Domain Adaptation of LLMs for Process Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a prominent area of interest across various research domains, including Process Mining (PM). Current applications in PM have predominantly centered on prompt engineering strategies or the transformation of event logs into narrative-style datasets, thereby exploiting the semantic capabilities of LLMs to address diverse tasks. In contrast, this study investigates the direct adaptation of pretrained LLMs to process data without natural language reformulation, motivated by the fact that these models excel in generating sequences of tokens, similar to the objective in PM. More specifically, we focus on parameter-efficient fine-tuning techniques to mitigate the computational overhead typically associated with such models. Our experimental setup focuses on Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM), and considers both single- and multi-task predictions. The results demonstrate a potential improvement in predictive performance over state-of-the-art recurrent neural network (RNN) approaches and recent narrative-style-based solutions, particularly in the multi-task setting. Additionally, our fine-tuned models exhibit faster convergence and require significantly less hyperparameter optimization.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2025.
Builds on
11 of 19 references.
References · 11
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,135
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2024LoRA Learns Less and Forgets Lesscited by 328
- 2016Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networkscited by 104
- 2020Deep Learning for Predictive Business Process Monitoring: Review and Benchmarkcited by 45
- 2023When Do Prompting and Prefix-Tuning Work? A Theory of Capabilities and Limitationscited by 43
- 2021Creating Unbiased Public Benchmark Datasets with Data Leakage Prevention for Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 16
- 2024PM-LLM-Benchmark: Evaluating Large Language Models on Process Mining Taskscited by 16
- 2024Evaluating the Ability of LLMs to Solve Semantics-Aware Process Mining Taskscited by 14
- 2021What Averages Do Not Tell -- Predicting Real Life Processes with Sequential Deep Learningcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.
6 papers.
- 2025Time Series Foundation Models for Process Model Forecastingcited by 1
- 2026David vs. Goliath in Next Activity Prediction: Argmax vs. LSTM, Transformer, and LLMcited by 0
- 2026Revisiting Predictive Process Monitoring in the Age of Foundation Models: A Comparative Study of Sequence, Tabular, and LLM Approachescited by 0
- 2026D-TAIA: Domain-Aware LLM Adaptation for Multi-Task Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 0
- 2026Efficient Online Continual Foundation Model Fine-Tuning for Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 0
- 2026From Event Logs to Governed Action: A BlueSky Agenda for Agentic Process Miningcited by 0
- 2026From Event Logs to Governed Action: A BlueSky Agenda for Agentic Process Mining7 Sep 2026
- 2026Efficient Online Continual Foundation Model Fine-Tuning for Predictive Process Monitoring28 Aug 2026
- 2026D-TAIA: Domain-Aware LLM Adaptation for Multi-Task Predictive Process Monitoring28 Aug 2026
- 2026Revisiting Predictive Process Monitoring in the Age of Foundation Models: A Comparative Study of Sequence, Tabular, and LLM Approaches30 Jul 2026
- 2026David vs. Goliath in Next Activity Prediction: Argmax vs. LSTM, Transformer, and LLM14 Jun 2026
- 2025Time Series Foundation Models for Process Model Forecasting8 Dec 2025