Human-Centered Evaluation of an LLM-Based Process Modeling Copilot: A Mixed-Methods Study with Domain Experts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12895v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:59:23 GMT
• Title: Human-Centered Evaluation of an LLM-Based Process Modeling Copilot: A Mixed-Methods Study with Domain Experts
• Abstract summary: Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into business process management tools promises to democratize Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) modeling for non-experts.<n>While automated frameworks assess syntactic and semantic quality, they miss human factors like trust, usability, and professional alignment.<n>We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of our proposed solution, an LLM-powered BPMN copilot, with five process modeling experts using focus groups and standardized questionnaires.
• Score: 0.764671395172401
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into business process management tools promises to democratize Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) modeling for non-experts. While automated frameworks assess syntactic and semantic quality, they miss human factors like trust, usability, and professional alignment. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of our proposed solution, an LLM-powered BPMN copilot, with five process modeling experts using focus groups and standardized questionnaires. Our findings reveal a critical tension between acceptable perceived usability (mean CUQ score: 67.2/100) and notably lower trust (mean score: 48.8\%), with reliability rated as the most critical concern (M=1.8/5). Furthermore, we identified output-quality issues, prompting difficulties, and a need for the LLM to ask more in-depth clarifying questions about the process. We envision five use cases ranging from domain-expert support to enterprise quality assurance. We demonstrate the necessity of human-centered evaluation complementing automated benchmarking for LLM modeling agents.

Related papers

• How Trustworthy Are LLM-as-Judge Ratings for Interpretive Responses? Implications for Qualitative Research Workflows [0.6437935154416734]
  This study examines whether LLM-as-judge evaluations meaningfully align with human judgments of interpretive quality.<n>We generated one-sentence interpretive responses using five widely adopted inference models.<n>Results show that LLM-as-judge scores capture broad directional trends in human evaluations at the model level but diverge substantially in score magnitude.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T15:22:41Z)
• How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design [52.953425368394306]
  We make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions.<n>We propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs.<n>We deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T19:04:28Z)
• ProJudge: A Multi-Modal Multi-Discipline Benchmark and Instruction-Tuning Dataset for MLLM-based Process Judges [13.957207630090064]
  We introduce ProJudgeBench, the first benchmark specifically designed for evaluating abilities of MLLM-based process judges.<n>ProJudgeBench comprises 2,400 test cases and 50,118 step-level labels, spanning four scientific disciplines.<n> Evaluation on ProJudgeBench reveals a significant performance gap between open-source and proprietary models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T10:55:51Z)
• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes.<n>We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• Automatic Evaluation for Text-to-image Generation: Task-decomposed Framework, Distilled Training, and Meta-evaluation Benchmark [62.58869921806019]
  We propose a task decomposition evaluation framework based on GPT-4o to automatically construct a new training dataset. We design innovative training strategies to effectively distill GPT-4o's evaluation capabilities into a 7B open-source MLLM, MiniCPM-V-2.6. Experimental results demonstrate that our distilled open-source MLLM significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art GPT-4o-base baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T08:06:06Z)
• Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [52.76508734756661]
  Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• FedEval-LLM: Federated Evaluation of Large Language Models on Downstream Tasks with Collective Wisdom [19.104850413126066]
  Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for collaborative training of large language models (LLMs) Traditional evaluation methods that rely on labeled test sets and similarity-based metrics cover only a subset of the acceptable answers. We propose FedEval-LLM that provides reliable performance measurements of LLMs on downstream tasks without the reliance on labeled test sets and external tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:46:26Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Large Language Models as Automated Aligners for benchmarking Vision-Language Models [48.4367174400306]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have reached a new level of sophistication, showing notable competence in executing intricate cognition and reasoning tasks. Existing evaluation benchmarks, primarily relying on rigid, hand-crafted datasets, face significant limitations in assessing the alignment of these increasingly anthropomorphic models with human intelligence. In this work, we address the limitations via Auto-Bench, which delves into exploring LLMs as proficient curation, measuring the alignment betweenVLMs and human intelligence and value through automatic data curation and assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T16:12:05Z)

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.