Checking Process Compliance on the Basis of Uncertain Event-to-Activity Mappings

  • Han van der Aa
  • Henrik Leopold
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10253)

Abstract

A crucial requirement for compliance checking techniques is that observed behavior, captured in event traces, can be mapped to the process models that specify allowed behavior. Without a mapping, it is not possible to determine if observed behavior is compliant or not. A considerable problem in this regard is that establishing a mapping between events and process model activities is an inherently uncertain task. Since the use of a particular mapping directly influences the compliance of a trace to a specification, this uncertainty represents a major issue for compliance checking. To overcome this issue, we introduce a probabilistic compliance checking method that can deal with uncertain mappings. Our method avoids the need to select a single mapping, but rather works on a spectrum of possible mappings. A quantitative evaluation demonstrates that our method can be applied on a considerable number of real-world processes where traditional compliance checking methods fail.

Keywords

Compliance checking Event-to-activity mapping Process mining Matching Uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    Van der Aa, H., Leopold, H., Reijers, H.A.: Comparing textual descriptions to process models - the automatic detection of inconsistencies. Inf. Syst. 64, 447–460 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Aa, H., Leopold, H., Reijers, H.A.: Dealing with behavioral ambiguity in textual process descriptions. In: La Rosa, M., Loos, P., Pastor, O. (eds.) BPM 2016. LNCS, vol. 9850, pp. 271–288. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45348-4_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B.F.: Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisc. Rev.: Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 2(2), 182–192 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Accorsi, R., Stocker, T.: On the exploitation of process mining for security audits: the conformance checking case. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1709–1716. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adriansyah, A., van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W.: Conformance checking using cost-based fitness analysis. In: 2011 15th IEEE International on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), pp. 55–64. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Awad, A., Decker, G., Weske, M.: Efficient compliance checking using BPMN-Q and temporal logic. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85758-7_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baier, T., Ciccio, C., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Matching of events and activities - an approach using declarative modeling constraints. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) CAISE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 119–134. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baier, T., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Bridging abstraction layers in process mining. Inf. Syst. 46, 123–139 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baier, T., Rogge-Solti, A., Weske, M., Mendling, J.: Matching of events and activities - an approach based on constraint satisfaction. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 58–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-45501-2_5 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cayoglu, U., Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Fettke, P., Garcıa-Banuelos, L., Hake, P., Klinkmüller, C., Leopold, H., Ludwig, A., Loos, P., et al.: The process model matching contest 2013. In: 4th International Workshop on Process Model Collections: Management and Reuse (PMC-MR 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkman, R.M., Dumas, M., Van Dongen, B.F., Käärik, R., Mendling, J.: Similarity of business process models: metrics and evaluation. Inf. Syst. 36(2), 498–516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrig, M., Koschmider, A., Oberweis, A.: Measuring similarity between semantic business process models. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Comceptual Modelling, vol. 67, pp. 71–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fahland, D., Favre, C., Koehler, J., Lohmann, N., Völzer, H., Wolf, K.: Analysis on demand: instantaneous soundness checking of industrial business process models. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(5), 448–466 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gal, A.: Uncertain schema matching. Synth. Lect. Data Manag. 3(1), 1–97 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23059-2_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuss, E., Leopold, H., Van der Aa, H., Stuckenschmidt, H., Reijers, H.A.: Probabilistic evaluation of process model matching techniques. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 279–292. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46397-1_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ly, L.T., Maggi, F.M., Montali, M., Rinderle-Ma, S., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Compliance monitoring in business processes: functionalities, application, and tool-support. Inf. Syst. 54, 209–234 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.Y.: Representing and reasoning about mappings between domain models. In: AAAI/IAAI 2002, pp. 80–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mannhardt, F., de Leoni, M., Reijers, H.A.: Extending process logs with events from supplementary sources. In: Fournier, F., Mendling, J. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 202, pp. 235–247. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-15895-2_21 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munoz-Gama, J., Carmona, J., Van Der Aalst, W.M.: Single-entry single-exit decomposed conformance checking. Inf. Syst. 46, 102–122 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramezani, E., Fahland, D., Van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Where did i misbehave? Diagnostic information in compliance checking. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 262–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, S., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Senderovich, A., Rogge-Solti, A., Gal, A., Mendling, J., Mandelbaum, A.: The ROAD from sensor data to process instances via interaction mining. In: Nurcan, S., Soffer, P., Bajec, M., Eder, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9694, pp. 257–273. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_16 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smirnov, S., Weidlich, M., Mendling, J.: Business process model abstraction based on behavioral profiles. In: Maglio, P.P., Weske, M., Yang, J., Fantinato, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6470, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17358-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Der Aalst, W., et al.: Process mining manifesto. In: Daniel, F., Barkaoui, K., Dustdar, S. (eds.) BPM 2011. LNBIP, vol. 99, pp. 169–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28108-2_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weidlich, M., Polyvyanyy, A., Desai, N., Mendling, J., Weske, M.: Process compliance analysis based on behavioural profiles. Inf. Syst. 36(7), 1009–1025 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Han van der Aa
    • 1
  • Henrik Leopold
    • 1
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations