Symbolically Aligning Observed and Modelled Behaviour

Conformance checking is a branch of process mining that aims to assess to what degree a given set of log traces and a corresponding reference model conform to each other. The state-of-the-art approach in conformance checking is based on the concept of alignments. Alignments express the observed behaviour in terms of the reference model while minimizing the number of mismatches between the event data and the model. The currently known best algorithm for constructing alignments applies the A* shortest path algorithm for each trace of event data. In this work, we apply insights from the field of model checking to aid conformance checking. We investigate whether alignments can be computed efficiently via symbolic reachability with decision diagrams. We designed a symbolic algorithm for computing shortest-paths on graphs restricted to 0- and 1-cost edges (which is typical for alignments). We have implemented our approach in the LTSmin model checking toolset and compare its performance with the A* implementation supported by ProM. We generated more than 4000 experiments (Petri net model and log trace combinations) by setting various parameters, and analysed performance and related these to structural properties. Our empirical study shows that the symbolic technique is in general better suited for computing alignments on large models than the A* approach. Our approach is better performing in cases where the size of the state-space tends to blow up. Based on our experiments we conclude that the techniques are complementary, since there is a significant number of cases where A* outperforms the symbolic technique and vice versa.

[1]  Josep Carmona,et al.  A Recursive Paradigm for Aligning Observed Behavior of Large Structured Process Models , 2016, BPM.

[2]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking: 10^20 States and Beyond , 1990, Inf. Comput..

[3]  Antti Valmari,et al.  The State Explosion Problem , 1996, Petri Nets.

[4]  Sofia Cassel,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 2012 .

[5]  Alfons Laarman,et al.  LTSmin: High-Performance Language-Independent Model Checking , 2015, TACAS.

[6]  Benoît Depaire,et al.  PTandLogGenerator: A Generator for Artificial Event Data , 2016, BPM.

[7]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Component behavior discovery from software execution data , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

[8]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[9]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis , 2012, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[10]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Tuning Alignment Computation: An Experimental Evaluation , 2017, ATAED@Petri Nets/ACSD.

[11]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  RapidProM: Mine Your Processes and Not Just Your Data , 2017, ArXiv.

[12]  Josep Carmona,et al.  Aligning Modeled and Observed Behavior: A Compromise Between Computation Complexity and Quality , 2017, CAiSE.

[13]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process mining in software systems: Discovering real-life business transactions and process models from distributed systems , 2015, 2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS).

[14]  Alexander L. Wolf,et al.  Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model , 1999, TSEM.

[15]  A Arya Adriansyah,et al.  Aligning observed and modeled behavior , 2014 .

[16]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Single-Entry Single-Exit decomposed conformance checking , 2014, Inf. Syst..

[17]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Decomposing Petri nets for process mining: A generic approach , 2013, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[18]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Towards Understanding Process Modeling - The Case of the BPM Academic Initiative , 2011, BPMN.

[19]  Tom van Dijk,et al.  Sylvan: multi-core decision diagrams , 2015, TACAS.

[20]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Cost-Based Fitness in Conformance Checking , 2011, 2011 Eleventh International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design.

[21]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Conformance Checking Using Cost-Based Fitness Analysis , 2011, 2011 IEEE 15th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[22]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Discovery Using Localized Events , 2015, Petri Nets.

[23]  Daniel Sawitzki,et al.  Experimental Studies of Symbolic Shortest-Path Algorithms , 2004, WEA.

[24]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior , 2008, Inf. Syst..

[25]  Stefan Edelkamp,et al.  Optimal Symbolic Planning with Action Costs and Preferences , 2009, IJCAI.