taxonomic relationship extraction across four biomedical and materials science and engineering ontologies. Within the dense Qwen3.5 lineage, increasing parameter count primarily improves precision rather than recall, with the largest gains occurring between 9B and 27B parameters. However, the effect of scale is neither monotonic nor uniform across tasks and domains. Dense 27B models outperform substantially larger sparse models on term typing, whereas larger Mixture-of-Experts models achieve the strongest open-weight results on taxonomy discovery. Non-taxonomic relationship extraction remains difficult across model scales, particularly for the Materials Data Science ontology. Performance differences across matched Qwen variants and proprietary GPT releases further indicate that architecture and model lineage can outweigh nominal parameter count. These findings show that model size alone is an insufficient selection criterion for OL and provide empirical guidance for reproducible LLM-assisted ontology engineering.
