arxiv: 2604.10884 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

Ambiguity Detection and Elimination in Automated Executable Process Modeling

Ion Matei , Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar , Maksym Zhenirovskyy , Hon Yung Wong , Sayuri Kohmura , Shinji Hotta , Akihiro Inomata

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.AI

keywords ambiguity detectionBPMN generationexecutable process modelsLLMmodel-based diagnosisnatural language specificationsprocess repairKPI simulation

0 comments

The pith

Behavioral inconsistency across repeated LLM-generated BPMN models signals ambiguity in the original natural-language process specification.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to establish that natural-language descriptions of processes often leave room for multiple executable interpretations when fed to large language models, and that these differences become visible as spread in the distributions of simulated key performance indicators. Rather than seeking a single correct BPMN model, the method treats variability itself as evidence that the input text is underspecified, then uses model-based diagnosis to trace the source of divergence to particular gateway decisions, maps those decisions back to exact passages in the narrative, and revises the text on that evidence. This produces a self-contained loop that improves the input without requiring an external ground-truth model. A reader would care because many practical domains generate executable models from policy text or requirements where stability under simulation is the only available check for completeness.

Core claim

We present a diagnosis-driven framework that detects behavioral inconsistency from the empirical distribution of key performance indicators (KPIs), localizes divergence to gateway logic using model-based diagnosis, maps that logic back to verbatim narrative segments, and repairs the source text through evidence-based refinement. Experiments on diabetic nephropathy health-guidance policies show that the method reduces variability in regenerated model behavior. The result is a closed-loop approach for validating and repairing executable process specifications in the absence of ground-truth BPMN models.

What carries the argument

Diagnosis-driven framework that converts KPI distribution spread into localized text repairs by applying model-based diagnosis to gateway logic and mapping the diagnosis back to source narrative segments.

If this is right

Specifications whose regenerated models produce narrow KPI distributions can be treated as sufficiently specified for stable executable output.
Divergent gateway decisions identified by diagnosis can be traced to specific sentences or phrases in the input text.
Evidence-based refinement of those sentences reduces behavioral spread in subsequent generations of BPMN models.
The same loop can validate executable process models when no authoritative BPMN reference exists.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same distribution-plus-diagnosis pattern could be reused for other LLM-generated artifacts such as code or workflows whose execution traces reveal inconsistency.
If the variability source assumption holds, the framework supplies a quantitative proxy for the completeness of natural-language process descriptions.
Automated repair suggestions could be generated by pairing the localized narrative segments with candidate clarifying phrases.

Load-bearing premise

Observed variability in simulated KPI distributions across repeated LLM generations primarily reflects ambiguity or underspecification in the natural language input rather than stochasticity in the LLM, simulation artifacts, or other generation noise.

What would settle it

Run the same generation and simulation pipeline while holding LLM temperature and sampling parameters fixed; if KPI variability disappears without any text change, or if texts judged unambiguous by human readers still produce divergent KPI distributions, the link between variability and textual ambiguity is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10884 by Akihiro Inomata, Hon Yung Wong, Ion Matei, Maksym Zhenirovskyy, Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar, Sayuri Kohmura, Shinji Hotta.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: City 1, original process description — Distribution of all five KPIs across 100 generated models, showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: City 1 — Target models (minimum diagnosis set highlighted in red). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: City 1, repaired process description — Distribution of all five KPIs across 100 generated models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: City 2, original process description — Distribution of all five KPIs across 100 generated models, showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: City 2 – Minimum diagnosis set identifying target-model components that explain the simulation differences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: City 2, repaired process description — Distribution of all five KPIs across 100 generated models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Automated generation of executable Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models from natural-language specifications is increasingly enabled by large language models. However, ambiguous or underspecified text can yield structurally valid models with different simulated behavior. Our goal is not to prove that one generated BPMN model is semantically correct, but to detect when a natural-language specification fails to support a stable executable interpretation under repeated generation and simulation. We present a diagnosis-driven framework that detects behavioral inconsistency from the empirical distribution of key performance indicators (KPIs), localizes divergence to gateway logic using model-based diagnosis, maps that logic back to verbatim narrative segments, and repairs the source text through evidence-based refinement. Experiments on diabetic nephropathy health-guidance policies show that the method reduces variability in regenerated model behavior. The result is a closed-loop approach for validating and repairing executable process specifications in the absence of ground-truth BPMN models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper outlines a closed-loop pipeline that flags ambiguity in text specs by measuring KPI spread across LLM-generated BPMN models, then uses diagnosis to localize and repair it, but the experiments provide no numbers or controls to back the central claim.

