Anton Antonov

Anton Antonov, Humam Kourani, Alessandro Berti et al.

Process modeling is a sub-domain of Business Process Management (BPM) focused on the translation of process artifacts into formal models. This task traditionally requires extensive human input and domain expertise in both BPM notations and the specific business context. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can now automate much of this manual work, current text-to-model approaches focus predominantly on the control-flow perspective-ordering activities without considering the collaborative aspect of the processes. In this paper, we introduce a resource-aware generation pipeline that produces formal BPMN 2.0 collaboration diagrams from natural-language descriptions. Rather than solely prompting an LLM for raw XML, we describe a compact, executable intermediate language with mandatory resource details defining both the organization (pool) and the role (lane). Cross-organization dependencies are materialized using the standard formal notation for such interactions-message events-while an orthogonal layout routine automatically handles the spatial arrangement of elements within pools and lanes. Experiments on ten business processes with nine LLMs show strong resource discovery while preserving control-flow quality and adding only marginal runtime overhead. This approach moves generative modeling toward a more comprehensive, multi-collaborative representation of business operations.

Anton Antonov, Humam Kourani, Alessandro Berti et al.

Process mining provides powerful insights into organizational workflows, but extracting these insights typically requires expertise in specialized query languages and data science tools. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the potential to democratize process mining by enabling business users to interact with process data through natural language. However, using LLMs as direct analytical engines over raw event logs introduces fundamental challenges: LLMs struggle with deterministic reasoning and may hallucinate metrics, while sending large, sensitive logs to external AI services raises serious data-privacy concerns. To address these limitations, we present PMAx, an autonomous agentic framework that functions as a virtual process analyst. Rather than relying on LLMs to generate process models or compute analytical results, PMAx employs a privacy-preserving multi-agent architecture. An Engineer agent analyzes event-log metadata and autonomously generates local scripts to run established process mining algorithms, compute exact metrics, and produce artifacts such as process models, summary tables, and visualizations. An Analyst agent then interprets these insights and artifacts to compile comprehensive reports. By separating computation from interpretation and executing analysis locally, PMAx ensures mathematical accuracy and data privacy while enabling non-technical users to transform high-level business questions into reliable process insights.

Andrey Moskalenko, Vlad Shakhuro, Anna Vorontsova et al.

Interactive segmentation methods rely on user inputs to iteratively update the selection mask. A click specifying the object of interest is arguably the most simple and intuitive interaction type, and thereby the most common choice for interactive segmentation. However, user clicking patterns in the interactive segmentation context remain unexplored. Accordingly, interactive segmentation evaluation strategies rely more on intuition and common sense rather than empirical studies (e.g., assuming that users tend to click in the center of the area with the largest error). In this work, we conduct a real user study to investigate real user clicking patterns. This study reveals that the intuitive assumption made in the common evaluation strategy may not hold. As a result, interactive segmentation models may show high scores in the standard benchmarks, but it does not imply that they would perform well in a real world scenario. To assess the applicability of interactive segmentation methods, we propose a novel evaluation strategy providing a more comprehensive analysis of a model's performance. To this end, we propose a methodology for finding extreme user inputs by a direct optimization in a white-box adversarial attack on the interactive segmentation model. Based on the performance with such adversarial user inputs, we assess the robustness of interactive segmentation models w.r.t click positions. Besides, we introduce a novel benchmark for measuring the robustness of interactive segmentation, and report the results of an extensive evaluation of dozens of models.

Anton Antonov, Andrey Moskalenko, Denis Shepelev et al.

The emergence of Segment Anything (SAM) sparked research interest in the field of interactive segmentation, especially in the context of image editing tasks and speeding up data annotation. Unlike common semantic segmentation, interactive segmentation methods allow users to directly influence their output through prompts (e.g. clicks). However, click patterns in real-world interactive segmentation scenarios remain largely unexplored. Most methods rely on the assumption that users would click in the center of the largest erroneous area. Nevertheless, recent studies show that this is not always the case. Thus, methods may have poor performance in real-world deployment despite high metrics in a baseline benchmark. To accurately simulate real-user clicks, we conducted a large crowdsourcing study of click patterns in an interactive segmentation scenario and collected 475K real-user clicks. Drawing on ideas from saliency tasks, we develop a clickability model that enables sampling clicks, which closely resemble actual user inputs. Using our model and dataset, we propose RClicks benchmark for a comprehensive comparison of existing interactive segmentation methods on realistic clicks. Specifically, we evaluate not only the average quality of methods, but also the robustness w.r.t. click patterns. According to our benchmark, in real-world usage interactive segmentation models may perform worse than it has been reported in the baseline benchmark, and most of the methods are not robust. We believe that RClicks is a significant step towards creating interactive segmentation methods that provide the best user experience in real-world cases.

Viktoriia Zinkovich, Anton Antonov, Andrei Spiridonov et al.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in vision-language tasks such as reasoning segmentation, where models generate segmentation masks based on textual queries. While prior work has primarily focused on perturbing image inputs, semantically equivalent textual paraphrases-crucial in real-world applications where users express the same intent in varied ways-remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a novel adversarial paraphrasing task: generating grammatically correct paraphrases that preserve the original query meaning while degrading segmentation performance. To evaluate the quality of adversarial paraphrases, we develop a comprehensive automatic evaluation protocol validated with human studies. Furthermore, we introduce SPARTA-a black-box, sentence-level optimization method that operates in the low-dimensional semantic latent space of a text autoencoder, guided by reinforcement learning. SPARTA achieves significantly higher success rates, outperforming prior methods by up to 2x on both the ReasonSeg and LLMSeg-40k datasets. We use SPARTA and competitive baselines to assess the robustness of advanced reasoning segmentation models. We reveal that they remain vulnerable to adversarial paraphrasing-even under strict semantic and grammatical constraints. All code and data will be released publicly upon acceptance.

Humam Kourani, Anton Antonov, Alessandro Berti et al.

The utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) in analytical tasks is rooted in their vast pre-trained knowledge, which allows them to interpret ambiguous inputs and infer missing information. However, this same capability introduces a critical risk of what we term knowledge-driven hallucination: a phenomenon where the model's output contradicts explicit source evidence because it is overridden by the model's generalized internal knowledge. This paper investigates this phenomenon by evaluating LLMs on the task of automated process modeling, where the goal is to generate a formal business process model from a given source artifact. The domain of Business Process Management (BPM) provides an ideal context for this study, as many core business processes follow standardized patterns, making it likely that LLMs possess strong pre-trained schemas for them. We conduct a controlled experiment designed to create scenarios with deliberate conflict between provided evidence and the LLM's background knowledge. We use inputs describing both standard and deliberately atypical process structures to measure the LLM's fidelity to the provided evidence. Our work provides a methodology for assessing this critical reliability issue and raises awareness of the need for rigorous validation of AI-generated artifacts in any evidence-based domain.