Behavioral Similarity – A Proper Metric

  • Matthias Kunze
  • Matthias Weidlich
  • Mathias Weske
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6896)


With the increasing influence of Business Process Management, large process model repositories emerged in enterprises and public administrations. Their effective utilization requires meaningful and efficient capabilities to search for models that go beyond text based search or folder navigation, e.g., by similarity. Existing measures for process model similarity are often not applicable for efficient similarity search, as they lack metric features. In this paper, we introduce a proper metric to quantify process similarity based on behavioral profiles. It is grounded in the Jaccard coefficient and leverages behavioral relations between pairs of process model activities. The metric is successfully evaluated towards its approximation of human similarity assessment.


Similarity Search Business Process Management Weak Order Query Model Comparison Operation 
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.
    Rosemann, M.: Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Business Process Management Journal 12(3), 377–384 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zezula, P., Amato, G., Dohnal, V., Batko, M.: Similarity Search: The Metric Space Approach. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Consistency Measurement based on Behavioural Profiles of Process Models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: m 3 - A Behavioral Similarity Metric for Business Processes. In: ZEUS 2011. CEUR-WS, pp. 89–95 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chávez, E., Navarro, G., Baeza-Yates, R., Marroquín, J.L.: Searching in Metric Spaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3), 273–321 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hjaltason, G.R., Samet, H.: Index-driven similarity search in metric spaces (Survey Article). ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4), 517–580 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Dijkman, R.M.: Similarity Search of Business Process Models. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 23–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology matching. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salton, G., Wong, A., Yang, C.S.: A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing. Commun. ACM 18(11), 613–620 (1975)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manning, C.D., Schätze, H.: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, G.A.: WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bunke, H., Allermann, G.: Inexact graph matching for structural pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters 1(4), 245–253 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman, New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph Matching Algorithms for Business Process Model Similarity Search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, C., Reichert, M., Wombacher, A.: On Measuring Process Model Similarity Based on High-Level Change Operations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 248–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yan, Z., Dijkman, R.M., Grefen, P.: Fast Business Process Similarity Search with Feature-Based Similarity Estimation. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wombacher, A., Rozie, M.: Evaluation of Workflow Similarity Measures in Service Discovery. In: Service Oriented Electronic Commerce. LNI., vol. 80, pp. 51–71. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nejati, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Chechik, M., Easterbrook, S., Zave, P.: Matching and Merging of Statecharts Specifications. In: ICSE 2007, pp. 54–64. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshuis, R., Grefen, P.: Structural Matching of BPEL Processes. In: ECOWS 2007, pp. 171–180. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Dongen, B., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring Similarity between Business Process Models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Minor, M., Tartakovski, A., Bergmann, R.: Representation and Structure-Based Similarity Assessment for Agile Workflows. In: Weber, R.O., Richter, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4626, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring Similarity between Semantic Business Process Models. In: APCCM 2007, pp. 71–80. Australian Computer Society, Inc., (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Aalst, W., de Medeiros, A.A., Weijters, A.: Process Equivalence: Comparing Two Process Models Based on Observed Behavior. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.: On the Discovery of Preferred Work Practice Through Business Process Variants. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 165–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kunze, M., Weske, M.: Metric Trees for Efficient Similarity Search in Process Model Repositories. In: IW-PL 2010, Hoboken, NJ (September 2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Leymann, F., Moser, S.: Automatic Workflow Graph Refactoring and Completion. In: Bouguettaya, A., Krueger, I., Margaria, T. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5364, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lohmann, N., Verbeek, E., Dijkman, R.M.: Petri Net Transformations for Business Processes - A Survey. T. Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency 2, 46–63 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van der Aalst, W.: Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Techniques. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Desel, J., Oberweis, A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 1806, pp. 161–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient Computation of Causal Behavioural Profiles Using Structural Decomposition. In: Lilius, J., Penczek, W. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6128, pp. 63–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Perceived Consistency between Process Models. Inf. Syst. (in press, 2011) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lipkus, A.: A Proof of the Triangle Inequality for the Tanimoto Distance. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 26, 263–265 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Decker, G., Mendling, J.: Process instantiation. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(9), 777–792 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Buckley, C., Voorhees, E.M.: Evaluating evaluation measure stability. In: SIGIR 2000, pp. 33–40 (2000)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: A Language to Query Business Processes. In: EMISA. LNI., vol. P-119, pp. 115–128. GI (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beeri, C., Eyal, A., Kamenkovich, S., Milo, T.: Querying Business Processes. In: VLDB 2006 VLDB Endowment, pp. 343–354 (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Choi, I., Kim, K., Jang, M.: An XML-based process repository and process query language for integrated process management. Knowledge and Process Management 14(4), 303–316 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jin, T., Wang, J., Wu, N., Rosa, M.L., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Efficient and Accurate Retrieval of Business Process Models through Indexing - (Short Paper). In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T.S., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6426, pp. 402–409. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Kunze
    • 1
  • Matthias Weidlich
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute at the University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations