Assessing the Business Process Modeling Competences of Large Language Models
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:XUJ572RXrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
The creation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models is a complex and time-consuming task requiring both domain knowledge and proficiency in modeling conventions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly expanded the possibilities for generating BPMN models directly from natural language, building upon earlier text-to-process methods with enhanced capabilities in handling complex descriptions. However, there is a lack of systematic evaluations of LLM-generated process models. Current efforts either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or do not consider established dimensions of model quality. To this end, we introduce BEF4LLM, a novel LLM evaluation framework comprising four perspectives: syntactic quality, pragmatic quality, semantic quality, and validity. Using BEF4LLM, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of open-source LLMs and benchmark their performance against human modeling experts. Results indicate that LLMs excel in syntactic and pragmatic quality, while humans outperform LLMs in semantic aspects; however, the differences in scores are relatively modest, highlighting LLMs' competitive potential despite challenges in validity and semantic quality. The insights highlight current strengths and limitations of using LLMs for BPMN modeling and guide future model development and fine-tuning. Addressing these areas is essential for advancing the practical deployment of LLMs in business process modeling.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Improving LLM-Generated Process Model Quality Through Reinforcement Learning: The Role of Reward Function Design
Equal reward weighting outperforms targeted weighting in RL-based BPMN generation across 48 configurations, with design choices producing effects as large as applying RL itself.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.