read the letter

The main new piece is the specific loop that turns empirical KPI variability into a diagnosis of gateway logic, maps it to verbatim text segments, and feeds back a repair suggestion for BPMN generation. Earlier work on LLM-to-BPMN has looked at generation or validation separately, but this ties the steps together without needing ground truth models. That integration is the clearest advance and could be useful for anyone trying to make automated process specs more reliable in practice. The diabetic-nephropathy example at least shows the authors tried the idea on a real domain rather than toy cases. The soft spot is the evidence. The abstract says the method reduces variability after repair, yet gives no quantitative results, no baseline of plain repeated generation, and no check on whether the spread comes from ambiguous text or from LLM temperature, prompt sensitivity, or simulator randomness. Without those controls the localization step rests on an assumption that may not hold, and the claim that the loop validates executable interpretations stays untested. The paper is aimed at researchers and tool builders working on LLM-assisted BPMN or similar executable modeling tasks. A reader who wants concrete ideas for consistency checks in generation pipelines could pull useful parts from the pipeline description even if the results section needs work. It deserves peer review so the full methods, data, and any variance decomposition can be examined and strengthened.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a diagnosis-driven framework to detect and eliminate ambiguity in natural-language specifications for LLM-generated executable BPMN models. It identifies behavioral inconsistency via empirical distributions of simulated KPIs across repeated generations, localizes divergences to gateway logic using model-based diagnosis, maps issues back to verbatim text segments, and refines the source narrative through evidence-based repair. Experiments on diabetic nephropathy health-guidance policies are reported to reduce variability in regenerated model behavior, yielding a closed-loop validation approach without requiring ground-truth BPMN models.

Significance. If the central claims hold under proper validation, the work could provide a practical, automated method for improving consistency in executable process modeling from ambiguous text, addressing a real challenge in domains like healthcare policy where ground truth is often absent. The integration of simulation-based detection, diagnosis, and text repair forms a coherent pipeline with potential for broader application in automated software engineering tasks.

major comments (3)

[Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and diabetic-nephropathy experiments: the claim that the method 'reduces variability in regenerated model behavior' is unsupported by any quantitative results, specific KPI values, statistical measures, error bars, baseline comparisons, or details on how diagnosis accuracy or repair effectiveness was measured, preventing verification of the central empirical claim.
[Framework description] Framework description (detection step): treating empirical spread in simulated KPI distributions as a direct signal of input ambiguity assumes this variability is dominated by underspecification in the narrative rather than LLM stochasticity, temperature effects, prompt sensitivity, or simulator nondeterminism; no controls, ablations, variance decomposition, or deterministic-generation comparisons are described to isolate these factors, which is load-bearing for the subsequent localization and repair validity.
[Localization and mapping steps] Localization and mapping steps: no details are given on the model-based diagnosis procedure (e.g., how conflicts are formalized or how accuracy is assessed) or the verbatim mapping mechanism, making it impossible to evaluate whether the repair targets the true source of inconsistency.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from naming the specific KPIs used in the diabetic-nephropathy case and briefly indicating the simulation environment.
[Framework description] Notation for empirical distributions and diagnosis outputs could be formalized with equations or pseudocode for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, agreeing that the manuscript requires expansion with quantitative results, controls, and formal details to strengthen verifiability and validity of the claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / Experiments] Abstract and diabetic-nephropathy experiments: the claim that the method 'reduces variability in regenerated model behavior' is unsupported by any quantitative results, specific KPI values, statistical measures, error bars, baseline comparisons, or details on how diagnosis accuracy or repair effectiveness was measured, preventing verification of the central empirical claim.

