Using Large Language Models to Generate Process Knowledge from Enterprise Content

Purpose This study aims to explore the integration of large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) in robotics, highlighting their potential benefits and the safety challenges they introduce, including robustness issues, adversarial vulnerabilities, privacy concerns and ethical implications. Design/methodology/approach This survey conducts a comprehensive analysis of the safety risks associated with LLM- and VLM-powered robotic systems. The authors review existing literature, analyze key challenges, evaluate current mitigation strategies and propose future research directions. Findings The study identifies that ensuring the safety of LLM-/VLM-driven robots requires a multi-faceted approach. While current mitigation strategies address certain risks, gaps remain in real-time monitoring, adversarial robustness and ethical safeguards. Originality/value This study offers a structured and comprehensive overview of the safety challenges in LLM-/VLM-driven robotics. It contributes to ongoing discussions by integrating technical, ethical and regulatory perspectives to guide future advancements in safe and responsible artificial intelligence-driven robotics.

The paper studies the problem of software code migration during the transition from the old version of the SAP ERP 6.0 system to modern ERP platforms, in particular SAP S/4HANA. The necessity of automation of the migration process using artificial intelligence methods and tools is substantiated. A comprehensive analysis of existing academic and industrial case studies confirmed the feasibility of using large language models for code migration. A number of advantages of the approach based on large language models are revealed, in particular, the ability to handle various migration scenarios. The key risks and limitations common in the enterprise environment are highlighted, including data security, privacy, high cost of API calls and limited knowledge of models regarding the subject area. A method is developed for selecting a large open source language model that can be safely used in the enterprise landscape, thereby mitigating the risks associated with cloud solutions. The method is based on the developed system of criteria, including: model size, context window size, license type, support for fine-tuning training, focus on code quality (measured using a reference dataset), support for model quantization and community support. The hybrid AHP-TOPSIS method is proposed for systematic ranking of candidate models. The AHP method was used to check the weights of the criteria, while TOPSIS was used to rank the models based on their proximity to the ideal solution. Based on the developed method, three large language models were selected: Qwen 2.5 Coder 14B, DeepSeek-Coder-V2 16B and Llama 3.1 8B. A comprehensive testing plan for the selected models was developed for further experimental studies. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the development of a method for selecting large language models for custom code migration tasks, which differs from the existing system of model selection criteria and the use of a hybrid AHP-TOPSIS approach for ranking candidate models. The practical value of the work is that the developed method allows you to select a model taking into account the constraints of the corporate environment and information security requirements, which will increase the level of automation in the migration of AVAP when switching to new versions of ERP systems from SAP SE. The developed method can be applied to the selection of large language models when upgrading any large computer systems developed in both open source and proprietary programming languages.

The subject of the study is the analysis and improvement of methods for determining the relevance of project names to the information content of purchases using large language models. The object of the study is a database containing the names of projects and purchases in the field of electric power industry, collected from open sources. The author examines in detail such aspects of the topic as the use of TF-IDF and cosine similarity metrics for primary data filtering, and also describes in detail the integration and evaluation of the effectiveness of large language models such as GigaChat, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 in text data matching tasks. Special attention is paid to the methods of clarifying the similarity of names based on reflection introduced into the prompta of large language models, which makes it possible to increase the accuracy of data comparison. The study uses TF-IDF and cosine similarity methods for primary data analysis, as well as large GigaChat, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 language models for detailed verification of the relevance of project names and purchases, including reflection in model prompta to improve the accuracy of results. The novelty of the research lies in the development of a combined approach to determining the relevance of project names and purchases, combining traditional methods of processing text information (TF-IDF, cosine similarity) with the capabilities of large language models. A special contribution of the author to the research of the topic is the proposed methodology for improving the accuracy of data comparison by clarifying the results of primary selection using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models with optimized prompta, including reflection. The main conclusions of the study are confirmation of the prospects of using the developed approach in the tasks of information support for procurement processes and project implementation, as well as the possibility of using the results obtained for the development of text data mining systems in various sectors of the economy. The study showed that the use of language models makes it possible to improve the value of the F2 measure to 0.65, which indicates a significant improvement in the quality of data comparison compared with basic methods.

Biases in language and their reflection in language models have attracted researchers' attention, particularly with the growth of large language models (LLMs). However, many questions on the links between language models and people’s biased attitudes remain unanswered. In the current study we focus on gender–career bias to examine the extent to which language models can be used to model behavioural responses in the Gender–Career Implicit Association Test (IAT). We provide a systematic evaluation of a range of language models, including n-gram, count vector, predict (word2vec), and Large Language Models (LLMs), to determine how well they capture people’s behaviour in the IAT. We compared response time data from over 800,000 participants against 25 language models, with a total of 675 model variants. We find that many language models, including large language models (LLMs), correlated well with human behavior. While results support previous findings for both predict and count model families, we observed that performance of LLMs was consistently different from that of simpler predict models, particularly in terms of the direction and strength of correlations with reaction time and bias. This divergence may indicate successful attempts to mitigate bias in LLMs while preserving other aspects of linguistic information. Our findings reinforce the idea that societal biases are generally encoded in language, but that large language models can exhibit behaviors different to classical language models.

Aim/Purpose: The study investigates the factors influencing the acceptance and utilisation of large language models (LLMs) (predictor variables of LLM usage), such as ChatGPT, in Learning design by instructional designers and university-teaching academics from various countries. Background: Large language models (LLMs) have exploded onto the scene, transforming the landscape of learning design. Instructional designers and university teaching academics have been overburdened with content creation for their teaching programmes, and the arrival of LLM models will help in this regard by developing more interactive content that drives student engagement and, in turn, contributes to student success. Since LLMs are a relatively new phenomenon, little is known about the factors influencing their acceptance in learning design; therefore, this research is needed, as learning design principles are the bedrock of student engagement and success. Methodology: A cross-sectional correlational quantitative study was employed. Data was collected using an online questionnaire posted on social media, including LinkedIn, from 203 instructional designers and university teaching academics. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to target instructional designers and university teaching academics at colleges and universities worldwide. Participants were asked to share the survey link with fellow instructional designers and university-teaching academics in their communities. The factor structure of the data was determined using exploratory factor analysis. Nonetheless, the factor structure derived from the LLMs did not entirely reflect the original configuration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT3), as certain predictors appeared to coalesce, indicating LLMs’ unique nature in learning design. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the fit of the data on the measurement model. First-order and second-order structural modelling were used to identify the structural relationships among the variables. Contribution: The study determines significant factors for the acceptance of LLMs by instructional designers and academic teaching staff in learning design, enabling possible opportunities for best practices in the field through interventions to optimize LLM usage. The study applies the technology acceptance model to the emerging LLM technology and extends the technology acceptance model by adding the trust construct as a predictor variable. Findings: The structural analysis results indicated that the ingrained LLM practices, LLM peer-driven expectations, innovative propensity towards LLM adoption, reliability and provider trust in LLMs, and ease of use and support influenced perceived LLM benefits and usage, but community standards and infrastructure had no influence. The second-order structural equation modelling indicated that perceived LLM benefits and usage and ingrained LLM habits contributed most to the learning design. Recommendations for Practitioners: Teaching academics and instructional designers must use LLMs in designing content, assessments, and interactive learning activities, and attend LLM training workshops on prompting and best practices in integrating LLMs into learning and teaching to see their benefits; hence, regular use of LLMs will then lead to trust and innovation in LLMs usage, enhancing learning design and improving student learning outcomes. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers must use mixed methods approaches to have a deeper understanding of the factors influencing LLMs. Since habit and perceived LLM benefits and usage contributed the most variance to learning design, researchers must investigate strategies that optimise these factors in learning design, such as effective intervention strategies that can help form positive LLM habits. In addition, the findings provide researchers with a starting point for future research. Further researchers must investigate interventions that optimise the influence of personal innovativeness and trust that contributed the least variance to learning design, hence unlocking the potential of LLMs in learning design through innovation, responsible, and ethical use. Impact on Society: The use of LLMs in learning design has a high possibility of transforming education, specifically the learning design landscape. Using LLMs will free up more time for teaching academics and instructional designers so that they spend more time on higher-order thinking skill demands. Consequently, the students will be exposed to more engaging and interactive content, resulting in improved learning outcomes. Future Research: Future research must include context-derived external variables in technology acceptance models, such as levels of prompting competencies, to provide a deeper understanding of LLMs. In addition, future research must be based on the application and impact of LLMs on student engagement and success, and their attainment of 21st-century skills.

