mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Detecting Undesired Process Behavior by Means of Retrieval Augmented Generation

arXiv 2505.22041 ↗First posted 28 May 2025cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG for code

Abstract (arXiv)

Conformance checking techniques detect undesired process behavior by comparing process executions that are recorded in event logs to desired behavior that is captured in a dedicated process model. If such models are not available, conformance checking techniques are not applicable, but organizations might still be interested in detecting undesired behavior in their processes. To enable this, existing approaches use Large Language Models (LLMs), assuming that they can learn to distinguish desired from undesired behavior through fine-tuning. However, fine-tuning is highly resource-intensive and the fine-tuned LLMs often do not generalize well. To address these limitations, we propose an approach that requires neither a dedicated process model nor resource-intensive fine-tuning to detect undesired process behavior. Instead, we use Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to provide an LLM with direct access to a knowledge base that contains both desired and undesired process behavior from other processes, assuming that the LLM can transfer this knowledge to the process at hand. Our evaluation shows that our approach outperforms fine-tuned LLMs in detecting undesired behavior, demonstrating that RAG is a viable alternative to resource-intensive fine-tuning, particularly when enriched with relevant context from the event log, such as frequent traces and activities.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG for code, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 8 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2025.

Builds on

8 of 26 references.

References · 8

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  2. 2024Nomic Embed: Training a Reproducible Long Context Text Embeddercited by 265
  3. 2024Evaluating the Ability of LLMs to Solve Semantics-Aware Process Mining Taskscited by 14
  4. 2019BINet: Multi-perspective Business Process Anomaly Classificationcited by 13
  5. 2022SAP Signavio Academic Models: A Large Process Model Datasetcited by 11
  6. 2020Conformance checking: A state-of-the-art literature reviewcited by 7
  7. 2024DABL: Detecting Semantic Anomalies in Business Processes Using Large Language Modelscited by 5
  8. 2024xSemAD: Explainable Semantic Anomaly Detection in Event Logs Using Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025On the Potential of Large Language Models to Solve Semantics-Aware Process Mining Tasks
  2. 2025Towards Effectively Leveraging Execution Traces for Program Repair with Code LLMs
  3. 2026Revisiting Vul-RAG: Reproducibility and Replicability of RAG-based Vulnerability Detection with Open-Weight Models
  4. 2025Where Did It Go Wrong? Attributing Undesirable LLM Behaviors via Representation Gradient Tracing
  5. 2026The Calls are Coming from Inside the Model: Investigating Probe-based Detection of Tool-Calling Errors in LLMs
  6. 2025Demystifying Errors in LLM Reasoning Traces: An Empirical Study of Code Execution Simulation
  7. 2026Insights Generator: Systematic Corpus-Level Trace Diagnostics for LLM Agents
  8. 2026Enhancing Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmented Generation for Software Testing and Inspection Automation