Authors: We agree that the abstract summarizes the outcome without sufficient quantitative support and that the experiments section would benefit from explicit metrics to allow verification. The current results are based on observed reductions in KPI spread across repeated generations before and after repair in the diabetic nephropathy case study. In the revision, we will expand the abstract with key quantitative findings (e.g., pre/post mean KPI values and standard deviations), add statistical measures, error bars, and baseline comparisons to unrepaired specifications, and detail the assessment of diagnosis accuracy (via conflict resolution rates) and repair effectiveness (via post-repair consistency scores). revision: yes
Referee: [Framework description] Framework description (detection step): treating empirical spread in simulated KPI distributions as a direct signal of input ambiguity assumes this variability is dominated by underspecification in the narrative rather than LLM stochasticity, temperature effects, prompt sensitivity, or simulator nondeterminism; no controls, ablations, variance decomposition, or deterministic-generation comparisons are described to isolate these factors, which is load-bearing for the subsequent localization and repair validity.

Authors: This is a valid and load-bearing concern. Our detection step controls prompt and temperature to surface ambiguity-driven variability, but we did not include explicit ablations, variance decomposition, or deterministic comparisons. We will add a new subsection on experimental controls and assumptions, incorporating temperature=0 runs where feasible, prompt sensitivity analysis, and discussion of why underspecification dominates in the health-policy domain, thereby clarifying the foundation for localization and repair. revision: yes
Referee: [Localization and mapping steps] Localization and mapping steps: no details are given on the model-based diagnosis procedure (e.g., how conflicts are formalized or how accuracy is assessed) or the verbatim mapping mechanism, making it impossible to evaluate whether the repair targets the true source of inconsistency.

Authors: We acknowledge that the localization and mapping procedures require formalization for evaluation. Model-based diagnosis identifies minimal hitting sets of gateway conditions explaining KPI divergences, and mapping uses semantic similarity on sentence embeddings to link back to source text segments. In the revision, we will provide pseudocode, formal definitions of conflicts, and an accuracy assessment of the mapping via manual validation on the case-study examples to demonstrate that repairs address the identified sources. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical framework remains independent of its inputs

full rationale

The paper describes a closed-loop framework that generates multiple BPMN models from the same natural-language text, computes empirical KPI distributions from simulations, applies model-based diagnosis to localize gateway divergences, maps back to narrative segments, and refines the text. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are present that reduce any claimed output (e.g., detected ambiguity or repaired text) to the input by construction. The variability signal is treated as an empirical observation rather than a self-defined or statistically forced prediction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The approach is self-contained and does not rename known results or smuggle assumptions via prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that LLM generation variability is a faithful proxy for textual ambiguity and that model-based diagnosis can accurately isolate the responsible logic without external validation.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Variability in simulated KPI distributions across repeated generations indicates underspecification in the natural language input
Central to the detection step; invoked when declaring that high variance means the spec fails to support stable interpretation.
domain assumption Model-based diagnosis can correctly localize behavioral divergence to specific gateway logic
Required for the localization and mapping steps; no independent verification described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1411 out tokens · 43463 ms · 2026-05-10T16:11:51.848803+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0.2, 2014

2014
[2]

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 systems and software engineering—life cycle processes—requirements engineering, 2018

2018
[3]

Abels, M

S. Abels, M. Hampton, B. Silver, and K. McDonald. Spiffworkflow. https://github.com/sartography/ SpiffWorkflow, 2025

2025
[4]

Aho, Monica S

Alfred V . Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman.Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, 2006

2006
[5]

Diagnosing behavioral differences between business process models: An approach based on event structures.Inf

Abel Armas-Cervantes, Paolo Baldan, Marlon Dumas, and Luciano Garcia-Bañuelos. Diagnosing behavioral differences between business process models: An approach based on event structures.Inf. Syst., 56(C):304–325, March 2016

2016
[6]

Requirements ambiguity detection and explanation with llms: An industrial study

Sarmad Bashir, Alessio Ferrari, Abbas Khan, Per Erik Strandberg, Zulqarnain Haider, Mehrdad Saadatmand, and Markus Bohlin. Requirements ambiguity detection and explanation with llms: An industrial study. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pages 620–631, 2025

2025
[7]

A. Beg, D. O’Donoghue, and R. Monahan. Leveraging llms for formal software requirements – challenges and prospects.https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14330, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

Ambiguity in requirements specification.Persp

Daniel Berry and Erik Kamsties. Ambiguity in requirements specification.Persp. on SW Requirements, 01 2004

