Using classification methods to label tasks in process mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate a method designed to improve the accuracy of process mining in scenarios where the identification of task labels for log events is uncertain. Such situations are prevalent in business processes where events consist of communications between people, such as email messages. We examine how the accuracy of an independent task identifier, such as a classification or clustering engine, can be improved by examining the currently mined process model. First, a classification scheme based on identifying the keywords in each message is presented to provide an initial labeling. We then demonstrate how these labels can be refined by considering the likelihood that the event represents a particular task as obtained via an analysis of the current representation of the process model. This process is then repeated a number of times until the model is sufficiently refined. Results show that both keyword classification and the current process model analysis can be significantly effective on their own, and when combined have the potential to correct virtually all errors when noise is low (less than 20%), and can reduce the error rate by about 85% when noise is in the 30–40% range. Copyright © 2010 Crown in the right of Canada.
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 | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".