过程概念漂移检测的实验评价

Jan Niklas Adams, Cameron Pitsch, T. Brockhoff, Wil M.P. van der Aalst
{"title":"过程概念漂移检测的实验评价","authors":"Jan Niklas Adams, Cameron Pitsch, T. Brockhoff, Wil M.P. van der Aalst","doi":"10.14778/3594512.3594517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Process mining provides techniques to learn models from event data. These models can be descriptive (e.g., Petri nets) or predictive (e.g., neural networks). The learned models offer operational support to process owners by conformance checking, process enhancement, or predictive monitoring. However, processes are frequently subject to significant changes, making the learned models outdated and less valuable over time. To tackle this problem,\n Process Concept Drift\n (PCD) detection techniques are employed. By identifying when the process changes occur, one can replace learned models by relearning, updating, or discounting pre-drift knowledge. Various techniques to detect PCDs have been proposed. However, each technique's evaluation focuses on different evaluation goals out of accuracy, latency, versatility, scalability, parameter sensitivity, and robustness. Furthermore, the employed evaluation techniques and data sets differ. Since many techniques are not evaluated against more than one other technique, this lack of comparability raises one question:\n How do PCD detection techniques compare against each other?\n With this paper, we propose, implement, and apply a unified evaluation framework for PCD detection. We do this by collecting evaluation goals and evaluation techniques together with data sets. We derive a representative sample of techniques from a taxonomy for PCD detection. The implemented techniques and proposed evaluation framework are provided in a publicly available repository. We present the results of our experimental evaluation and observe that none of the implemented techniques works well across all evaluation goals. However, the results indicate future improvement points of algorithms and guide practitioners.\n","PeriodicalId":20467,"journal":{"name":"Proc. VLDB Endow.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Experimental Evaluation of Process Concept Drift Detection\",\"authors\":\"Jan Niklas Adams, Cameron Pitsch, T. Brockhoff, Wil M.P. van der Aalst\",\"doi\":\"10.14778/3594512.3594517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Process mining provides techniques to learn models from event data. These models can be descriptive (e.g., Petri nets) or predictive (e.g., neural networks). The learned models offer operational support to process owners by conformance checking, process enhancement, or predictive monitoring. However, processes are frequently subject to significant changes, making the learned models outdated and less valuable over time. To tackle this problem,\\n Process Concept Drift\\n (PCD) detection techniques are employed. By identifying when the process changes occur, one can replace learned models by relearning, updating, or discounting pre-drift knowledge. Various techniques to detect PCDs have been proposed. However, each technique's evaluation focuses on different evaluation goals out of accuracy, latency, versatility, scalability, parameter sensitivity, and robustness. Furthermore, the employed evaluation techniques and data sets differ. Since many techniques are not evaluated against more than one other technique, this lack of comparability raises one question:\\n How do PCD detection techniques compare against each other?\\n With this paper, we propose, implement, and apply a unified evaluation framework for PCD detection. We do this by collecting evaluation goals and evaluation techniques together with data sets. We derive a representative sample of techniques from a taxonomy for PCD detection. The implemented techniques and proposed evaluation framework are provided in a publicly available repository. We present the results of our experimental evaluation and observe that none of the implemented techniques works well across all evaluation goals. However, the results indicate future improvement points of algorithms and guide practitioners.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":20467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proc. VLDB Endow.\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proc. VLDB Endow.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14778/3594512.3594517\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proc. VLDB Endow.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14778/3594512.3594517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流程挖掘提供了从事件数据中学习模型的技术。这些模型可以是描述性的(例如,Petri网)或预测性的(例如,神经网络)。学习到的模型通过一致性检查、过程增强或预测性监视为过程所有者提供操作支持。然而,过程经常受到重大变化的影响,使得学习到的模型随着时间的推移变得过时且不那么有价值。为了解决这个问题,采用了过程概念漂移(PCD)检测技术。通过识别过程变化发生的时间,可以通过重新学习、更新或忽略漂移前的知识来替换学习过的模型。人们提出了各种检测PCDs的技术。然而,每种技术的评估都侧重于准确性、延迟、通用性、可伸缩性、参数敏感性和鲁棒性等不同的评估目标。此外,所采用的评估技术和数据集也有所不同。由于许多技术没有与一种以上的其他技术进行比较,这种可比性的缺乏提出了一个问题:PCD检测技术如何相互比较?在本文中,我们提出、实现并应用了一个统一的PCD检测评估框架。我们通过收集评估目标和评估技术以及数据集来做到这一点。我们从PCD检测的分类学中获得了具有代表性的技术样本。实现的技术和建议的评估框架在一个公开可用的存储库中提供。我们给出了实验评估的结果,并观察到没有一种实现的技术能够很好地跨越所有评估目标。然而,结果表明了算法未来的改进点,并指导从业者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Experimental Evaluation of Process Concept Drift Detection
Process mining provides techniques to learn models from event data. These models can be descriptive (e.g., Petri nets) or predictive (e.g., neural networks). The learned models offer operational support to process owners by conformance checking, process enhancement, or predictive monitoring. However, processes are frequently subject to significant changes, making the learned models outdated and less valuable over time. To tackle this problem, Process Concept Drift (PCD) detection techniques are employed. By identifying when the process changes occur, one can replace learned models by relearning, updating, or discounting pre-drift knowledge. Various techniques to detect PCDs have been proposed. However, each technique's evaluation focuses on different evaluation goals out of accuracy, latency, versatility, scalability, parameter sensitivity, and robustness. Furthermore, the employed evaluation techniques and data sets differ. Since many techniques are not evaluated against more than one other technique, this lack of comparability raises one question: How do PCD detection techniques compare against each other? With this paper, we propose, implement, and apply a unified evaluation framework for PCD detection. We do this by collecting evaluation goals and evaluation techniques together with data sets. We derive a representative sample of techniques from a taxonomy for PCD detection. The implemented techniques and proposed evaluation framework are provided in a publicly available repository. We present the results of our experimental evaluation and observe that none of the implemented techniques works well across all evaluation goals. However, the results indicate future improvement points of algorithms and guide practitioners.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信