Evaluating gpt-4 for zero-shot classification of bleeding and clotting events: Can large language models serve as second reviewers?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enormous potential in healthcare, but we also need to be careful and implement strong safety measures. These advanced computer systems can understand complex medical questions written in everyday language and often provide accurate medical information. This article explores how the field has evolved, from the first language models to the LLMs we have now, specifically designed or adjusted for use in the medical world. We explore how LLMs can make important language-related tasks in healthcare more efficient and effective, such as identifying medical terms, understanding how different pieces of information are connected, drawing conclusions from written text, sorting documents, and answering medical queries. We also shed light on new and exciting ways LLMs can use more than just text, like combining written information with images or other types of data. We compare some of the best recent LLMs and discuss how they can be used in everyday medical situations. We also measure how well these models perform in the biomedical field, explaining what each measurement tells us and where it falls short. Lastly, by discussing the biggest hurdles LLMs face in healthcare—things like generating incorrect information (hallucinations), unfair biases, protecting patient privacy, making sure the models are dependable, and fitting these new tools into how doctors and nurses already work. We also provide a roadmap for future research. We aim to present a clear and fair picture of what LLMs can offer healthcare right now and what's necessary to use them safely and dependably. This includes explaining how researchers are working to make these models easier for doctors and patients to understand. We followed the PRISMA research method to guide our review of the field, from early language models to current LLMs adapted for clinical use.

Several recent works seek to develop foundation models specifically for medical applications, adapting general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) via continued pretraining on publicly available biomedical corpora.These works typically claim that such domain-adaptive pretraining (DAPT) improves performance on downstream medical tasks, such as answering medical licensing exam questions.In this paper, we compare seven public "medical" LLMs and two VLMs against their corresponding base models, arriving at a different conclusion: all medical VLMs and nearly all medical LLMs fail to consistently improve over their base models in the zero-/few-shot prompting regime for medical question-answering (QA) tasks.For instance, across the tasks and model pairs we consider in the 3-shot setting, medical LLMs only outperform their base models in 12.1% of cases, reach a (statistical) tie in 49.8% of cases, and are significantly worse than their base models in the remaining 38.2% of cases.Our conclusions are based on (i) comparing each medical model head-to-head, directly against the corresponding base model; (ii) optimizing the prompts for each model separately; and (iii) accounting for statistical uncertainty in comparisons.While these basic practices are not consistently adopted in the literature, our ablations show that they substantially impact conclusions.Our findings suggest that state-of-the-art generaldomain models may already exhibit strong medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and offer recommendations to strengthen the conclusions of future studies.

Large language models (LLMs) have made a significant impact on the fields of general artificial intelligence. General purpose LLMs exhibit strong logic and reasoning skills and general world knowledge but can sometimes generate misleading results when prompted on specific subject areas. LLMs trained with domain-specific knowledge can reduce the generation of misleading information (i.e. hallucinations) and enhance the precision of LLMs in specialized contexts. Training new LLMs on specific corpora however can be resource intensive. Here we explored the use of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) model which we tested on literature specific to a biomedical research area. OpenAI's GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Microsoft's Prometheus, and a custom RAG model were used to answer 19 questions pertaining to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) disease biology and treatment. Eight independent reviewers assessed LLM responses based on accuracy, relevance, and readability, rating responses on a 3-point scale for each category. These scores were then used to compare LLM performance. The performance of the LLMs varied across scoring categories. On accuracy and relevance, the RAG model outperformed other models with higher scores on average and the most top scores across questions. GPT-4 was more comparable to the RAG model on relevance versus accuracy. By the same measures, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had the highest scores for readability of answers when compared to the other LLMs. GPT-4 and 3.5 also had more answers with hallucinations than the other LLMs, due to non-existent references and inaccurate responses to clinical questions. Our findings suggest that an oncology research-focused RAG model may outperform general-purpose LLMs in accuracy and relevance when answering subject-related questions. This framework can be tailored to Q&A in other subject areas. Further research will help understand the impact of LLM architectures, RAG methodologies, and prompting techniques in answering questions across different subject areas.

In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science , have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.

The application of deep learning to tabular data remains an ongoing challenge, with tree-based models such as XGBoost consistently outperforming neural network methods in most real-world scenarios. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) highlight their ability to generalize to new tasks via few-shot or one-shot prompting, yet questions remain about their utility in structured, tabular domains—particularly for resource-efficient Small Language Models (SLMs). In this work, we systematically evaluate the effectiveness of both large and small transformer-based language models for tabular classification tasks using few-shot strategies. Our approach investigates input serialization schemes and prompt engineering to maximize performance in low-data regimes. Experiments on benchmark datasets—including Diabetes, Heart Failure, and German Credit Risk—demonstrate that well-designed SLMs can approach, and occasionally match, the performance of much larger models, substantially reducing the need for extensive labeled data and retraining. However, further advances are required for language models to consistently rival the strongest tree-ensemble baselines. Our findings support the idea that SLMs, when properly prompted, offer a promising, flexible, and label-efficient alternative for automating and dynamizing machine learning pipelines on tabular data.

PurposeLarge language models (LLMs) like Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) can assist in detecting errors in radiology reports, but privacy concerns limit their clinical applicability. This study compares closed-source and privacy-compliant open-source LLMs for detecting common errors in radiology reports.Materials and methodsA total of 120 radiology reports were compiled (30 each from X-ray, ultrasound, CT, and MRI). Subsequently, 397 errors from five categories (typographical, numerical, findings-impression discrepancies, omission/insertion, interpretation) were inserted into 100 of these reports; 20 reports were left unchanged. Two open-source models (Llama 3-70b, Mixtral 8x22b) and two commercial closed-source (GPT-4, GPT-4o) were tasked with error detection using identical prompts. The Kruskall–Wallis test and paired t-test were used for statistical analysis.ResultsOpen-source LLMs required less processing time per radiology report than closed-source LLMs (6 ± 2 s vs. 13 ± 4 s; p < 0.001). Closed-source LLMs achieved higher error detection rates than open-source LLMs (GPT-4o: 88% [348/397; 95% CI: 86, 92], GPT-4: 83% [328/397; 95% CI: 80, 87], Llama 3-70b: 79% [311/397; 95% CI: 76, 83], Mixtral 8x22b: 73% [288/397; 95% CI: 68, 77]; p < 0.001). Numerical errors (88% [67/76; 95% CI: 82, 93]) were detected significantly more often than typographical errors (75% [65/86; 95% CI: 68, 82]; p = 0.02), discrepancies between findings and impression (73% [73/101; 95% CI: 67, 80]; p < 0.01), and interpretation errors (70% [50/71; 95% CI: 62, 78]; p = 0.001).ConclusionOpen-source LLMs demonstrated effective error detection, albeit with comparatively lower accuracy than commercial closed-source models, and have potential for clinical applications when deployed via privacy-compliant local hosting solutions.Key PointsQuestionCan privacy-compliant open-source large language models (LLMs) match the error-detection performance of commercial non-privacy-compliant closed-source models in radiology reports?FindingsClosed-source LLMs achieved slightly higher accuracy in detecting radiology report errors than open-source models, with Llama 3-70b yielding the best results among the open-source models.Clinical relevanceOpen-source LLMs offer a privacy-compliant alternative for automated error detection in radiology reports, improving clinical workflow efficiency while ensuring patient data confidentiality. Further refinement could enhance their accuracy, contributing to better diagnosis and patient care.Graphical

