MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selecting Representative Sample Traces from Large Event Logs

2021· article· en· W3210025856 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceSampling (signal processing)Data miningMetric (unit)Process miningEvent dataSample (material)GeneralityProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Work in processArtificial intelligenceEngineeringDetectorBusiness process managementBusiness process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When event logs are large, the time needed to analyze them using process mining techniques can become prohibitive. In this paper, using sampling, we aim to reduce the size of event logs to p-traces, while minimizing the Earth Movers’ Distance (EMD) from the unsampled original event log. We contribute by formalizing log sampling in a canonical form and show its link with the EMD, a metric increasingly used for process mining. Next, we propose three log-sampling algorithms that we evaluate using a collection of 18 event logs from industry. We show that our approach largely reduces the EMD compared to existing sampling strategies. Moreover, we highlight that sampled event logs with low EMDs tend to have better behavioural quality, highlighting the generality of our work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207