Automated Error Correction of Business Process Models

  • Mauro Gambini
  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Sara Migliorini
  • Arthur H. M. Ter Hofstede
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6896)


As order dependencies between process tasks can get complex, it is easy to make mistakes in process model design, especially behavioral ones such as deadlocks. Notions such as soundness formalize behavioral errors and tools exist that can identify such errors. However these tools do not provide assistance with the correction of the process models. Error correction can be very challenging as the intentions of the process modeler are not known and there may be many ways in which an error can be corrected. We present a novel technique for automatic error correction in process models based on simulated annealing. Via this technique a number of process model alternatives are identified that resolve one or more errors in the original model. The technique is implemented and validated on a sample of industrial process models. The tests show that at least one sound solution can be found for each input model within a reasonable response time.


Business Process Management Edit Operation Structural Distance Output Place Edit Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Hee, K.M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Sidorova, N., Verbeek, H.M.W., Voorhoeve, M., Wynn, M.T.: Soundness of Workflow Nets: Classification, Decidability, and Analysis. Formal Aspects of Computing (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcuri, A.: On the automation of fixing software bugs. In: ICSE (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Lohmann, N.: Diagnosing and repairing data anomalies in process models. In: BPM Workshops (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunke, H., Allermann, G.: Inexact graph matching for structural pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters 1(4), 245–253 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Kaarik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Information Systems 36(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Jobstmann, B., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 278–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holland, J.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karp, R.M., Miller, R.E.: Parallel program schemata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 3(2) (1969)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C., Vecchi, M.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220, 671–680 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lohmann, N.: Correcting deadlocking service choreographies using a simulation-based graph edit distance. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.M.: Petri net transformations for business processes – a survey. TOPNOC 2, 46–63 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reijers, H.A., Mans, R.S., van der Toorn, R.A.: Improved Model Management with Aggregated Business Process Models. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(2), 221–243 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, K.I., Everson, R.M., Fieldsend, J.E., Murphy, C., Misra, R.: Dominance-based multiobjective simulated annealing. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 12(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suman, B.: Study of simulated annealing based algorithms for multiobjective optimization of a constrained problem. Computers & Chemical Engineering 28(9) (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wynn, M.T., Verbeek, H.M.W., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Edmond, D.: Business process verification: Finally a reality! BPM Journal 15(1), 74–92 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zha, H., Wang, J., Wen, L., Wang, C., Sun, J.: A workflow net similarity measure based on transition adjacency relations. Computers in Industry 61(5) (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauro Gambini
    • 1
  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sara Migliorini
    • 1
  • Arthur H. M. Ter Hofstede
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of VeronaItaly
  2. 2.Queensland University of TechnologyAustralia
  3. 3.NICTA Queensland LabAustralia
  4. 4.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations