Automatic Control and Computer Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 709–723 | Cite as

Using Event Logs for Local Correction of Process Models

  • A. A. Mitsyuk
  • I. A. Lomazova
  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
Article

Abstract

During the life-cycle of an Information System (IS) its actual behavior may not correspond to the original system model. However, to the IS support it is very important to have the latest model that reflects the current system behavior. To correct the model the information from the event log of the system may be used. In this paper, we consider the problem of process model adjustment (correction) using the information from event log. The input data for this task is the initial process model (a Petri net) and an event log. The result of correction should be a new process model, better reflecting the real IS behavior than the initial model. The new model could be also built from scratch, for example, with the help of one of the known algorithms for automatic synthesis of the process model from an event log. However, this may lead to crucial changes in the structure of the original model, and it will be difficult to compare the new model with the initial one, hindering its understanding and analysis. Then it is important to keep the initial structure of the model as much as possible. In this paper we propose a method for process model correction based on the principle of “divide and conquer”. The initial model is decomposed into several fragments. For each of the fragments its conformance to the event log is checked. Fragments, which do not match the log, are replaced by newly synthesized ones. The new model is then assembled from the fragments via transition fusion. The experiments demonstrate that our correction algorithm gives good results when it is used for correcting local discrepancies. The paper presents the description of the algorithm, the formal justification for its correctness, as well as the results of experimental testing on artificial examples.

Keywords

process mining process model repair Petri nets process model decomposition divide and conquer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Decomposing process mining problems using passages, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2012, vol. 7347, pp. 72–91.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Decomposing Petri Nets for process mining: A generic approach, Distrib. Parallel Databases, 2013, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 471–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Process Mining—Data Science in Action, Springer, 2016, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., and van Dongen, B.F., Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discovery, 2012, vol. 2, pp. 182–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Bolt, A., and van Zelst, S.J., RapidProM: Mine your processes and not just your data, CoRR, 2017, abs/1703.03740.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Kalenkova, A.A., Rubin, V.A., and Verbeek, H.M.W., Process discovery using localized events, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2015, vol. 9115, pp. 287–308.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weijters, A.J.M.M., and Maruster, L., Workow mining: Discovering process models from event logs, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 2004, vol. 16, pp. 1128–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adriansyah, A., Aligning observed and modeled behavior, PhD Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Begicheva, A.K. and Lomazova, I.A., Does your event log fit the high-level process model?, Model. Anal. Inf. Syst., 2015, vol. 22, pp. 392–403.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Begicheva, A.K. and Lomazova, I.A., Discovering high-level process models from event logs, Model. Anal. Inf. Syst., 2017, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 125–140.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M., van Dongen, B.F., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., On the role of fitness, precision, generalization and simplicity in process discovery, On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2012, Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, DOA-SVI, and ODBASE 2012, Rome, Italy, September 10–14, 2012. Proceedings, Part I, 2012, pp. 305–322Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M., La Rosa, M., Reijers, H.A., van Dongen, B.F., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Improving business process models using observed behavior, Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process., 2013, vol. 162, pp. 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burattin, A., Maggi, F.M., and Sperduti, A., Conformance checking based on multi-perspective declarative process models, Expert Syst. Appl., 2016, vol. 65, pp. 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., and Garcia-Banuelos, L., Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2009, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Dongen, B.F., Carmona, J., and Chatain, T., A unified approach for measuring precision and generalization based on anti-alignments, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2016, vol. 9850, pp. 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fahland, D. and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Repairing process models to reflect reality, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2012, vol. 7481, pp. 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fahland, D. and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Model repair—aligning process models to reality, Inf. Syst., 2015, vol. 47, pp. 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fahland, D. and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Simplifying discovered process models in a controlled manner, Inf. Syst., 2013, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gambini, M., La Rosa M., Migliorini S., and ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Automated error correction of business process models, 9th International Conference Business Process Management (BPM 2011), Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2011, vol. 6896, pp. 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Günther, C.W. and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Fuzzy mining: Adaptive process simplification based on multi-perspective metrics, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2007, vol. 4714, pp. 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hompes, B.F.A., On decomposed process discovery: How to solve a jigsaw puzzle with friends, Master’s Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hompes, B.F.A., Verbeek, H.M.W., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Finding suitable activity clusters for decomposed process discovery, 4th International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA), 2015, pp. 32–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalenkova, A.A., Lomazova, I.A., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Process model discovery: A method based on transition system decomposition, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2014, vol. 8489, pp. 71–90.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Discovering block-structured process models from incomplete event logs, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2014, vol. 8489, pp. 91–110.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Scalable process discovery with guarantees, Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process., 2015, vol. 214, pp. 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mans, R., van der Aalst, W.M.P., and Verbeek, H.M.W., Supporting process mining workflows with Rapid-ProM, Proceedings of the BPM Demo Sessions 2014 Co-located with the 12th International Conference on Business Process Management (BPM 2014), 2014, pp. 56–60Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitsyuk, A.A. and Shugurov, I.S., On process model synthesis based on event logs with noise, Autom. Control Comput. Sci., 2016, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitsyuk, A.A., Lomazova, I.A., Shugurov, I.S., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Process model repair by detecting unfitting fragments, Supplementary Proceedings of AIST 2017, CEUR-WS.org, 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muñoz-Gama, J., Conformance checking and diagnosis in process mining—comparing observed and modeled processes, Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process., 2016, vol. 270.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muñoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., Single-entry single-exit decomposed conformance checking, Inf. Syst., 2014, vol. 46, pp. 102–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Polyvyanyy, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., and Wynn, M.T., Impact-driven process model repair, ACM Trans. Software Eng. Methodol., 2017, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 28:1–28:60.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    de San Pedro, J., Carmona, J. and Cortadella, J., Log-based simplification of process models, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2015, vol. 9253, pp. 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shershakov, S.A., DPMine graphical language for automation of experiments in process mining, Autom. Control Comput. Sci., 2016, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shugurov, I.S. and Mitsyuk, A.A., Iskra: A tool for process model repair, Proc. Inst. Syst. Progr. Russ. Acad. Sci., 2015, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 237–254.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shugurov, I.S. and Mitsyuk, A.A., Applying MapReduce to conformance checking, Proc. Inst. Syst. Progr. Russ. Acad. Sci., 2016, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 103–122.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shugurov, I.S. and Mitsyuk, A.A., Generation of a set of event logs with noise, Proceedings of the 8th Spring/Summer Young Researchers Colloquium on Software Engineering (SYRCoSE 2014), 2014, pp. 88–95Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Buijs, J.C.A.M., van Dongen, B.F., and van der Aalst, W.M.P., ProM 6: The process mining toolkit, Proc. of BPM Demonstration Track 2010, 2010, vol. 615, pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., Decomposed process mining with divide and conquer, BPM 2014 Demos, 2014, vol. 1295, pp. 86–90.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., and Muñoz-Gama, J., Divide and conquer: A tool framework for supporting decomposed discovery in process mining, Comput. J., 2017, vol. 1–26.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weber, I., Rogge-Solti, A., Li, C., and Mendling, J., CCaaS: Online conformance checking as a service, BPM 2015 Demos, 2015, vol. 1418, pp. 45–49.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Werf, J.M.E.M., van Dongen, B.F., Hurkens, C.A.J., and Serebrenik, A., Process discovery using integer linear programming, Fundam. Inf., 2009, vol. 94, pp. 387–412.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weijters, A.J.M.M., Ribeiro, J., and Chawla, N., Flexible heuristics miner, IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM 2011), 2011, pp. 310–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. A. Mitsyuk
    • 1
  • I. A. Lomazova
    • 1
  • W. M. P. van der Aalst
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Process-Aware Information SystemsNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Architecture of Information SystemsEindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations