REVIEW 2 cited by
Towards a Benchmark for Large Language Models for Business Process Management Tasks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
An increasing number of organizations are deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) for a wide range of tasks. Despite their general utility, LLMs are prone to errors, ranging from inaccuracies to hallucinations. To objectively assess the capabilities of existing LLMs, performance benchmarks are conducted. However, these benchmarks often do not translate to more specific real-world tasks. This paper addresses the gap in benchmarking LLM performance in the Business Process Management (BPM) domain. Currently, no BPM-specific benchmarks exist, creating uncertainty about the suitability of different LLMs for BPM tasks. This paper systematically compares LLM performance on four BPM tasks focusing on small open-source models. The analysis aims to identify task-specific performance variations, compare the effectiveness of open-source versus commercial models, and assess the impact of model size on BPM task performance. This paper provides insights into the practical applications of LLMs in BPM, guiding organizations in selecting appropriate models for their specific needs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Assessing the Business Process Modeling Competences of Large Language Models
Open-source LLMs can produce BPMN process models that rival human experts on syntax and readability, but they lag on semantic accuracy and frequently generate invalid BPMN-XML.
-
On the Potential of Large Language Models to Solve Semantics-Aware Process Mining Tasks
Fine-tuned Llama-3 and Mistral reach macro F1 0.69 to 0.88 and fitness 0.80 to 0.84 on five new semantics-aware process mining benchmarks, while few-shot in-context learning stays near random.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.