Model and Event Log Reductions to Boost the Computation of Alignments

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 307)

Abstract

The alignment of observed and modeled behavior is a pivotal issue in process mining because it opens the door for assessing the quality of a process model, as well as the usage of the model as a precise predictor for the execution of a process. This paper presents a novel technique for reduction of a process model based on the notion of indication, by which, the occurrence of an event in the model reveals the occurrence of some other events, hence relegating the later set as less important information when model and log alignment is computed. Once indications relations are computed in the model, both model and log can be reduced accordingly, and then fed to the state of the art approaches for computing alignments. Finally, the (macro)-alignment derived is expanded in these parts containing high-level events that represent a set of indicated events, by using an efficient algorithm taken from bioinformatics that guarantees optimality in the local parts of the alignment. The implementation of the presented techniques shows a significant reduction both in computation time and in memory usage, the latter being a significant barrier to apply the alignment technology on large instances.

Keywords

Process mining Conformance checking Alignment SESE Model abstraction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) and the European Union (FEDER funds) under grant COMMAS (ref. TIN2013-46181-C2-1-R).

References

  1. 1.
    Adriansyah, A.: Aligning observed and modeled behavior. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adriansyah, A., Munoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Measuring precision of modeled behavior. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manage. 13(1), 37–67 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balaguer, S., Chatain, T., Haar, S.: Building occurrence nets from reveals relations. Fundam. Inform. 123(3), 245–272 (2013)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colom, J.M., Teruel, E., Silva, M., Haddad, S.: Structural methods. In: Girault, C. (ed.) Petri Nets for Systems Engineering, pp. 277–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05324-9_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haar, S.: Unfold and cover: qualitative diagnosability for petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC 2007), New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 1886–1891. IEEE Control System Society (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, R., Pearson, D., Pingali, K.: The program structure tree: Computing control regions in linear time. SIGPLAN Not. 29(6), 171–185 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Munoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., Van Der Aalst, W.M.P.: Single-entry single-exit decomposed conformance checking. Inf. Syst. 46, 102–122 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proc. IEEE 77(4), 541–574 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Needleman, S.B., Wunsch, C.D.: A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 48(3), 443–453 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson, J.L.: Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1981)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: The triconnected abstraction of process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 229–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H.: Simplified computation and generalization of the refined process structure tree. In: Bravetti, M., Bultan, T. (eds.) WS-FM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6551, pp. 25–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarjan, R.E., Valdes, J.: Prime subprogram parsing of a program. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1980, pp. 95–105. ACM, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taymouri, F., Carmona, J.: A recursive paradigm for aligning observed behavior of large structured process models. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 197–214. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Dongen, B., Carmona, J., Chatain, T., Taymouri, F.: Aligning modeled and observed behavior: a compromise between computation complexity and quality. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 94–109. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85758-7_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Merging alignments for decomposed replay. In: Kordon, F., Moldt, D. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9698, pp. 219–239. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39086-4_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Causal behavioural profiles - efficient computation, applications, and evaluation. Fundam. Inf. 113(3–4), 399–435 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations