arxiv: 2604.12105 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Automated BPMN Model Generation from Textual Process Descriptions: A Multi-Stage LLM-Driven Approach

Ion Matei , Maksym Zhenirovskyy , Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar , Hon Yung Wong

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords BPMN model generationLLM pipelinetextual process descriptionsground truth constructionmodel reconstructionsimilarity metricsworkflow automation

0 comments

The pith

A multi-stage LLM pipeline generates valid BPMN models from text with average similarity above 0.75.

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

The paper develops a pipeline that first builds a reliable collection of BPMN models from public diagrams by translating languages, running execution checks, and applying LLM fixes. It then generates text descriptions from those models and reconstructs new diagrams to test the full cycle. This matters because turning everyday descriptions into accurate process diagrams has required manual expert effort, and scaling it could speed up workflow design in many fields. The method creates consistent ground truth to handle varied sources and conventions. Tests on hundreds of examples show the reconstructions often match the originals closely in structure and meaning.

Core claim

The multi-stage pipeline automates both the creation of a validated ground-truth corpus from 750 public BPMN diagrams, yielding 387 models, and the reconstruction of executable BPMN 2.0 XML from generated process descriptions, achieving an average reconstruction similarity above 0.75 with about 50 near-perfect matches.

What carries the argument

The multi-stage LLM-driven pipeline that automates ground-truth construction via translation, SpiffWorkflow validation, and LLM repairs, then performs description generation and model reconstruction for evaluation.

If this is right

LLMs can generate structurally compliant and semantically meaningful BPMN diagrams at scale.
The pipeline eliminates manual curation when building training data for text-to-model tasks.
Multilingual process sources can be standardized to English for consistent reconstruction.
A multi-dimensional similarity framework can reliably measure how well generated models match ground truth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Organizations might convert employee-written process notes directly into executable diagrams without dedicated modelers.
The approach could extend to proprietary internal workflows once ground-truth validation is adapted.
Pairing the pipeline with voice-to-text tools might enable fully automated capture of processes from spoken descriptions.

Load-bearing premise

The combination of SpiffWorkflow execution checks and targeted LLM repairs produces a ground-truth corpus free of systematic semantic errors or biases introduced by the LLM itself.

What would settle it

Applying the full pipeline to a new independent collection of public BPMN diagrams and obtaining an average reconstruction similarity well below 0.75, or finding repeated semantic mismatches during manual inspection of the validated ground-truth models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12105 by Hon Yung Wong, Ion Matei, Maksym Zhenirovskyy, Praveen Kumar Menaka Sekar.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Score distribution histogram: chatGPT-4o. We analyzed examples of poor reconstruction results (similarity < 0.5) to understand failure modes. Failures primarily stemmed from three sources: 1) Ambiguous Branching Logic: When descriptions lacked explicit conditions for exclusive gateways, the LLM often hallucinated arbitrary logic to satisfy the model’s execution validity requirements. 2) Implicit Dependenc… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Score distribution histogram: gemini-2.5-flash [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Score distribution histogram: gemini-2.5-pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Automatically reconstructing BPMN models from unstructured natural-language descriptions remains challenging due to heterogeneous modeling conventions, multilingual sources, and the lack of reliable ground truth. We present a scalable, multi-stage LLM-driven pipeline that automates both ground-truth construction and model reconstruction. Multilingual BPMN XML files are translated into English, validated using execution-oriented compliance checks in SpiffWorkflow, and iteratively repaired through targeted LLM-guided corrections to produce a consistent ground-truth corpus. From these validated models, process descriptions are generated and used to reconstruct executable BPMN~2.0 XML diagrams without manual curation. We introduce a multi-dimensional similarity framework combining structural metrics, type-distribution alignment, and embedding-based semantic measures. In an empirical study of 750 public BPMN diagrams, the pipeline generated 387 validated ground-truth models and achieved average reconstruction similarity above 0.75, including approximately 50 near-perfect reconstructions differing only in minor naming variations. The results demonstrate that LLMs can generate structurally compliant and semantically meaningful BPMN diagrams at scale.

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 scales up BPMN reconstruction with an LLM pipeline for ground truth but the similarity scores may be inflated by using the same models for repairs and reconstruction.

read the letter

The paper's core idea is a multi-stage LLM pipeline that first turns public BPMN diagrams into reliable ground truth through translation, SpiffWorkflow checks, and LLM repairs, then generates text from those models and reconstructs the BPMN to test the approach. They report processing 750 diagrams down to 387 valid ones, with average similarity scores above 0.75 and about 50 near-perfect matches. The multi-dimensional metrics covering structure, element types, and semantics give a fuller picture than single measures would. This setup avoids manual ground truth creation, which is a practical step forward for scaling such experiments. The concern is that LLM repairs shape the ground truth, and then LLM reconstruction gets tested against it. This could make the similarity look better than it would on truly external text, since the model might just be consistent with its own fixes. SpiffWorkflow confirms executability but says nothing about whether the repaired model kept the original intent. The abstract does not describe any human or independent check on semantic accuracy after repairs. The work is aimed at researchers in business process management who want to explore LLM automation. It has enough concrete results and a documented method to deserve peer review, though it would benefit from added validation steps.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-stage LLM-driven pipeline for automatically generating BPMN models from textual process descriptions. The approach automates ground-truth construction by translating multilingual public BPMN XML files to English, validating them for executability using SpiffWorkflow, and applying targeted LLM-guided repairs to create a consistent corpus. Process descriptions are generated from these models and used to reconstruct executable BPMN 2.0 XML. A multi-dimensional similarity framework combining structural, type-distribution, and semantic embedding metrics is introduced for evaluation. On 750 public diagrams, 387 validated ground-truth models were produced, with average reconstruction similarity above 0.75 and approximately 50 near-perfect cases.

Significance. If the evaluation holds, this work offers a scalable method for BPMN model generation, which could significantly impact business process management by reducing the need for manual modeling. The use of public datasets and automated validation is commendable. However, the significance is tempered by potential circularity in the evaluation setup, where LLM involvement in ground-truth preparation may inflate similarity scores, limiting the demonstration of generalization to truly arbitrary textual descriptions.

major comments (1)

[Ground-truth construction and empirical evaluation (sections describing the 387 models and similarity results)] The iterative LLM-guided repairs to produce the ground-truth corpus (described in the pipeline overview and empirical study sections), combined with LLM-based reconstruction from descriptions derived from those same repaired models, risks circularity. The SpiffWorkflow checks ensure executability but not that the repairs preserve the original semantic intent without introducing LLM-specific biases. This directly impacts the interpretation of the average similarity >0.75 (including ~50 near-perfect cases), as the high scores may reflect the reconstruction stage aligning with the LLM's prior outputs rather than accurately capturing process semantics from text. An independent human validation of a subset of the ground-truth models is needed to support the claim of semantically meaningful reconstructions.

minor comments (2)

[Similarity framework definition] The exact formulations, weighting, or aggregation method for the multi-dimensional similarity framework (structural metrics, type-distribution alignment, and embedding-based measures) should be provided with formulas or pseudocode to support reproducibility.
[Dataset and corpus construction] Additional details on the selection criteria for the initial 750 public BPMN diagrams and the specific exclusion rules that reduced the set to 387 validated models would help evaluate potential biases in the corpus.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical pipeline that starts from external public BPMN diagrams, applies SpiffWorkflow validation plus LLM repairs to form a ground-truth corpus, generates process descriptions from those models, and measures reconstruction similarity using independent structural metrics, type-distribution alignment, and embedding-based semantic measures. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, self-definitional steps, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the methodology. The reported similarity scores are direct empirical outputs from running the pipeline on external data rather than quantities that reduce to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that LLMs can reliably perform BPMN-specific translation, compliance checking, and repair tasks, plus that SpiffWorkflow validation captures all relevant semantic constraints.

