Advertisement

DCR Event-Reachability via Genetic Algorithms

  • Tróndur Høgnason
  • Søren DeboisEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 342)

Abstract

In declarative process models, a process is described as a set of rules as opposed to a set of permitted flows. Oftentimes, such rule-based notations are more concise than their flow-based cousins; however, that conciseness comes at a cost: It requires computation to work out which flows are in fact allowed by the rules of the process. In this paper, we present an algorithm to solve the Reachability problem for the declarative Condition Response (DCR) graphs notation: the problem, given a DCR graph and an activity, say “Payout reimbursement”, is to find a flow allowed by the graph that ends with the execution of that task. Existing brute-force solutions to this problem are generally unhelpful already at medium-sized graphs. Here we present a genetic algorithm solving Reachability. We evaluate this algorithm on a selection of DCR graphs, both artificial and from industry, and find that the genetic algorithm with one exception outperforms the best known brute-force solution on both whether a path is found and how quickly it is found.

Keywords

Genetic algorithm Reachability Declarative model DCR 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from anonymous reviewers, and insightful discussions with Tijs Slaats.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 8, 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Pesic, M.: DecSerFlow: towards a truly declarative service flow language. In: Bravetti, M., Núñez, M., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) WS-FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4184, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11841197_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) ICATPN 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Medeiros, A.K.A., Weijters, A.J.M.M.: Genetic process mining. In: Ciardo, G., Darondeau, P. (eds.) ICATPN 2005. LNCS, vol. 3536, pp. 48–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11494744_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson-Cook, C.M.: Practical genetic algorithms (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008). https://books.google.dk/books?id=nDQiAQAAIAAJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basin, D.A., Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T.: In the nick of time: proactive prevention of obligation violations. In: IEEE 29th Computer Security Foundations Symposium, CSF 2016, pp. 120–134. IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.: The DCR workbench: declarative choreographies for collaborative processes. In: Behavioural Types: from Theory to Tools. Automation, Control and Robotics, pp. 99–124. River Publishers, June 2017Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M., Slaats, T.: Hybrid process technologies in the financial sector: the case of BRFkredit. In: vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J. (eds.) Business Process Management Cases. MP, pp. 397–412. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58307-5_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Replication, refinement & reachability: complexity in dynamic condition-response graphs. Acta Inform., 1–32 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Sandberg, L.: Experience report: constraint-based modelling and simulation of railway emergency response plans. In: ANT 2016/SEIT 2016: Affiliated Workshops, pp. 1295–1300 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T.T., Slaats, T., Marquard, M.: A case for declarative process modelling: agile development of a grant application system. In: EDOC Workshops 2014, pp. 126–133. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Debois, S., Slaats, T.: The analysis of a real life declarative process. In: IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, SSCI 2015, Cape Town, South Africa, 7–10 December 2015, pp. 1374–1382. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Di Francescomarino, C., et al.: Genetic algorithms for hyperparameter optimization in predictive business process monitoring. Inf. Syst. 74, 67–83 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R.: Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs. In: Post-proceedings of PLACES 2010. EPTCS, vol. 69, pp. 59–73 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hildebrandt, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Slaats, T.: Nested dynamic condition response graphs. In: Arbab, F., Sirjani, M. (eds.) FSEN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7141, pp. 343–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29320-7_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hull, R., et al.: A formal introduction to business artifacts with guard-stage-milestone lifecycles (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madsen, M.F., Gaub, M., Høgnason, T., Kirkbro, M.E., Slaats, T., Debois, S.: Collaboration among adversaries: distributed workflow execution on a blockchain. In: 2018 Symposium on Foundations and Applications of Blockchain (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Márquez-Chamorro, A.E., Resinas, M., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Toro, M.: Run-time prediction of business process indicators using evolutionary decision rules. Expert. Syst. Appl. 87, 1–14 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Towards trustworthy adaptive case management with dynamic condition response graphs. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International EDOC Conference, EDOC 2013, pp. 127–136 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Object Management Group: Case Management Model and Notation. Technical report formal/2014-05-05, Object Management Group, version 1.0, May 2014Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group BPMN Technical Committee: Business Process Model and Notation, Version 2.0 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: full support for loosely-structured processes. In: 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007), p. 287, October 2007Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pesic, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A declarative approach for flexible business processes management. In: Eder, J., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4103, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11837862_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strømsted, R., Lopez, H.A., Debois, S., Marquard, M.: Dynamic evaluation forms using declarative modeling. In: BPM 2018 (Industry track) (2018, submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slaats, T., Mukkamala, R.R., Hildebrandt, T., Marquard, M.: Exformatics declarative case management workflows as DCR graphs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 339–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations