MCeT: Behavioral Model Correctness Evaluation using Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00630v1
• Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 13:41:58 GMT
• Title: MCeT: Behavioral Model Correctness Evaluation using Large Language Models
• Authors: Khaled Ahmed, Jialing Song, Boqi Chen, Ou Wei, Bingzhou Zheng,
• Abstract summary: With the growing use of Large Language Models (LLM) as AI modeling assistants, more automation will be involved in generating diagrams.<n>We propose MCeT, the first fully automated tool to evaluate the correctness of a behavioral model, sequence diagrams in particular, against its corresponding requirements text.
• Score: 3.26805553822503
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Behavioral model diagrams, e.g., sequence diagrams, are an essential form of documentation that are typically designed by system engineers from requirements documentation, either fully manually or assisted by design tools. With the growing use of Large Language Models (LLM) as AI modeling assistants, more automation will be involved in generating diagrams. This necessitates the advancement of automatic model correctness evaluation tools. Such a tool can be used to evaluate both manually and AI automatically generated models; to provide feedback to system engineers, and enable AI assistants to self-evaluate and self-enhance their generated models. In this paper, we propose MCeT, the first fully automated tool to evaluate the correctness of a behavioral model, sequence diagrams in particular, against its corresponding requirements text and produce a list of issues that the model has. We utilize LLMs for the correctness evaluation tasks as they have shown outstanding natural language understanding ability. However, we show that directly asking an LLM to compare a diagram to requirements finds less than 35% of issues that experienced engineers can find. We propose to supplement the direct check with a fine-grained, multi-perspective approach; we split the diagram into atomic, non-divisible interactions, and split the requirements text into atomic, self-contained items. We compare the diagram with atomic requirements and each diagram-atom with the requirements. We also propose a self-consistency checking approach that combines perspectives to mitigate LLM hallucinated issues. Our combined approach improves upon the precision of the direct approach from 0.58 to 0.81 in a dataset of real requirements. Moreover, the approach finds 90% more issues that the experienced engineers found than the direct approach, and reports an average of 6 new issues per diagram.

Related papers

• Behavioral Augmentation of UML Class Diagrams: An Empirical Study of Large Language Models for Method Generation [0.0]
  This study evaluates nine large language models (LLMs) in augmenting a methodless diagram (21 classes, 17 relationships) using 21 structured waste-management use cases.<n>A total of 90 diagrams (3,373 methods) were assessed across six iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T02:33:40Z)
• Self-Steering Language Models [113.96916935955842]
  DisCIPL is a method for "self-steering" language models.<n>DisCIPL uses a Planner model to generate a task-specific inference program.<n>Our work opens up a design space of highly-parallelized Monte Carlo inference strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T17:54:22Z)
• Inference-Time Intervention in Large Language Models for Reliable Requirement Verification [2.3759432635713895]
  Inference-time intervention techniques provide a promising alternative to fine-tuning.<n>We demonstrate how interventions enable fine-grained control for automating the usually time-intensive requirement verification process.<n>Our method achieves robust and reliable outputs, significantly improving over both a baseline model and a fine-tuning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T10:49:36Z)
• ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning [62.80402845414901]
  We introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning.<n>ProcessBench consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems.<n>We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T15:11:40Z)
• Matchmaker: Self-Improving Large Language Model Programs for Schema Matching [60.23571456538149]
  We propose a compositional language model program for schema matching, comprised of candidate generation, refinement and confidence scoring. Matchmaker self-improves in a zero-shot manner without the need for labeled demonstrations. Empirically, we demonstrate on real-world medical schema matching benchmarks that Matchmaker outperforms previous ML-based approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T16:34:03Z)
• Information Theoretic Text-to-Image Alignment [49.396917351264655]
  Mutual Information (MI) is used to guide model alignment.<n>Our method uses self-supervised fine-tuning and relies on a point-wise (MI) estimation between prompts and images.<n>Our analysis indicates that our method is superior to the state-of-the-art, yet it only requires the pre-trained denoising network of the T2I model itself to estimate MI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T12:20:02Z)
• ModelGPT: Unleashing LLM's Capabilities for Tailored Model Generation [35.160964210941955]
  We propose ModelGPT, a framework designed to determine and generate AI models tailored to the data or task descriptions provided by the user. Given user requirements, ModelGPT is able to provide tailored models at most 270x faster than the previous paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T11:24:34Z)
• CogCoM: A Visual Language Model with Chain-of-Manipulations Reasoning [61.21923643289266]
  Chain of Manipulations is a mechanism that enables Vision-Language Models to solve problems step-by-step with evidence.<n>After training, models can solve various visual problems by eliciting intrinsic manipulations (e.g., grounding, zoom in) actively without involving external tools.<n>Our trained model, textbfCogCoM, achieves state-of-the-art performance across 9 benchmarks from 4 categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:43:48Z)
• Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering [26.34649731975005]
  Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for question answering (QA) While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness) and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T17:41:00Z)
• AutoML-GPT: Automatic Machine Learning with GPT [74.30699827690596]
  We propose developing task-oriented prompts and automatically utilizing large language models (LLMs) to automate the training pipeline. We present the AutoML-GPT, which employs GPT as the bridge to diverse AI models and dynamically trains models with optimized hyper parameters. This approach achieves remarkable results in computer vision, natural language processing, and other challenging areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T02:09:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.