Advertisement

Diagnostic Information for Control-Flow Analysis of Workflow Graphs (a.k.a. Free-Choice Workflow Nets)

  • Cédric Favre
  • Hagen VölzerEmail author
  • Peter Müller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9636)

Abstract

A workflow graph is a classical flow graph extended by concurrent fork and join. Workflow graphs can be used to represent the main control-flow of e.g. business process models modeled in languages such as BPMN or UML activity diagrams. They can also be seen as compact representations of free-choice Petri nets with a unique start and a unique end. A workflow graph is said to be sound if it is free of deadlocks and exhibits no lack of synchronization, which correspond to liveness and safeness of a slightly modified version of the corresponding Petri net. We present a new characterization of unsoundness of workflow graphs in terms of three structural, i.e., graphical error patterns. We also present a polynomial-time algorithm that decides unsoundness and returns for each unsound workflow graph, one of the three structural error patterns as diagnostic information. An experimental evaluation on over 1350 workflow graphs derived from industrial business process models suggests that our technique performs well in practice.

References

  1. 1.
    Favre, C., Fahland, D., Völzer, H.: The relationship between workflow graphs and free-choice workflow nets. Inf. Syst. 47, 197–219 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desel, J., Esparza, J.: Free Choice Petri Nets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Verification of workflow nets. In: Azéma, P., Balbo, G. (eds.) Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997. LNCS, vol. 1248, pp. 407–426. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Esparza, J., Silva, M.: A polynomial-time algorithm to decide liveness of bounded free choice nets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 102(1), 185–205 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kemper, P., Bause, F.: An effcient polynomial-time algorithm to decide liveness and boundedness of free-choice nets. In: Jensen, K. (ed.) ICATPN 1992. LNCS, vol. 616, pp. 263–278. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esparza, J.: Reduction and synthesis of live and bounded free choice Petri nets. Inf. Comput. 114(1), 50–87 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Favre, C., Völzer, H., Müller, P.: Diagnostic information for control-flow analysis of workflow graphs (a.k.a. free-choice workflow nets). Technical Report, ETH Zurich, revised, 2015, revised (2016). http://e-citations.ethbib.ethz.ch
  8. 8.
    Favre, C.: Detecting, Understanding, and Fixing Control-Flow Errors in Business Process Models. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koehler, J., Vanhatalo, J.: Process anti-patterns: How to avoid the common traps of business process modeling. Technical Report RZ 3678, IBM Research, Also published in the WebSphere Developer Technical Journal in 2007, May 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esparza, J., Silva, M.: Circuits, handles, bridges and nets. In: Rozenberg, G. (ed.) Advances in Petri Nets 1990. LNCS, vol. 483, pp. 210–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Lohmann, N., Fahland, D.: Where did I go wrong? In: Sadiq, S., Soffer, P., Völzer, H. (eds.) BPM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8659, pp. 283–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ball, T., Naik, M., Rajamani, S.K.: From symptom to cause: Localizing errors in counterexample traces. In: POPL, Proceedings, pp. 97–105, ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groce, A.: Error explanation with distance metrics. In: Jensen, K., Podelski, A. (eds.) TACAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2988, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verbeek, H.M.W.E., Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Diagnosing workflow processes using Woflan. Comput. J. 44(4), 246–279 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esparza, J.: Synthesis rules for Petri nets, and how they lead to new results. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR ’90 Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 182–198. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemper, P.: Linear time algorithm to find a minimal deadlock in a strongly connected free-choice net. In: Ajmone Marsan, Marco (ed.) ICATPN 1993. LNCS, vol. 691, pp. 319–338. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiepuszewski, B., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Fundamentals of control flow in workflows. Acta Inf. 39(3), 143–209 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM ResearchZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceETHZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations