arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.01326

An ontology for cross-sectoral crisis management: core and public health modules

Abstract

This paper presents the European Crisis Management Ontology (ECMO), a modular OWL-based ontology intended as a cross-sectoral reference for disaster risk reduction and response. ECMO is designed to be organised as a network of ontological modules. Among the modules, ECMO-CORE captures fundamental crisis management concepts such as hazard, event, exposure, impact, and response measure and uses ontology design patterns and the OWL2 punning technique to resolve ambiguities between hazard types and event manifestations. In addition, domain-specific modules are defined as in the case of the public health module aligned with SNOMED CT and ICD-11. To demonstrate the resource's utility, we used ECMO to represent the data of the Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources system of the Joint Research Centre to generate an end-to-end pipeline that populates an ECMO-compliant knowledge graph from unstructured epidemiological news. Initial results demonstrate that ECMO provides the formal guardrails necessary for consistent and unified knowledge representation and integration. The ontology is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20070268 and is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aldo Gangemi, Rita T. Sousa, Luigi Asprino, Giorgia Lodi, Andrea G. Nuzzolese, Valentina Presutti, Johannes Gysen, Diana F. Sousa, Luigi Spagnolo. 2026-10-01. An ontology for cross-sectoral crisis management: core and public health modules. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01326

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Reducing Cognitive Overhead in Tool Use via Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Recent advances in multi-agent systems highlight the potential of specialized small agents that collaborate via division of labor. Existing tool-integrated reasoning systems, however, often follow a single-agent paradigm in which one large model interleaves long-horizon reasoning with precise tool operations, leading to cognitive-load interference and unstable coordination. We present MSARL, a Multi-Small-Agent Reinforcement Learning framework that explicitly decouples reasoning from tool use. In MSARL, a Reasoning Agent decomposes problems and plans tool invocations, while multiple Tool Agents specialize in specific external tools, each trained via a combination of imitation learning and reinforcement learning with role-specific rewards. On mathematical problem solving with code execution, MSARL significantly improves reasoning stability and final-answer accuracy over single-agent baselines. Moreover, the architecture generalizes to diverse tool-use tasks, demonstrating that cognitive-role decoupling with small agents is a scalable blueprint for multi-agent AI design.

cs.AI↗

LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios

Recent advances in LLM-based agents highlight the importance of their reasoning frameworks, which guide the problem-solving process in diverse ways. This survey introduces a unified formal language to systematically categorize these frameworks at three compositional levels: single-agent, tool-based, and multi-agent methods. Following our taxonomy, we review key application scenarios across scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, society, economics, and general-purpose tasks. It also compares the distinct features and evaluation strategies of each category. Through our taxonomy and comparisons, our survey explores the designs and strengths of LLM-based agentic frameworks in different scenarios, reviewing the fast-paced development of complex agentic systems in the real world.

cs.AI↗

Moloch's Bargain: Emergent Misalignment When LLMs Compete for Audiences

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

cs.AI↗