2004
[9]

Correctness checking for bpmn collaborations with sub-processes.Journal of Systems and Software, 166:110594, 2020

Flavio Corradini, Andrea Morichetta, Andrea Polini, Barbara Re, Lorenzo Rossi, and Francesco Tiezzi. Correctness checking for bpmn collaborations with sub-processes.Journal of Systems and Software, 166:110594, 2020

2020
[10]

Williams

Johan de Kleer and Brian C. Williams. Diagnosing multiple faults.Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):97–130, 1987

1987
[11]

N. E. Fuchs and R Schwitter. Attempto controlled english (ace). https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9603003, 1996

work page arXiv 1996
[12]

Tokyo, Japan, 2024

Japan Medical Association and Japan Diabetes Control and Promotion Council and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.Program for Preventing the Progression of Diabetic Nephropathy. Tokyo, Japan, 2024. In Japanese

2024
[13]

Humam Kourani, Alessandro Berti, Daniel Schuster, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst.Process Modeling with Large Language Models, page 229–244. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024

2024
[14]

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022

Giuseppe Lami, Mario Fusani, and Gianluca Trentanni.QuARS: A Pioneer Tool for NL Requirement Analysis, page 211–219. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022

2022
[15]

Automated BPMN model generation from textual process descriptions: A multi-stage LLM-driven approach

Ion Matei, Maksym Zhenirovskyy, Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar, and Hon Yung Wong. Automated BPMN model generation from textual process descriptions: A multi-stage LLM-driven approach. InProceedings of the 2026 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), 2026

2026
[16]

P. K. Menaka Sekar. Automated-bpmn-generation. https://praveen1098.github.io/ Automated-BPMN-Generation/, 2026

2026
[17]

A theory of diagnosis from first principles.Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):57–95, 1987

Raymond Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles.Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):57–95, 1987

1987
[18]

Automatic Generation of Executable BPMN Models from Medical Guidelines

Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar, Ion Matei, Maksym Zhenirovskyy, Hon Yung Wong, Sayuri Kohmura, Shinji Hotta, and Akihiro Inomata. Automatic generation of executable bpmn models from medical guidelines. https: //arxiv.org/abs/2604.07817, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[19]

Structure-aware optimization of decision diagrams for health guidance via integer programming.https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22996, 2026

Nanako Shimaoka, Naoyuki Kamiyama, Shinji Hotta, Sayuri Kohmura, Yuta Kurume, Hiroko Suzuki, Akihiro Inomata, and Eigo Segawa. Structure-aware optimization of decision diagrams for health guidance via integer programming.https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22996, 2026. 10 Ambiguity Detection and Elimination in Automated Executable Process ModelingA PREPRINT

work page arXiv 2026
[20]

Uematsu, Shotaro Taniguchi, Norihiro Nishioka, Keiichi Yamamoto, Hiroshi Okada, Yoshimitsu Takahashi, Takeo Nakayama, and Taku Iwami

Yukiko Tateyama, Tomonari Shimamoto, Manako K. Uematsu, Shotaro Taniguchi, Norihiro Nishioka, Keiichi Yamamoto, Hiroshi Okada, Yoshimitsu Takahashi, Takeo Nakayama, and Taku Iwami. Status of screening and preventive efforts against diabetic kidney disease between 2013 and 2018: analysis using an administrative database from kyoto-city, japan.Frontiers in ...

2013
[21]

Tokyo program for prevention of severe progression of diabetic nephropathy

Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo Medical Association, and Tokyo Council for the Promotion of Diabetes Countermeasures. Tokyo program for prevention of severe progression of diabetic nephropathy. Technical report, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, March 2022. Originally issued in March 2018; revised in March 2022

2022
[22]

Van Woensel and S

W. Van Woensel and S. Motie. Nlp4pbm: A systematic review on process extraction using natural language processing with rule-based, machine and deep learning methods. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13738, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

A comprehensive review on resolving ambiguities in natural language processing.AI Open, 2:85–92, 2021

Apurwa Yadav, Aarshil Patel, and Manan Shah. A comprehensive review on resolving ambiguities in natural language processing.AI Open, 2:85–92, 2021. 11

2021