Can I Trust My Simulation Model? Measuring the Quality of Business Process Simulation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Business Process Simulation (BPS) is an approach to analyze the performance of business processes under different scenarios. For example, BPS allows us to estimate what would be the cycle time of a process if one or more resources became unavailable. The starting point of BPS is a process model annotated with simulation parameters (a BPS model). BPS models may be manually designed, based on information collected from stakeholders and empirical observations, or automatically discovered from execution data. Regardless of its origin, a key question when using a BPS model is how to assess its quality. In this paper, we propose a collection of measures to evaluate the quality of a BPS model w.r.t. its ability to replicate the observed behavior of the process. We advocate an approach whereby different measures tackle different process perspectives. We evaluate the ability of the proposed measures to discern the impact of modifications to a BPS model, and their ability to uncover the relative strengths and weaknesses of two approaches for automated discovery of BPS models. The evaluation shows that the measures not only capture how close a BPS model is to the observed behavior, but they also help us to identify sources of discrepancies.
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 | 0.045 | 0.379 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".