(How) Do Large Language Models Understand High-Level Message Sequence Charts?
Authors: Mohammad Reza Mousavi
Organizations: Department of Informatics, King’s College London
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are being employed widely to automate tasks across the software development life-cycle. It is, however, unclear whether these tasks are performed consistently with respect to the semantics of the artefacts being handled. This question is particularly under-researched concerning architectural design specification. In this paper, we address this question for High-Level Message Sequence Charts (HMSCs). These are visual models with a rigorous formal semantics that have been used for various purposes, including as a foundation for Sequence Diagrams in the Unified Modelling Language (UML). We examine whether LLMs "understand" the semantics of HMSCs by examining three LLMs (Gemini-3, GPT-5.4, and Qwen-3.6) on how they perform 129 semantic tasks ranging from querying basic semantic constructs in HMSCs (i.e., events and their ordering) to semantic-preserving abstractions and compositions, and calculating the set of traces and trace-equivalent labelled transition systems. The results show that LLMs only have a modest understanding of the formal semantics of HMSCs (ca. 52% overall accuracy), with great variability across different semantic concepts: while LLMs seem to understand the basic semantic concepts of MSCs (ca. 88% accuracy), they struggle with semantic reasoning in tasks involving abstraction and composition (ca. 36% accuracy) and traces and LTSs (ca. 42% accuracy). In particular, all three LLMs struggle with the notions of co-region and explicit causal dependencies and never employed them in semantic-preserving transformations.
Multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs) are difficult to reason about. Coordination errors such as deadlocks or type-mismatched messages are often hard to detect through testing. We introduce a domain-specific language for specifying agent coordination based on message sequence charts (MSCs). The language separates message-passing structure from LLM calls, tool calls, and human control points, whose outcomes remain unpredictable. We define the syntax and semantics of the language and present a syntax-directed projection that generates deadlock-free local agent programs from global coordination specifications. We illustrate the approach with a diagnosis consensus protocol and show how coordination properties can be established independently of LLM nondeterminism. We also describe a runtime planning extension in which an LLM dynamically generates a coordination workflow for which the same structural guarantees apply. An open-source Python implementation of our framework is available as ZipperGen.
We study whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform feature model analysis operations (AOs) directly on semi-formal textual blueprints, i.e., concise constrained-language descriptions of feature hierarchies and constraints, enabling early validation in Software Product Line scoping. Using 12 state-of-the-art LLMs and 16 standard AOs, we compare their outputs against the solver-based oracle FLAMA. Results show that reasoning-optimized models (e.g., Grok 4 Fast Reasoning, Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieve 88-89% average accuracy across all evaluated blueprints and operations, approaching solver correctness. We identify systematic errors in structural parsing and constraint reasoning, and highlight accuracy-cost trade-offs that inform model selection. These findings position LLMs as lightweight assistants for early variability validation.
Viet-Man Le, Thi Ngoc Trang Tran, Sebastian Lubos +2
Large language models (LLMs) encode rich concept-like information, but represent it implicitly through distributed statistical associations rather than as explicit, structured, compositional concepts. Consequently, concept-level structure is typically \emph{found} rather than \emph{designed}: it is recovered after training through probing or dictionary learning, with no architectural guarantee of stability, compositionality, controllability, or alignment with human conceptual organization. We organize concept-aware interventions along two dimensions: whether concept structure is internally induced or externally grounded, and the stage of the pipeline where it is introduced. This taxonomy reveals three broad patterns: inference-time approaches remain comparatively underexplored, related ideas have developed largely in isolation across pipeline stages, and externally grounded methods span the entire pipeline despite often being described under different terminology. Together, these observations motivate moving beyond recovering concept-like structure from trained models toward designing LLMs with explicit conceptual representations.