# CORE: Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation for Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06446 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06446/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 32 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Language Models as Knowledge Bases?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01066/) (2019)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.12327/) (2020)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.15004/) (2023)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12288/) (2023)
- [Augmented Language Models: a Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07842/) (2023)
- [Experience Grounds Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10151/) (2020)
- [Emergent Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09196/) (2022)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [A Token-level Reference-free Hallucination Detection Benchmark for Free-form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08704/) (2021)
- [Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17124/) (2024)
- [Leveraging the Inductive Bias of Large Language Models for Abstract Textual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.02370/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on many reasoning benchmarks, yet existing evaluations rarely assess their ability to distinguish between meaningful semantic relations and genuine unrelatedness. We introduce CORE (Comprehensive Ontological Relation Evaluation), a dataset of 225K multiple-choice questions spanning 74 disciplines, together with a general-domain open-source benchmark of 203 rigorously validated questions (Cohen's Kappa = 1.0) covering 24 semantic relation types with equal representation of unrelated pairs. A human baseline from 1,000+ participants achieves 92.6% accuracy (95.1% on unrelated pairs). In contrast, 29 state-of-the-art LLMs achieve 48.25-70.9% overall accuracy, with near-ceiling performance on related pairs (86.5-100%) but severe degradation on unrelated pairs (0-41.35%), despite assigning similar confidence (92-94%). Expected Calibration Error increases 2-4x on unrelated pairs, and a mean semantic collapse rate of 37.6% indicates systematic generation of spurious relations. On the CORE 225K MCQs dataset, accuracy further drops to approximately 2%, highlighting substantial challenges in domain-specific semantic reasoning. We identify unrelatedness reasoning as a critical, under-evaluated frontier for LLM evaluation and safety.