Advertisement

Listen to Me: Improving Process Model Matching through User Feedback

  • Christopher Klinkmüller
  • Henrik Leopold
  • Ingo Weber
  • Jan Mendling
  • André Ludwig
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8659)

Abstract

Many use cases in business process management rely on the identification of correspondences between process models. However, the sparse information in process models makes matching a fundamentally hard problem. Consequently, existing approaches yield a matching quality which is too low to be useful in practice. Therefore, we investigate incorporating user feedback to improve matching quality. To this end, we examine which information is suitable for feedback analysis. On this basis, we design an approach that performs matching in an iterative, mixed-initiative approach: we determine correspondences between two models automatically, let the user correct them, and analyze this input to adapt the matching algorithm. Then, we continue with matching the next two models, and so forth. This approach improves the matching quality, as showcased by a comparative evaluation. From this study, we also derive strategies on how to maximize the quality while limiting the additional effort required from the user.

Keywords

BPM process similarity process model matching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellahense, Z., Bonifati, A., Rahm, E.: Schema Matching and Mapping. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Branco, M.C., Troya, J., Czarnecki, K., Küster, J., Völzer, H.: Matching business process workflows across abstraction levels. In: France, R.B., Kazmeier, J., Breu, R., Atkinson, C. (eds.) MODELS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7590, pp. 626–641. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cayoglu, U., Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., Fettke, P., García-Bañuelos, L., Hake, P., Klinkmüller, C., Leopold, H., Ludwig, A., Loos, P., Mendling, J., Oberweis, A., Schoknecht, A., Sheetrit, E., Thaler, T., Ullrich, M., Weber, I., Weidlich, M.: The process model matching contest 2013. In: PMC-MR (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L.: Graph matching algorithms for business process model similarity search. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkman, R., Dumas, M., van Dongen, B., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: Metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Dijkman, R.M.: Similarity search of business process models. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 23–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekanayake, C.C., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Approximate clone detection in repositories of business process models. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 302–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Euzenat, J., Shvaiko, P.: Ontology Matching. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grigori, D., Corrales, J.C., Bouzeghoub, M.: Behavioral Matchmaking for Service Retrieval. In: IEEE ICWS, pp. 145–152 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin, T., Wang, J., Rosa, M.L., ter Hofstede, A.H., Wen, L.: Efficient querying of large process model repositories. Computers in Industry 64(1), 41–49 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klinkmüller, C., Weber, I., Mendling, J., Leopold, H., Ludwig, A.: Increasing recall of process model matching by improved activity label matching. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 211–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koschmider, A., Blanchard, E.: User assistance for business process model decomposition. In: IEEE RCIS, pp. 445–454 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kunze, M., Weidlich, M., Weske, M.: Behavioral similarity – A proper metric. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6896, pp. 166–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leopold, H., Niepert, M., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Dijkman, R., Stuckenschmidt, H.: Probabilistic optimization of semantic process model matching. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 319–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin, D.: An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: ICML, pp. 296–304 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massey, F.J.: The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46(253), 68–78 (1951)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Navigli, R.: Word sense disambiguation: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 41(2), 10:1–10:69 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan, P.-N., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V.: Introduction to Data Mining, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. Data Knowl. Eng. 68(9), 793–818 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weidlich, M., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: The iCoP framework: Identification of correspondences between process models. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 483–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weidlich, M., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Efficient consistency measurement based on behavioral profiles of process models. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(3), 410–429 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weidlich, M., Sagi, T., Leopold, H., Gal, A., Mendling, J.: Predicting the quality of process model matching. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 203–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weidlich, M., Sheetrit, E., Branco, M.C., Gal, A.: Matching business process models using positional passage-based language models. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 130–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zha, H., Wang, J., Wen, L., Wang, C., Sun, J.: A workflow net similarity measure based on transition adjacency relations. Computers in Industry 61(5), 463–471 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Klinkmüller
    • 1
  • Henrik Leopold
    • 2
  • Ingo Weber
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jan Mendling
    • 2
  • André Ludwig
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems InstituteUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Wirtschaftsuniversität WienViennaAustria
  3. 3.Software Systems Research GroupNICTASydneyAustralia
  4. 4.School of Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations