Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2110.03754

Process Extraction from Text: Benchmarking the State of the Art and Paving the Way for Future Challenges

Patrizio Bellan·Mauro Dragoni·Chiara Ghidini·Han van der Aa·Simone Paolo Ponzetto
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The extraction of process models from text refers to the problem of turning the information contained in an unstructured textual process descriptions into a formal representation,i.e.,a process model. Several automated approaches have been proposed to tackle this problem, but they are highly heterogeneous in scope and underlying assumptions,i.e., differences in input, target output, and data used in their evaluation.As a result, it is currently unclear how well existing solutions are able to solve the model-extraction problem and how they compare to each other.We overcome this issue by comparing 10 state-of-the-art approaches for model extraction in a systematic manner, covering both qualitative and quantitative aspects.The qualitative evaluation compares the analysis of the primary studies on: 1 the main characteristics of each solution;2 the type of process model elements extracted from the input data;3 the experimental evaluation performed to evaluate the proposed framework.The results show a heterogeneity of techniques, elements extracted and evaluations conducted, that are often impossible to compare.To overcome this difficulty we propose a quantitative comparison of the tools proposed by the papers on the unifying task of process model entity and relation extraction so as to be able to compare them directly.The results show three distinct groups of tools in terms of performance, with no tool obtaining very good scores and also serious limitations.Moreover, the proposed evaluation pipeline can be considered a reference task on a well-defined dataset and metrics that can be used to compare new tools. The paper also presents a reflection on the results of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation on the limitations and challenges that the community needs to address in the future to produce significant advances in this area.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Patrizio Bellan, Mauro Dragoni, Chiara Ghidini, Han van der Aa, Simone Paolo Ponzetto. 2021-10-07. Process Extraction from Text: Benchmarking the State of the Art and Paving the Way for Future Challenges. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.03754

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