Model Checking of Mixed-Paradigm Process Models in a Discovery Context - Finding the Fit Between Declarative and Procedural

The act of retrieving process models from event-based data logs can offer valuable information to business owners. Many approaches have been proposed for this purpose, mining for either a procedural or declarative outcome. A blended approach that combines both process model paradigms exists and offers a great way to deal with process environments which consist of different layers of flexibility. In this paper, it will be shown how to check such models for correctness, and how this checking can contribute to retrieving the models as well. The approach is based on intersecting both parts of the model and provides an effective way to check (i) whether the behavior is aligned, and (ii) where the model can be improved according to errors that arise along the respective paradigms. To this end, we extend the functionality of Fusion Miner, a mixed-paradigm process miner, in a way to inspect which amount of flexibility is right for the event log. The procedure is demonstrated with an implemented model checker and verified on real-life event logs.

[1]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  The Automated Discovery of Hybrid Processes , 2014, BPM.

[2]  Marco Montali,et al.  Ensuring Model Consistency in Declarative Process Discovery , 2015, BPM.

[3]  Massimo Mecella,et al.  A two-step fast algorithm for the automated discovery of declarative workflows , 2013, 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM).

[4]  Michael Westergaard,et al.  Mixing Paradigms for More Comprehensible Models , 2013, BPM.

[5]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[6]  Johannes De Smedt,et al.  Improving Understandability of Declarative Process Models by Revealing Hidden Dependencies , 2016, CAiSE.

[7]  Geert Poels,et al.  Mixed-Paradigm Process Modeling with Intertwined State Spaces , 2016, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[8]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  User-guided discovery of declarative process models , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM).

[9]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes , 2007, 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007).

[10]  Johannes De Smedt,et al.  Fusion Miner: Process discovery for mixed-paradigm models , 2015, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Massimo Mecella,et al.  On the Discovery of Declarative Control Flows for Artful Processes , 2015, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Process Discovery using Integer Linear Programming , 2009, Fundam. Informaticae.

[13]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  UnconstrainedMiner: Efficient Discovery of Generalized Declarative Process Models , 2013 .

[14]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  A Declarative Approach for Flexible Business Processes Management , 2006, Business Process Management Workshops.

[15]  Michael Westergaard,et al.  CPN Tools 4: Multi-formalism and Extensibility , 2013, Petri Nets.

[16]  Johannes De Smedt,et al.  Multi-paradigm Process Mining: Retrieving Better Models by Combining Rules and Sequences - (Short Paper) , 2014, OTM Conferences.

[17]  Arya Adriansyah,et al.  Mining Process Performance from Event Logs , 2012, Business Process Management Workshops.

[18]  Jan Mendling,et al.  From Declarative Processes to Imperative Models , 2014, SIMPDA.

[19]  Tadao Murata,et al.  Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[20]  Wolfgang Reisig,et al.  Place or Transition Petri Nets , 1996, Petri Nets.