Ontology-based workflow pattern mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workflow platforms enable the construction of solutions to complex problems as step-wise processes made of components including methods, tools, data formats, parameters, etc. Successful workflow solutions require a mastering of the different components paving the way to automated acquisition of problem solving expertise. Thus, process mining could be applied to discover workflow patterns. Due to the combinatorics of component instances in rich domains such as bioinformatics, generalized patterns could be a relevant way of abstraction. Here, we propose an approach for mining workflow patterns, defined on the top of a domain ontology which categorizes workflow elements and their interactions. While original workflows are doubly-labelled DAGs, the underlying problem is transformed into a mining of generalized sequential patterns with links between their items. The proposed mining method traverses the ensuing pattern space using five refinement primitives that exploit the is-a links from the ontology. To assess the prediction power of the approach, we applied the generated patterns as templates in a recommendation platform to complete partial workflows under construction. The analyses of recommendations vs. actual content of a real-world dataset reveals that non trivial patterns can be found and further used to provide plausible recommendations with high accuracies (fMeasure >75+).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".