Advertisement

Towards an Empirical Evaluation of Imperative and Declarative Process Mining

  • Christoffer Olling Back
  • Søren Debois
  • Tijs Slaats
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11158)

Abstract

Process modelling notations fall in two broad categories: declarative notations, which specify the rules governing a process; and imperative notations, which specify the flows admitted by a process. We outline an empirical approach to addressing the question of whether certain process logs are better suited for mining to imperative than declarative notations. We plan to attack this question by applying a flagship imperative and declarative miner to a standard collection of process logs, then evaluate the quality of the output models w.r.t. the standard model metrics of precision and generalisation. This approach requires perfect fitness of the output model, which substantially narrows the field of available miners; possible candidates include Inductive Miner and MINERful. With the metrics in hand, we propose to statistically evaluate the hypotheses that (1) one miner consistently outperforms the other on one of the metrics, and (2) there exist subsets of logs more suitable for imperative respectively declarative mining.

Keywords

Process mining Modelling paradigms Statistical evaluation Declarative models Imperative models Hybrid models Evaluation metrics 

References

  1. 1.
    Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., Westergaard, M., Maggi, F.M.: Declare. Webpage (2010). http://www.win.tue.nl/declare/
  4. 4.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T.: Replication, refinement & reachability: complexity in dynamic condition-response graphs. Acta Informatica 55, 489–520 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hull, R., et al.: Business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles. In: DEBS 2011, pp. 51–62 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Object Management Group: Business Process Modeling Notation Version 2.0. Technical report, Object Management Group Final Adopted Specification (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marquard, M., Shahzad, M., Slaats, T.: Web-based modelling and collaborative simulation of declarative processes. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 209–225. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23063-4_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object Management Group: Case Management Model and Notation, version 1.0. Webpage, May 2014. http://www.omg.org/spec/CMMN/1.0/PDF
  9. 9.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31095-9_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di Ciccio, C., Mecella, M.: On the discovery of declarative control flows for artful processes. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 5(4), 24 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Laursen, P.H., Ulrik, K.R.: Declarative process mining for DCR graphs. In: Proceeding of the Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2017, pp. 759–764 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: On the role of fitness, precision, generalization and simplicity in process discovery. In: Meersman, R., et al. (eds.) OTM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7565, pp. 305–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33606-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buijs, J.C.A.M., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Quality dimensions in process discovery: the importance of fitness, precision, generalization and simplicity. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 23(1), 1440001 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisc. Rew. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 2(2), 182–192 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Discovering block-structured process models from event logs - a constructive approach. In: Colom, J.-M., Desel, J. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7927, pp. 311–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38697-8_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. In: CIDM 2015, pp. 1374–1382 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adriansyah, A., Munoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Alignment based precision checking. In: La Rosa, M., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNBIP, vol. 132, pp. 137–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36285-9_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slaats, T., Schunselaar, D.M.M., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A.: The semantics of hybrid process models. In: Debruyne, C. (ed.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10033, pp. 531–551. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48472-3_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maggi, F.M., Slaats, T., Reijers, H.A.: The automated discovery of hybrid processes. In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 392–399. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10172-9_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schunselaar, D.M.M., Slaats, T., Maggi, F.M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Mining hybrid business process models: a quest for better precision. In: Abramowicz, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) BIS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 320, pp. 190–205. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93931-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Back, C.O., Debois, S., Slaats, T.: Towards an entropy-based analysis of log variability. In: Teniente, E., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNBIP, vol. 308, pp. 53–70. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74030-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations