Comparing Generative Chatbots Based on Process Requirements: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business processes are commonly represented by modelling languages, such as Event-driven Process Chain (EPC), Yet Another Workflow Language (YAWL), and the most popular standard notation for modelling business processes, the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). Most recently, chatbots, programs that allow users to interact with a machine using natural language, have been increasingly used for business process execution support. A recent category of chatbots worth mentioning is generative-based chatbots, powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) model and Google’s Pathways Language Model (PaLM), which are trained on billions of parameters and support conversational intelligence. However, it is not clear whether generative-based chatbots are able to understand and meet the requirements of constructs such as those provided by BPMN for process execution support. This paper presents a case study to compare the performance of prominent generative models, GPT and PaLM, in the context of process execution support. The research sheds light into the challenging problem of using conversational approaches supported by generative chatbots as a means to understand process-aware modelling notations and support users to execute their tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".