How well can a large language model explain business processes as perceived by users?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on a vast amount of text to interpret and generate human-like textual content. They are becoming a vital vehicle in realizing the vision of the autonomous enterprise, with organizations today actively adopting LLMs to automate many aspects of their operations. LLMs are likely to play a prominent role in future AI-augmented business process management systems, catering functionalities across all system lifecycle stages. One such system's functionality is Situation-Aware eXplainability (SAX), which relates to generating causally sound and human-interpretable explanations. In this paper, we present the SAX4BPM framework developed to generate SAX explanations. The SAX4BPM suite consists of a set of services and a central knowledge repository. The functionality of these services is to elicit the various knowledge ingredients that underlie SAX explanations. A key innovative component among these ingredients is the causal process execution view. In this work, we integrate the framework with an LLM to leverage its power to synthesize the various input ingredients for the sake of improved SAX explanations. Since the use of LLMs for SAX is also accompanied by a certain degree of doubt related to its capacity to adequately fulfill SAX along with its tendency for hallucination and lack of inherent capacity to reason, we pursued a methodological evaluation of the perceived quality of the generated explanations. We developed a designated scale and conducted a rigorous user study. Our findings show that the input presented to the LLMs aided with the guard-railing of its performance, yielding SAX explanations having better-perceived fidelity. This improvement is moderated by the perception of trust and curiosity. More so, this improvement comes at the cost of the perceived interpretability of the explanation.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jan 2024.
Builds on
21 of 57 references.
References · 21
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,222
- 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 970
- 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
- 2017Meta-learners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Machine Learningcited by 475
- 2022PromptSource: An Integrated Development Environment and Repository for Natural Language Promptscited by 288
- 2019Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approachescited by 101
- 2023Is ChatGPT a Good Causal Reasoner? A Comprehensive Evaluationcited by 69
- 2019Measuring the Quality of Explanations: The System Causability Scale (SCS). Comparing Human and Machine Explanationscited by 63
- 2023Large Language Models can accomplish Business Process Management Taskscited by 34
- 2020Explainable Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 27
9 more
- 2022AI-Augmented Business Process Management Systems: A Research Manifestocited by 27
- 2023Large Language Models for Business Process Management: Opportunities and Challengescited by 24
- 2023Abstractions, Scenarios, and Prompt Definitions for Process Mining with LLMs: A Case Studycited by 20
- 2021Prescriptive Process Monitoring for Cost-Aware Cycle Time Reductioncited by 17
- 2020Process Mining Meets Causal Machine Learning: Discovering Causal Rules from Event Logscited by 15
- 2020Multi-Dimensional Event Data in Graph Databasescited by 14
- 2023ProcessGPT: Transforming Business Process Management with Generative Artificial Intelligencecited by 11
- 2022An Explainable Decision Support System for Predictive Process Analyticscited by 8
- 2022A Case for Business Process-Specific Foundation Modelscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2024PM-LLM-Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models on Process Mining Taskscited by 16
- 2024Automating the Enterprise with Foundation Modelscited by 14
- 2024WONDERBREAD: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Foundation Models on Business Process Management Taskscited by 11
- 2024Towards a Benchmark for Causal Business Process Reasoning with LLMscited by 7
- 2026Agentic Business Process Management: A Research Manifestocited by 7
- 2025Selecting the Right LLM for eGov Explanationscited by 3
- 2025XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processescited by 3
- 2024Monetizing Currency Pair Sentiments through LLM Explainabilitycited by 2
- 2026Agentic Business Process Management: A Research Manifesto19 Mar 2026
- 2025XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes31 Jul 2025
- 2025Selecting the Right LLM for eGov Explanations27 Apr 2025
- 2024Monetizing Currency Pair Sentiments through LLM Explainability29 Jul 2024
- 2024PM-LLM-Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models on Process Mining Tasks18 Jul 2024
- 2024WONDERBREAD: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Foundation Models on Business Process Management Tasks19 Jun 2024
- 2024Towards a Benchmark for Causal Business Process Reasoning with LLMs8 Jun 2024
- 2024Automating the Enterprise with Foundation Models3 May 2024