Discovering Structural Errors From Business Process Event Logs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Process mining aims at discovering behavioral knowledge of business processes from their event logs, which has received an increasing attention in the era of cloud computing and big data. Surprisingly, to date, discovering structural errors (e.g., deadlocks and lack of synchronization) from event logs has not been considered in state-of-the-art process mining techniques. Moreover, existing process discovery approaches cannot be directly applied to event logs of processes with structural errors due to erroneous event occurrences caused by unsynchronized activities. To address this problem, we first preprocess the event log to obtain two separate event logs that are used to discover deadlocks and lack of synchronization, respectively. Erroneous event occurrences caused by unsynchronized activities are discarded in the two processed event logs, from which our error mining algorithms can discover all process fragments involving structural errors, without the need to obtain the overall process first. We implement our approach in a ProM plugin and evaluate it on event logs of real-life business processes, the results of which demonstrate that our approach can effectively and efficiently discover deadlocks and lack of synchronization if event logs contain sufficient event sequences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it