arXiv subjects

Mattia Salnitri

Publications and source records attributed to Mattia Salnitri.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

A Hybrid LLM-Based Framework for Automated Security Annotation Generation in Business Process Models

The modelling and analysis of secure business processes require the incorporation of security annotations into process models. Although BPMN extensions, including SecBPMN2, exist for this purpose, the derivation of accurate and complete security annotations from natural-language specifications remains a manual, expert-intensive, and error-prone task. This paper presents a hybrid framework that takes a BPMN process model and a security requirements document as input and automatically generates security annotations adhering to the SecBPMN2 specification. The approach combines Large Language Model (LLM)--based semantic extraction with schema-constrained mapping, rule-based normalization, and deterministic validation. The framework is evaluated comprehensively on a curated dataset of 27 process models from various domains. The results indicate that it consistently produces structurally valid SecBPMN2 annotations with high schema completeness. Compared to human security analysts, the system achieves substantially higher precision (0.58 vs. 0.29) while maintaining comparable recall (0.52 vs. 0.50) and reduces erroneous or misplaced annotations by nearly 50%. In addition, annotation generation is significantly faster than manual annotation. These findings demonstrate that hybrid LLM- and rule-based automation can reduce modeling effort while improving consistency and reliability, thereby providing a scalable foundation for security-by-design BPM.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2022

Towards Assessing Data Bias in Clinical Trials

Algorithms and technologies are essential tools that pervade all aspects of our daily lives. In the last decades, health care research benefited from new computer-based recruiting methods, the use of federated architectures for data storage, the introduction of innovative analyses of datasets, and so on. Nevertheless, health care datasets can still be affected by data bias. Due to data bias, they provide a distorted view of reality, leading to wrong analysis results and, consequently, decisions. For example, in a clinical trial that studied the risk of cardiovascular diseases, predictions were wrong due to the lack of data on ethnic minorities. It is, therefore, of paramount importance for researchers to acknowledge data bias that may be present in the datasets they use, eventually adopt techniques to mitigate them and control if and how analyses results are impacted. This paper proposes a method to address bias in datasets that: (i) defines the types of data bias that may be present in the dataset, (ii) characterizes and quantifies data bias with adequate metrics, (iii) provides guidelines to identify, measure, and mitigate data bias for different data sources. The method we propose is applicable both for prospective and retrospective clinical trials. We evaluate our proposal both through theoretical considerations and through interviews with researchers in the health care environment.

cs.CY↗