Symbolically Aligning Observed and Modelled Behaviour

Vincent Bloemen, J. Pol, Wil M.P. van der Aalst
{"title":"Symbolically Aligning Observed and Modelled Behaviour","authors":"Vincent Bloemen, J. Pol, Wil M.P. van der Aalst","doi":"10.1109/ACSD.2018.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":242721,"journal":{"name":"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSD.2018.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

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.
象征性地将观察到的和模拟的行为对齐
一致性检查是过程挖掘的一个分支,旨在评估给定的日志跟踪集和相应的参考模型在多大程度上相互符合。最先进的一致性检查方法是基于对齐的概念。校准用参考模型表示观察到的行为,同时最小化事件数据和模型之间不匹配的数量。目前已知的构建对齐的最佳算法对事件数据的每个跟踪应用A*最短路径算法。在这项工作中,我们应用模型检查领域的见解来帮助一致性检查。我们研究了通过决策图的符号可达性是否可以有效地计算对齐。我们设计了一个符号算法,用于计算限制在0和1成本边的图上的最短路径(这是典型的对齐)。我们已经在LTSmin模型检查工具集中实现了我们的方法,并将其性能与ProM支持的A*实现进行了比较。我们通过设置各种参数生成了4000多个实验(Petri网模型和日志轨迹组合),并分析了性能并将其与结构特性联系起来。我们的实证研究表明,符号技术通常比A*方法更适合在大型模型上计算对齐。在状态空间的大小趋于膨胀的情况下,我们的方法表现得更好。根据我们的实验,我们得出结论,这两种技术是互补的,因为在很多情况下,a *优于符号技术,反之亦然。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信