On the Limitations of Large Language Models for Conceptual Database Modeling
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11986v1
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 11:35:59 GMT
- Title: On the Limitations of Large Language Models for Conceptual Database Modeling
- Abstract summary: This article analyzes the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as support for conceptual modeling of relational databases.<n>The approach combines different language models with prompt engineering techniques to evaluate their ability to identify entities.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: This article analyzes the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as support for the conceptual modeling of relational databases through the automatic generation of Entity-Relationship (ER) diagrams from natural language requirements. The approach combines different language models with prompt engineering techniques to evaluate their ability to identify entities, relationships, and attributes in a conceptually consistent manner. The experimental evaluation involved three LLMs, each subjected to three prompting techniques (Zero-Shot, Chain of Thought, and Chain of Thought + Verifier), applied to the same requirements scenario with progressively increasing complexity. The generated diagrams were qualitatively analyzed through direct comparison with the textual requirements, considering the structural and semantic adherence of the modeled elements. The results indicate that, although LLMs show reasonable performance in less complex scenarios, their reliability decreases as the complexity of the requirements increases, with a rise in inconsistencies, ambiguities, and failures in representing constraints. These findings reinforce that, in their current state, LLMs are not sufficiently mature for reliable use in complex scenarios, and the cost of validation may offset the apparent productivity gains.
Related papers
- Beyond Accuracy: Characterizing Code Comprehension Capabilities in (Large) Language Models [4.841487377596519]
This paper investigates whether Large Language Models' code-comprehension performance aligns with traditional human-centric software metrics.<n>We introduce a diagnostic framework that reframes code understanding as a binary input-output consistency task.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-19T10:58:24Z) - When Words Change the Model: Sensitivity of LLMs for Constraint Programming Modelling [1.052782170493037]
Large language models show impressive results in automatically generating models for classical benchmarks.<n>Many standard CP problems are likely included in the training data of these models.<n>We show that while LLMs can produce syntactically valid and semantically plausible models, their performance drops sharply under contextual and linguistic variation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-18T10:40:32Z) - LTD-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models by Letting Them Draw [57.237152905238084]
LTD-Bench is a breakthrough benchmark for large language models (LLMs)<n>It transforms LLM evaluation from abstract scores to directly observable visual outputs by requiring models to generate drawings through dot matrices or executable code.<n> LTD-Bench's visual outputs enable powerful diagnostic analysis, offering a potential approach to investigate model similarity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-04T08:11:23Z) - Correlation Dimension of Auto-Regressive Large Language Models [11.183390901786659]
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in natural language generation.<n>They continue to display puzzling behaviors, such as repetition and incoherence, even when exhibiting low perplexity.<n>We introduce correlation dimension, a fractal-geometric measure of self-similarity, to quantify complexity of text.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-24T08:42:23Z) - CoT Referring: Improving Referring Expression Tasks with Grounded Reasoning [67.18702329644526]
CoT Referring enhances model reasoning across modalities through a structured, chain-of-thought training data structure.<n>We restructure the training data to enforce a new output form, providing new annotations for existing datasets.<n>We also integrate detection and segmentation capabilities into a unified MLLM framework, training it with a novel adaptive weighted loss to optimize performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-03T08:50:21Z) - mSCoRe: a $M$ultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for $S$kill-based $Co$mmonsense $Re$asoning [74.97363626515236]
We propose a textbfMultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for textbfSkill-based textbfCommonsense textbfReasoning (textbfmSCoRe)<n>Our benchmark incorporates three key components that are designed to systematically evaluate LLM's reasoning capabilities.<n>Our results reveal the limitations of such reasoning-reinforced models when confronted with nuanced multilingual general and cultural commonsense.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-13T18:59:02Z) - A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z) - Generalizing Large Language Model Usability Across Resource-Constrained [0.43512163406552007]
dissertation presents a systematic study toward generalizing Large Language Models under real-world constraints.<n>First, it introduces a robust text-centric alignment framework that enables LLMs to seamlessly integrate diverse modalities.<n>Beyond multimodal setting, the dissertation investigates inference-time optimization strategies for LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-13T01:00:12Z) - Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation [24.081573908824353]
First-order logic (FOL) reasoning is pivotal for intelligent systems.<n>Existing benchmarks often rely on extensive human annotation or handcrafted templates.<n>We propose a novel framework called ProverGen that synergizes the generative strengths of Large Language Models with the rigor and precision of symbolic provers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-10T15:31:54Z) - How Well Do Text Embedding Models Understand Syntax? [50.440590035493074]
The ability of text embedding models to generalize across a wide range of syntactic contexts remains under-explored.
Our findings reveal that existing text embedding models have not sufficiently addressed these syntactic understanding challenges.
We propose strategies to augment the generalization ability of text embedding models in diverse syntactic scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-14T08:51:00Z) - Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A
Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text.
Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z) - Model Criticism for Long-Form Text Generation [113.13900836015122]
We apply a statistical tool, model criticism in latent space, to evaluate the high-level structure of generated text.
We perform experiments on three representative aspects of high-level discourse -- coherence, coreference, and topicality.
We find that transformer-based language models are able to capture topical structures but have a harder time maintaining structural coherence or modeling coreference.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-16T04:35:58Z)
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.