Deep Analysis of Process Model Matching Techniques

Process Model Matching (PMM) aims to automatically identify corresponding activities from two process models that exhibit similar behaviors. Recognizing the diverse applications of process model matching, several techniques have been proposed in the literature. Typically, the effectiveness of these matching techniques has been evaluated using three widely used performance measures, Precision, Recall, and F1 score. In this study, we have established that the values of these three measures for each dataset do not provide deeper insights into the capabilities of the matching techniques. To that end, we have made three significant contributions. Firstly, we have enhanced four benchmark datasets by classifying their corresponding activities into three sub-types. The enhanced datasets can be used for surface-level evaluation, as well as a deeper evaluation of matching techniques. Secondly, we have conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify an extensive set of 27 matching techniques and subsequently proposed a taxonomy for these matching techniques. Finally, we have performed 432 experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of all the matching techniques, and key observations about the effectiveness of the techniques are presented.

[1]  Ted Pedersen,et al.  Using Measures of Semantic Relatedness for Word Sense Disambiguation , 2003, CICLing.

[2]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Probabilistic Evaluation of Process Model Matching Techniques , 2016, ER.

[3]  Paul Rayson,et al.  Measuring Short Text Reuse for the Urdu Language , 2018, IEEE Access.

[4]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Report: The Process Model Matching Contest 2013 , 2013, Business Process Management Workshops.

[5]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  A probabilistic evaluation procedure for process model matching techniques , 2018, Data Knowl. Eng..

[6]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Measuring Text Reuse , 2002, ACL.

[7]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2007 , 2006, OM.

[8]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[9]  Heiner Stuckenschmidt,et al.  Overcoming individual process model matcher weaknesses using ensemble matching , 2017, Decis. Support Syst..

[10]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  How to Make Process Model Matching Work Better? An Analysis of Current Similarity Measures , 2017, BIS.

[11]  Kevin Barraclough,et al.  I and i , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Fabio Casati,et al.  Activity Matching with Human Intelligence , 2016, BPM.

[13]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness , 2006, CL.

[14]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  APROMORE: An advanced process model repository , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[15]  Jeffrey Pennington,et al.  GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation , 2014, EMNLP.

[16]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  Developing a corpus of plagiarised short answers , 2011, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[17]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Business Process Model Merging: An Approach to Business Process Consolidation , 2013, TSEM.

[18]  Tomas Mikolov,et al.  Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information , 2016, TACL.

[19]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[20]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Semantic Querying of Business Process Models , 2008, 2008 12th International IEEE Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[21]  Marlon Dumas,et al.  Fast detection of exact clones in business process model repositories , 2013, Inf. Syst..

[22]  Beate List,et al.  An evaluation of conceptual business process modelling languages , 2006, SAC.

[23]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Introduction to Information Retrieval , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Peter Loos,et al.  The Process Model Matching Contest 2015 , 2013, EMISA.

[25]  Muhammad Ali,et al.  Enhanced Benchmark Datasets for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Process Model Matching Techniques , 2018, EOMAS@CAiSE.