Comparing Generative Chatbots Based on Process Requirements: A Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it