Reasoning-Based Techniques for Dealing with Incomplete Business Process Execution Traces

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8249)


The growing adoption of IT systems to support business activities, and the consequent capability to monitor the actual execution of business processes, has brought to the diffusion of business analysis monitoring (BAM) tools, and of reasoning services standing on top of them. However, in the majority of real settings, due to the different degrees of abstraction and to information hiding, the IT-level monitoring of a process execution may only bring incomplete information concerning the process-level activities and associated artifacts. This may hinder the ability to reason about process instances and executions, and must be coped with. This paper presents a novel reasoning-based approach to recover missing information about process executions, relying on a logical formulation in terms of a satisfiability problem. Ongoing experiments show encouraging results.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rintanen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search. Artif. Intell. 170, 1031–1080 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: ECAI, pp. 359–363 (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimatti, A., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking. Artif. Intell. 147, 35–84 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertoli, P., Cimatti, A., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Planning in nondeterministic domains under partial observability via symbolic model checking. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 473–478 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM 7, 201–215 (1960)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., et al.: Process mining manifesto. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011 Workshops, Part I. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 169–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rozinat, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf. Syst. 33, 64–95 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Conformance checking using cost-based fitness analysis. In: Proc. of EDOC 2011, pp. 55–64 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Leoni, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., van Dongen, B.F.: Data- and resource-aware conformance checking of business processes. In: Abramowicz, W., Kriksciuniene, D., Sakalauskas, V. (eds.) BIS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 117, pp. 48–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Leoni, M., Maggi, F.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Aligning event logs and declarative process models for conformance checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 82–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of a*. J. ACM 32, 505–536 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SayServiceTrentoItaly
  2. 2.FBK—IRSTTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations