On Replaying Process Execution Traces Containing Positive and Negative Events

Process mining encompasses the research area which is concerned with knowledge discovery from event logs. One common process mining task focuses on conformance checking, comparing discovered or designed process models with actual real-life behavior as captured in event logs in order to assess the fitness, precision and generalization capabilities of the process model. In many cases, such conformance checking techniques involve some kind of “replay” of the execution traces on the process model at hand. In this report, we discuss in depth the problem of replaying event traces on Petri nets for sequences containing both positive and negative events. Negative events are activities which should be prevented from taking place (contrary to opposite events which should be allowed) and are leveraged by existing conformance checking techniques to determine whether a given model is not too overfitting or underfitting. However, such negative events must be treated differently from their positive counterparts during trace replay; different replay strategies exist which impact the manner by which positive and negative events are evaluated, so that these different strategies also influence the outcome of a conformance checking evaluation. Therefore, we aim to provide an overview of the root causes which make trace replay a hard problem, together with a description of different replay strategies and their impact on process model quality evaluation.

[1]  Bart Baesens,et al.  Robust Process Discovery with Artificial Negative Events , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[2]  Anindya Datta,et al.  Automating the Discovery of AS-IS Business Process Models: Probabilistic and Algorithmic Approaches , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Bart Baesens,et al.  Improved Artificial Negative Event Generation to Enhance Process Event Logs , 2012, CAiSE.

[4]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Towards Robust Conformance Checking , 2010, Business Process Management Workshops.

[5]  Peter Radford,et al.  Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems , 1982 .

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

[7]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Causal Nets: A Modeling Language Tailored towards Process Discovery , 2011, CONCUR.

[8]  Bart Baesens,et al.  A multi-dimensional quality assessment of state-of-the-art process discovery algorithms using real-life event logs , 2012, Inf. Syst..

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

[10]  van der Wmp Wil Aalst,et al.  Evaluating the quality of discovered process models , 2008 .

[11]  Bart Baesens,et al.  Determining Process Model Precision and Generalization with Weighted Artificial Negative Events , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[12]  Josep Carmona,et al.  A Fresh Look at Precision in Process Conformance , 2010, BPM.

[13]  Alexander L. Wolf,et al.  Discovering models of software processes from event-based data , 1998, TSEM.

[14]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes , 2011 .

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

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

[17]  Dimitrios Gunopulos,et al.  Mining Process Models from Workflow Logs , 1998, EDBT.