Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Large Language Models can accomplish 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

arxiv 2307.09923 v1 pith:24UQOMZL submitted 2023-07-19 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords processtaskstextualmodelsaccomplishdescriptionslanguagellms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Business Process Management (BPM) aims to improve organizational activities and their outcomes by managing the underlying processes. To achieve this, it is often necessary to consider information from various sources, including unstructured textual documents. Therefore, researchers have developed several BPM-specific solutions that extract information from textual documents using Natural Language Processing techniques. These solutions are specific to their respective tasks and cannot accomplish multiple process-related problems as a general-purpose instrument. However, in light of the recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) with remarkable reasoning capabilities, such a general-purpose instrument with multiple applications now appears attainable. In this paper, we illustrate how LLMs can accomplish text-related BPM tasks by applying a specific LLM to three exemplary tasks: mining imperative process models from textual descriptions, mining declarative process models from textual descriptions, and assessing the suitability of process tasks from textual descriptions for robotic process automation. We show that, without extensive configuration or prompt engineering, LLMs perform comparably to or better than existing solutions and discuss implications for future BPM research as well as practical usage.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Procedural Knowledge Is Not Low-Rank: Why LoRA Fails to Internalize Multi-Step Procedures

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On multi-step procedural tasks, LoRA fine-tuning underperforms full fine-tuning at every rank tested because procedural knowledge requires high-rank weight updates.

  2. Assessing the Business Process Modeling Competences of Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  3. What is the Best Process Model Representation? A Comparative Analysis for Process Modeling with Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new dataset and head-to-head comparison of nine process model representations with LLMs finds Mermaid best for general use and BPMN text best for generation.

  4. Can LLMs Reliably Simulate Real Students' Abilities in Mathematics and Reading Comprehension?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    No LLM-prompt pair among 11 models and 4 prompts aligns with average NAEP student performance across math and reading in grades 4, 8, and 12.

Pith tools