Discovery of Process Models from Data and Domain Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid expansion of the Internet has resulted not only in the ever-growing amount of data stored therein, but also in the burgeoning complexity of the concepts and phenomena pertaining to that data. This issue has been vividly compared by the renowned statistician J.F. Friedman (Friedman, 1997) of Stanford University to the advances in human mobility from the period of walking afoot to the era of jet travel. These essential changes in data have brought about new challenges in the discovery of new data mining methods, especially the treatment of these data that increasingly involves complex processes that elude classic modeling paradigms. “Hot” datasets like biomedical, financial or net user behavior data are just a few examples. Mining such temporal or stream data is a focal point in the agenda of many research centers and companies worldwide (see, e.g., (Roddick et al., 2001; Aggarwal, 2007)). In the data mining community, there is a rapidly growing interest in developing methods for process mining, e.g., for discovery of structures of temporal processes from observed sample data. Research on process mining (e.g., (Unnikrishnan et al., 2006; de Medeiros et al., 2007; Wu, 2007; Borrett et al., 2007)) have been undertaken by many renowned centers worldwide1. This research is also related to functional data analysis (see, e.g., (Ramsay & Silverman, 2002)), cognitive networks (see, e.g., (Papageorgiou & Stylios, 2008)), and dynamical system modeling, e.g., in biology (see, e.g., (Feng et al., 2007)). We outline an approach to the discovery of processes from data and domain knowledge. The proposed approach to discovery of process models is based on rough-granular computing. In particular, we discuss how changes along trajectories of such processes can be discovered from sample data and domain knowledge.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".