arxiv-2609-15779 SRC-0376 · paper

EvoOntology: A Self-Evolving Ontology Layer for Data Agents

Created: 2026-09-14 · Ingested: 2026-09-21

Data agents aim to fulfill natural-language instructions over heterogeneous data, including tables, files, and databases. However, data agents face a challenging agent-data gap: heterogeneous data resides outside the agent, while the agent can access it (e.g., column names and file paths) only through generic tools. Existing approaches either let agents directly explore raw data sources or inject manually constructed semantic layers into prompts. However, neither scales well to large heterogeneous data sources nor adapts to different agent behaviors. In this paper, we introduce EvoOntology, a

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsWith weights frozen and no stronger model in the loop, an agent can raise its own pass rate by rewriting the scaffolding it runs inside — clustering its failures, proposing minimal edits to prompts, tools and policy, and keeping only edits that improve one split without degrading another: all 9 of 9 model-by-benchmark pairs improved, by up to 40.6 percentage points (GLM-5 on AppWorld, 44.4% to 85.0%), with weak models gaining most; but the promotion gate reads the held-out split, so the reported held-out gain is not clean generalisation, and there is no matched-compute baseline.
supportsFor agents working over heterogeneous data, exposing a schema/content/tool ontology as an MCP server the agent queries, and refining it by a loop of diagnose, attribute-to-level, typed patch, and a gate that accepts an edit only if a backbone-conditional paired evaluation shows a margin, raised trajectory accuracy on DDR-Bench by an average 17.8 points across six backbones and text-to-SQL EX on BIRD by about 7 points; injecting the same semantic content as a static prompt did not help consistently and cost 15 points on one backbone, and in ablation removing the acceptance gate was the largest loss (-11.2), then attribution (-6.3), diagnosis (-4.8), typed patches (-1.7).