REVIEW 2 cited by
PM-LLM-Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models on Process Mining 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
PM-LLM-Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models on Process Mining Tasks
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to semi-automate some process mining (PM) analyses. While commercial models are already adequate for many analytics tasks, the competitive level of open-source LLMs in PM tasks is unknown. In this paper, we propose PM-LLM-Benchmark, the first comprehensive benchmark for PM focusing on domain knowledge (process-mining-specific and process-specific) and on different implementation strategies. We focus also on the challenges in creating such a benchmark, related to the public availability of the data and on evaluation biases by the LLMs. Overall, we observe that most of the considered LLMs can perform some process mining tasks at a satisfactory level, but tiny models that would run on edge devices are still inadequate. We also conclude that while the proposed benchmark is useful for identifying LLMs that are adequate for process mining tasks, further research is needed to overcome the evaluation biases and perform a more thorough ranking of the competitive LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Beyond Generalist LLMs: Specialist Agentic Systems for Structured Code Workflow Execution
A specialist BPMN-to-agent pipeline beats general-purpose coding agents on tool-use accuracy, latency, and token cost for deterministic business workflows.
-
Revisiting Predictive Process Monitoring in the Age of Foundation Models: A Comparative Study of Sequence, Tabular, and LLM Approaches
On five business-process logs, trained-from-scratch sequence models beat fine-tuned LLMs and tabular foundation models at next-activity prediction, while tabular models are competitive for remaining-time and next-even...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.