axioms (2)

domain assumption LLMs can accurately translate, validate, and repair BPMN models when guided by execution-oriented checks
Invoked throughout the pipeline description as the basis for ground-truth construction and reconstruction.
domain assumption SpiffWorkflow compliance checks provide a sufficient and unbiased measure of BPMN correctness
Used to validate and repair models without independent verification of coverage for all BPMN 2.0 constructs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1393 out tokens · 61765 ms · 2026-05-10T15:35:39.039870+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

SpiffWorkflow.https://github.com/ sartography/SpiffWorkflow, 2025

Samuel Abels, Matthew Hampton, Bruce Silver, and Kelly McDonald. SpiffWorkflow.https://github.com/ sartography/SpiffWorkflow, 2025

2025
[2]

Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time [extended abstract]

L ´aszl´o Babai. Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time [extended abstract]. InProceedings of the Forty- Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’16, page 684–697, New York, NY , USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery

2016
[3]

Process ex- traction from text: Benchmarking the state of the art and paving the way for future challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03754, 2021

Patrizio Bellan, Mauro Dragoni, Chiara Ghidini, Han van der Aa, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto. Process ex- traction from text: Benchmarking the state of the art and paving the way for future challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03754, 2021. Version v2 last revised 25 Oct 2023

work page arXiv 2021
[4]

Czekster, and Thais Webber

Juliana Bowles, Ricardo M. Czekster, and Thais Webber. Annotated bpmn models for optimised healthcare resource planning. In Manuel Mazzara, Iulian Ober, and Gwen Sala¨un, editors,Software Technologies: Applica- tions and Foundations, pages 146–162. Springer International Publishing, 2018

2018
[5]

Automated generation of business process models from natural language text

Fabian Friedrich, Jan Mendling, and Frank Puhlmann. Automated generation of business process models from natural language text. InInternational Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pages 482– 496, 2011

2011
[6]

Generating structured plan representation of procedures with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00029, 2025

Deepeka Garg, Sihan Zeng, Sumitra Ganesh, and Leo Ardon. Generating structured plan representation of procedures with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00029, 2025. Version v1 submitted March 28, 2025 (cs.SE, cs.AI)

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

The graph isomorphism problem.Commun

Martin Grohe and Pascal Schweitzer. The graph isomorphism problem.Commun. ACM, 63(11):128–134, Octo- ber 2020

2020
[8]

Vincent Derek Held. An enhanced automated approach for transforming natural language process descriptions to BPMN 2.0 process diagrams – with an evaluation of the application to ISO-norm process descriptions, December 2023. 10 Automated BPMN Model Generation from Textual Process Descriptions: A Multi-Stage LLM-Driven Approach

2023
[9]

Introducing bpmngen: An llm-based conversational framework for bpmn 2.0 process model generation

Luca Franziska H ¨orner. Introducing bpmngen: An llm-based conversational framework for bpmn 2.0 process model generation. InEMISA 2025, pages 17–31. Gesellschaft f ¨ur Informatik e.V ., Bonn, 2025

2025
[10]

From text to visual bpmn process models: design and evaluation

Ana Ivanchikj, Souhaila Serbout, and Cesare Pautasso. From text to visual bpmn process models: design and evaluation. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, MODELS ’20, page 229–239, New York, NY , USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery

2020
[11]

S. A. Kassim, J. B. Gartner, L. Labb ´e, P. Landa, C. Paquet, F. Bergeron, C. Lemaire, and A. C ˆot´e. Benefits and limitations of business process model notation in modelling patient healthcare trajectory: a scoping review protocol.BMJ Open, 12(5):e060357, 2022

2022
[12]

Con- versational process modeling: Can generative ai empower domain experts in creating and redesigning process models?, 2024

Nataliia Klievtsova, Janik-Vasily Benzin, Timotheus Kampik, Juergen Mangler, and Stefanie Rinderle-Ma. Con- versational process modeling: Can generative ai empower domain experts in creating and redesigning process models?, 2024

