Human-Centered Evaluation of an LLM-Based Process Modeling Copilot: A Mixed-Methods Study with Domain Experts

The creation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models is a complex and time-consuming task requiring both domain knowledge and proficiency in modeling conventions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly expanded the possibilities for generating BPMN models directly from natural language, building upon earlier text-to-process methods with enhanced capabilities in handling complex descriptions. However, there is a lack of systematic evaluations of LLM-generated process models. Current efforts either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or do not consider established dimensions of model quality. To this end, we introduce BEF4LLM, a novel LLM evaluation framework comprising four perspectives: syntactic quality, pragmatic quality, semantic quality, and validity. Using BEF4LLM, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of open-source LLMs and benchmark their performance against human modeling experts. Results indicate that LLMs excel in syntactic and pragmatic quality, while humans outperform LLMs in semantic aspects; however, the differences in scores are relatively modest, highlighting LLMs' competitive potential despite challenges in validity and semantic quality. The insights highlight current strengths and limitations of using LLMs for BPMN modeling and guide future model development and fine-tuning. Addressing these areas is essential for advancing the practical deployment of LLMs in business process modeling.

Recent advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), have stimulated growing interest in automating or assisting Business Process Modeling tasks using natural language. Several approaches have been proposed to transform textual process descriptions into BPMN and related workflow models. However, the extent to which these approaches effectively support complex process modeling in organizational settings remains unclear. This article presents a literature review of AI-driven methods for transforming natural language into BPMN process models, with a particular focus on the role of LLMs. Following a structured review strategy, relevant studies were identified and analyzed to classify existing approaches, examine how LLMs are integrated into text-to-model pipelines, and investigate the evaluation practices used to assess generated models. The analysis reveals a clear shift from rule-based and traditional NLP pipelines toward LLM-based architectures that rely on prompt engineering, intermediate representations, and iterative refinement mechanisms. While these approaches significantly expand the capabilities of automated process model generation, the literature also exposes persistent challenges related to semantic correctness, evaluation fragmentation, reproducibility, and limited validation in real-world organizational contexts. Based on these findings, this review identifies key research gaps and discusses promising directions for future research, including the integration of contextual knowledge through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), its integration with LLMs, the development of interactive modeling architectures, and the need for more comprehensive and standardized evaluation frameworks.

Reliable evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is critical as their deployment rapidly expands, particularly in high-stakes domains such as business and finance. The LLM-as-a-Judge framework, which uses prompted LLMs to evaluate response quality, is appealing due to its scalability, low cost, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, it remains unclear how accurately these methods can assess response quality in domains where correctness matters more than style. To address this gap, we introduce the Business and Finance Fundamentals Benchmark (BFF-Bench), a dataset of 160 challenging questions and long-form responses authored by financial professionals. These experts subsequently evaluated the correctness of 1,200 responses generated by a diverse set of LLMs on both BFF-Bench and a challenging subset of MT-Bench. With this expert-annotated dataset of judgments (VERDICTS), we analyze the agreement between a suite of automated grading methods and human experts. While we observe that LLM Judges are more reliable than other grading methods, our findings reveal a clear pattern in LLM Judge performance: when not provided with a correct reference, judges show high agreement with human experts only on questions the judges were able to correctly answer themselves. We demonstrate that providing the judges with expert-written references largely mitigates this issue, highlighting the limits of using LLM-as-a-Judge without any form of human verification.