Identifying a Minimum Sequence of High-Level Changes Between Workflows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive workflow management systems allow workflows to be changed in both the modeling and runtime stages, resulting in many workflow variants. Identifying a minimum sequence of high-level changes between two workflows represents a fundamental yet critical issue. The state-of-the-art approach utilizes digital logic to seek the optimal solution; however, this approach may face difficulties when advanced workflow patterns (e.g., loops) are involved, and it does not scale well. To address this problem, we first propose a naive approach that applies all valid changes to one workflow until the other workflow is found. Then, the approach is optimized from two aspects. First, we present advanced heuristics that significantly reduce the search space without pruning the optimal solution. Second, we employ the A$^\ast$search algorithm to direct the search procedure. Because the heuristic function used in the A$^\ast$algorithm is problem specific, we devise a consistent heuristic function to approximate the edit distance between two workflows, thereby accelerating the search. We implement our approach in a prototype tool and conduct extensive experiments on two data sets to evaluate its effectiveness and efficiency. The experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms the state of the art in terms of both application scope and scalability.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".