Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study benchmarks sequence models, tabular foundation models, and LLMs for predictive process monitoring, revealing that classical LSTM-based approaches still outperform newer large language models in next-activity prediction despite the latter's higher computational cost. The findings suggest a nuanced landscape where specialized deep learning architectures remain competitive against general-purpose foundation models for specific temporal forecasting tasks within machine learning workflows.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Revisiting Predictive Process Monitoring in the Age of Foundation Models: A Comparative Study of Sequence, Tabular, and LLM Approaches

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2607.27797v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Predictive process monitoring (PPM) leverages event logs to forecast the future of running process instances, for instance, predicting the next activity, the remaining time until case completion, or the time to the next event. While PPM research in recent years has been dominated by deep sequence models trained from scratch, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models, foundation-model approaches---particularly large language models (LLMs)---are increasingly explored for PPM. At the same time, tabular foundation models with in-context learning capabilities offer a promising alternative but have not yet been systematically benchmarked for PPM. Thus, it remains unclear whether classical sequence-based models remain competitive in this evolving landscape. This paper compares the three modeling paradigms both conceptually and empirically through a controlled benchmark across multiple datasets and prediction tasks. The results show that sequence models consistently perform best for next activity prediction, whereas tabular foundation models are competitive on temporal tasks, with LLMs usually lagging behind despite higher cost.

Abstract:Predictive process monitoring (PPM) leverages event logs to forecast the future of running process instances, for instance, predicting the next activity, the remaining time until case completion, or the time to the next event. While PPM research in recent years has been dominated by deep sequence models trained from scratch, such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models, foundation-model approaches---particularly large language models (LLMs)---are increasingly explored for PPM. At the same time, tabular foundation models with in-context learning capabilities offer a promising alternative but have not yet been systematically benchmarked for PPM. Thus, it remains unclear whether classical sequence-based models remain competitive in this evolving landscape. This paper compares the three modeling paradigms both conceptually and empirically through a controlled benchmark across multiple datasets and prediction tasks. The results show that sequence models consistently perform best for next activity prediction, whereas tabular foundation models are competitive on temporal tasks, with LLMs usually lagging behind despite higher cost.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2607.27797 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2607.27797v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.27797 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 250 words

Related coverage