2024
[13]

Humam Kourani, Alessandro Berti, Daniel Schuster, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. ProMoAI: Process modeling with generative ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04327, 2024. Version v1 submitted March 7, 2024 (last revised April 29, 2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Introducing the bpmn-chatbot for efficient llm-based process modeling

Julius K ¨opke and Aya Safan. Introducing the bpmn-chatbot for efficient llm-based process modeling. InProceed- ings of the Best Dissertation Award, Doctoral Consortium, and Demonstration and Resources Forum at BPM 2024, volume 3758 ofCEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 86–90, Krakow, Poland, 2024. CEUR-WS.org. CC BY 4.0 open access

2024
[15]

Langchain.https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain, 2025

LangChain Team. Langchain.https://github.com/langchain-ai/langchain, 2025

2025
[16]

Leveraging machine learning and enhanced parallelism detection for bpmn model generation from text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08362, July 2025

Phuong Nam L ˆe, Charlotte Schneider-Depr´e, Alexandre Goossens, Alexander Stevens, Aur´elie Leribaux, and Jo- hannes De Smedt. Leveraging machine learning and enhanced parallelism detection for bpmn model generation from text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08362, July 2025. Version v1 submitted 11 Jul 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Nl2processops: Towards llm-guided code generation for process execution

Flavia Monti, Francesco Leotta, Juergen Mangler, Massimo Mecella, and Stefanie Rinderle-Ma. Nl2processops: Towards llm-guided code generation for process execution. In Andrea Marrella, Manuel Resinas, Mieke Jans, and Michael Rosemann, editors,Business Process Management Forum, pages 127–143, Cham, 2024. Springer Nature Switzerland

2024
[18]

A universal prompting strategy for extracting process model information from natural language text using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18540, 2024

Julian Neuberger, Lars Ackermann, Han van der Aa, and Stefan Jablonski. A universal prompting strategy for extracting process model information from natural language text using large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18540, 2024. Version v1 submitted July 26, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

GIVUP: Automated generation and verification of textual process descriptions

Quentin Nivon, Gwen Sala ¨un, and Fr ´ed´eric Lang. GIVUP: Automated generation and verification of textual process descriptions. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2025), pages 1–5, Trondheim, Norway, June 2025. ACM. HAL Id: hal-05131967

2025
[20]

Business process model and notation (bpmn) version 2.0

Object Management Group. Business process model and notation (bpmn) version 2.0. Technical report, OMG Specification, 2011

2011
[21]

From dialogue to diagram: Task and relationship extraction from natural language for accelerated business process prototyping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10432, 2023

Sara Qayyum, Muhammad Moiz Asghar, and Muhammad Fouzan Yaseen. From dialogue to diagram: Task and relationship extraction from natural language for accelerated business process prototyping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10432, 2023. Version v1 posted December 16, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[22]

Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks

Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. InPro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 11 2019

2019
[23]

Borgwardt

Nino Shervashidze, Pascal Schweitzer, Erik Jan van Leeuwen, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Karsten M. Borgwardt. Weisfeiler-lehman graph kernels.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(77):2539–2561, 2011

2011
[24]

Leveraging generative ai for extracting process models from multimodal documents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04959,

Marvin V oelter, Raheleh Hadian, Timotheus Kampik, Marius Breitmayer, and Manfred Reichert. Leveraging generative ai for extracting process models from multimodal documents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04959,

work page arXiv
[25]

Version v1 submitted June 2024

2024
[26]

Chi, Quoc V

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V . Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’22, Red Hook, NY , USA,
[27]

Curran Associates Inc
[28]

Extraction of bpmn process models from unstructured textual descriptions

Bruno Zirnstein. Extraction of bpmn process models from unstructured textual descriptions. Report, April 2024

2024
[29]

Design nd development of an llm interface for prompt-based bpmn process generation and visualization, December 2024

Anastasiia Zubenko. Design nd development of an llm interface for prompt-based bpmn process generation and visualization, December 2024. 11

2024