Measurement of Rule-based LTLf Declarative Process Specifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical checking of declarative Linear Temporal Logic on Finite Traces (LTL <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">f</inf> ) specifications verifies whether conjunctions of sets of formulae are satisfied by collections of finite traces. The data on which the verification is conducted may be corrupted by a number of logging errors or execution deviations at the level of single elements within a trace. The ability to quantitatively assess the extent to which traces satisfy a process specification (and not only if they do so or not at all) is thus key, especially in process mining scenarios. Previous techniques proposed for this aim either require formulae to be extended with quantitative operators or cater to the coarse granularity of whole traces. In this paper, we propose a framework to devise probabilistic measures for declarative process specifications on traces at the level of events, inspired by association rule mining. Thereupon, we describe a technique that measures the degree of satisfaction of these specifications over bags of traces. To assess our approach, we conduct an evaluation with real-world data.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".