SummarySustained engagement in HIV care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) are essential for achieving the UNAIDS “95-95-95” targets. Despite increased ART access, disengagement from care remains a significant issue, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Traditional machine learning (ML) models have shown moderate success in predicting care disengagement, which would enable early intervention. We develop an enhanced large language model (LLM) fine-tuned with electronic medical records (EMRs) to predict people at risk of disengaging from HIV care in Tanzania and to provide interpretative insights into modifiable risk factors.MethodsWe developed a novel AI model by enhancing a pre-trained LLM (LLaMA 3.1, an open-source pre-trained LLM released by Meta) using routinely collected EMRs from Tanzania’s National HIV Care and Treatment Program from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 (4,809,765 records for 261,192 people) to identify people at risk of disengaging from HIV care or developing adverse outcomes. Outcomes included risk of ART non-adherence, non-suppressed viral load, and loss to follow-up. Models were evaluated internally (Kagera region) and externally (Geita region), with performance compared against state-of-art ML models and zero-shot LLMs. Additionally, a team of HIV physicians in Tanzania assessed the LLM’s predictions along with LLM provided justifications for a subset of patient records to evaluate their clinical relevance and reasoning.FindingsThe enhanced LLMs consistently outperformed the supervised ML model and zero-shot LLMs across all outcomes in both internal and external validation datasets. When focusing on the 25% of PLHIV predicted as most likely to lost-to-follow-up (LTFU), the model correctly identified 78% (2,515 of 3,224) of people living with HIV (PLHIV) genuinely at risk in internal validation and 73% (7,105 of 9,733) in external validation. Attention score analysis indicated that the enhanced LLM focused on keywords such as gaps in follow-up care and ART adherence. The human expert evaluation showed alignment between clinician assessments and the LLM’s predictions in 65% of cases, with experts finding the model’s justifications reasonable and clinically relevant in 92.3% of aligned cases.InterpretationIf implemented in HIV clinics, this LLM-based AI model could help allocate resources efficiently and deliver targeted interventions, improving retention in care and advancing the UNAIDS “95-95-95” targets. By functioning like a clinician–analyzing patient summaries, predicting risks, and offering reasoning–the enhanced LLM could be integrated into clinical workflows to complement human expertise, facilitating timely interventions and informed decision-making. If implemented widely, this human-AI collaboration has the potential to improve health outcomes for people living with HIV and reduce onward transmission.FundingThe study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH NIMH 1R01MH125746.

The emerging reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) and accompanying commercial applications offer a promising path for service providers to deploy intelligent agents on their own products through API calls. However, the black-box nature of LLMs has driven providers to try prompt tuning to improve reasoning quality for competitiveness, while the generated reasoning logic results in additional service costs. Although some works have proposed collaborating LLMs and Small Language Models (SLMs) to reduce the frequency of LLM calls, most overlook the actual number of tokens interacting with the LLMs, which results in a potentially high cost still. Furthermore, directly compressing the prompt to reduce tokens often leads to a significant accuracy loss. To address the above challenges, we propose a cost-aware approach for collaborating LLMs and SLMs, named Coco. In our method, a confidence-based task assignment method is designed which leverages the result confidence of SLMs to assess task complexity and determine whether LLM involvement is necessary. For complex tasks, the SLM adapts the input by compressing unnecessary information according to confidence. Considering the potential loss of accuracy, prompt tuning-based reasoning optimization methods are introduced to guide the LLM in generating both the reasoning logic sketch and the final result. Finally, logic alignment is applied to fuse sketches from both models, ensuring the rationality of the reasoning logic. Experimental results on three open-source datasets demonstrate that our approach effectively reduces the cost of API calls to LLMs while ensuring the reasoning accuracy and the reasonableness of generated logic.

The high performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLM) in examination contexts has triggered an intense debate about their applications, effects and risks. What legal aspects need to be considered when using LLM in teaching and assessment? What possibilities do language models offer? Statutes and laws are used to assess the use of LLM: - University statutes, state higher education laws, licensing regulations for doctors - Copyright Act (UrhG) - General Data Protection Regulation (DGPR) - AI Regulation (EU AI Act) LLM and AI offer opportunities but require clear university frameworks. These should define legitimate uses and areas where use is prohibited. Cheating and plagiarism violate good scientific practice and copyright laws. Cheating is difficult to detect. Plagiarism by AI is possible. Users of the products are responsible. LLM are effective tools for generating exam questions. Nevertheless, careful review is necessary as even apparently high-quality products may contain errors. However, the risk of copyright infringement with AI-generated exam questions is low, as copyright law allows up to 15% of protected works to be used for teaching and exams. The grading of exam content is subject to higher education laws and regulations and the GDPR. Exclusively computer-based assessment without human review is not permitted. For high-risk applications in education, the EU's AI Regulation will apply in the future. When dealing with LLM in assessments, evaluation criteria for existing assessments can be adapted, as can assessment programmes, e.g. to reduce the motivation to cheat. LLM can also become the subject of the examination themselves. Teachers should undergo further training in AI and consider LLM as an addition.