Harris Borman

Harris Borman, Herman Wandabwa, Fusun Yu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have accelerated the adoption of software development agents, now widely available as Integrated Development Environment (IDE) extensions and standalone applications. While these agents are typically general-purpose, it remains unclear whether specialist agents justify their additional development effort. We investigate this question in the context of business process automation, focusing on the transformation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) diagrams into executable agentic workflows. Since BPMN specifies explicit control-flow semantics, we focus on deterministic workflows in which a fixed process model and inputs uniquely determine the executed path. We introduce a specialist workflow for this task and compare it against generalist agents such as Roo and Cline. Our results show that the specialist solution produces agents that outperform generalist baselines by approximately 9-20 percentage points in tool-use exactness, 2-4x in penalty-adjusted latency, and 3x fewer tool-call errors, while reducing generation token cost by over 95% and eliminating repair iterations. We also find that generalist agents generate code inconsistently in both functionality and quality, limiting their suitability for industrial settings where reliability and maintainability are essential.

Harris Borman, Anna Leontjeva, Luiz Pizzato et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to adopt a personality and behave in a human-like manner. There is a large body of research that investigates the behavioural impacts of personality in less obvious areas such as investment attitudes or creative decision making. In this study, we investigated whether an LLM persona with a specific Big Five personality profile would perform an investment task similarly to a human with the same personality traits. We used a simulated investment task to determine if these results could be generalised into actual behaviours. In this simulated environment, our results show these personas produced meaningful behavioural differences in all assessed categories, with these behaviours generally being consistent with expectations derived from human research. We found that LLMs are able to generalise traits into expected behaviours in three areas: learning style, impulsivity and risk appetite while environmental attitudes could not be accurately represented. In addition, we showed that LLMs produce behaviour that is more reflective of human behaviour in a simulation environment compared to a survey environment.