Foundations and practice of binary process discovery
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
Most contemporary process discovery methods take as inputs only positive examples of process executions, and so they are one-class classification algorithms. However, we have found negative examples to also be available in industry, hence we build on earlier work that treats process discovery as a binary classification problem. This approach opens the door to many well-established methods and metrics from machine learning, in particular to improve the distinction between what should and should not be allowed by the output model. Concretely, we (1) present a verified formalisation of process discovery as a binary classification problem; (2) provide cases with negative examples from industry, including real-life logs; (3) propose the Rejection Miner binary classification procedure, applicable to any process notation that has a suitable syntactic composition operator; (4) implement two concrete binary miners, one outputting Declare patterns, the other Dynamic Condition Response (DCR) graphs; and (5) apply these miners to real world and synthetic logs obtained from our industry partners and the process discovery contest, showing increased output model quality in terms of accuracy and model size. • We formalise process discovery as a binary classification problem. • We automatically verified this formalisation using the Isabelle proof assistant. • We propose the notation-agnostic binary Rejection Miner discovery algorithm. • We provide real-world examples of labelled event logs. • We provide two Rejection Miner prototypes for DCR Graphs and Declare.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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