Onto-EV-WM is presented, an ontology-grounded diagnosis and verification-gated correction interface layered above EV-WM rather than a replacement world-model architecture, an ontology-grounded diagnosis and verification-gated correction interface layered above EV-WM.
Abstract
EV-WM represents candidate quality with feature and event scores, but these scores do not explicitly record an unmet task predicate, a route label for an available correction mechanism, or a post-correction acceptance result. We present Onto-EV-WM, an ontology-grounded diagnosis and verification-gated correction interface layered above EV-WM rather than a replacement world-model architecture. The implemented task-local TBox defines entity types, predicate signatures, and constraints; source-specific grounding maps predicted or simulator-observed states to task ABoxes; and deterministic rules retain each missing predicate and its arguments when assigning a route label. Learned or heuristic proposers remain separate from this symbolic interface; native task predicates determine acceptance, and the bounded protocol determines whether a failed verification is retried. In the aligned PointMaze evaluation, EV-WM and Onto-EV-WM both report 94% success, with mean final-state distances of 0.90573 and 0.61177, respectively; the separately budgeted search reaches 100% success. On LIBERO-Goal, the ontology represents failed task conditions as typed records, retains their predicate arguments, and associates them with the declared source/joint correction route and predicate-gated acceptance; the complete configuration reports 93.8% corrected-window success on seed 0 and 94.05 +- 0.30% across four evaluation-sampling seeds. On the fixed 10,030-task LIBERO-Plus registry, Onto-EV-WM succeeds on 8,526 tasks (85.00%), with suite-level success rates of 65.98% for LIBERO-10, 91.39% for LIBERO-Goal, and 91.38% for both LIBERO-Object and LIBERO-Spatial. These numbers report the performance of the complete ontology-grounded configurations under the tested simulator protocols; an ontology-only causal share is not measured separately, and real-robot recovery is not evaluated.
Large language models are increasingly used as reasoning components in AI-driven materials Co-Scientists, yet the reliability of the resulting verification pipeline remains unclear. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) provide a particularly challenging setting because structures may appear under different identifiers, synt...
Donghyun Lee, Taehoon Lee, G. Ahn et al.· 0 citations
Study of an end-to-end NL-to-PDDL pipeline that combines LLM generation, checks in terms of PDDL parsing, planning and validation, a domain-conformance checker, an LLM critic, and iterative repair shows that structured repair can be useful, and that PDDL~2.1 remains challenging for reference reconstruction, even when o...
J. Rosa, Pedro Santos, Valdemar Oliveira et al.· 0 citations
LLM tool-use agents operate in dynamic environments where many actions carry operational risk. However, most safety mechanisms react only after errors manifest. Existing pre-emptive approaches either fine-tune the agent on chain-of-thought deliberation or compile natural-language guardrails into runtime checks, but the...
Yun-Ju Kang, Seonghyeon Cho, Irene Li et al.· 0 citations
MOOSEDev, a system designed to give coding agents structured, ontology-grounded project memory, is introduced and a temporal commit-history bootstrap of the author's own codebase, a pre-registered live trial, and lessons learned are described.
SWE-RPG is introduced, a repository-level benchmark that combines executable patch evaluation with validated ground-truth references (GTs) for Requirement Clarification and Implementation Planning, and suggests implicit-requirement recovery as a key candidate direction for improving coding agents.
Xin Zhou, Chun-Yong Chong, Kisub Kim et al.· 0 citations
CRASM, a deterministic constraint- and role-aware semantic mapping method, and CRASM-Gate, its selectively model-assisted extension, support a deterministic-first interoperability architecture in which model assistance is optional, measurable, candidate-bounded, and unable to bypass structural validation.
Kabeh Mohsenzadegan, V. Tavakkoli, K. Kyamakya· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.