Behavioral comparison of process models based on canonically reduced event structures
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Behavioral Comparison of Process Models Based on Canonically Reduced Event Structures PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Behavioral Comparison of Process Models Based on Canonically Reduced Event Structures. Paolo Baldan Marlon Dumas Luciano García Abel Armas. Behavioral comparison of process. Explain the differences between a pair of process models using simple and intuitive statements

Download Presentation

Behavioral Comparison of Process Models Based on Canonically Reduced Event Structures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Behavioral comparison of process models based on canonically reduced event structures

Behavioral Comparison of Process Models Based on Canonically Reduced Event Structures

Paolo Baldan

Marlon Dumas

Luciano García

Abel Armas


Behavioral comparison of process

Behavioral comparison of process

  • Explain the differences between a pair of process models using simple and intuitive statements

  • Abstract representations based on binary behavioral relations

    • Event structures, e.g., PES and AES

  • More expressive formalisms can give smaller representations

    • AES can provide smaller representations than PES


Comparison based on reduced aes

Comparison based on reduced AES

  • Folding technique does not ensure canonicity

    • Canonical graph labeling technique

  • Process models can represent infinite behavior. I.e., cyclic behavior.

    • Unfolding technique for computing a finite representation

  • Provide understandable feedback about behavioral discrepancies

    • Error tolerant graph matching techniques

    • Categorization of discrepancies


Background petri nets

Background. Petri nets


Background petri nets1

Background. Petri nets

Silent transition

Transition

  • Markings: {{p0}, {p1}, {p2}, …}

  • Firing sequence: {{a,b, …}, …}

  • Executions: {{a,b,c,d}, …}

Place


Background 2 branching process and pes

Background(2). Branching process and PES

Configurations: {{a},{a,b},{a,c},{a,b,c}, …}


Background 3 pes and aes

Background(3). PES and AES

  • AES is a more expressive formalism than PES

    • Same configurations as PES, but fewer events

    • Reduction technique (folding)

      • hp-bisimilarity

    • Non-canonicity


Canonical graph labeling technique

Canonical graph labeling technique

  • Canonical graph labeling techniques (McKay‘s algorithm)

    • Associates a graph with a canonical label

      • Largest lexicographical exemplar of the (string linear representation) adjacency matrix

  • Keep the order given to the vertices in the largest exemplar

  • Compute the canonical graph labeling for PES

    • Weight of the events


Canonical folding

Canonical folding

  • Folding of events

    • Lexicographic order on the event’s label

    • Largest set of events

    • Largest weights w.r.t. the canonical graph labeling


Cyclic process models

Cyclic process models

  • Infinite number of events in branching process

  • Infinite number of events in PES

  • Finite complete prefix unfoldings


Finite complete prefix unfolding

Finite complete prefix unfolding

  • McMillan and Esparza

    • Truncating techniques based on markings

  • Does not reflect all the possible causal predecessors for any event


Customized complete prefix unfolding

Customized complete prefix unfolding

  • Khomenko et al. proposes a framework to define a customized complete prefix unfolding

    • Order for configurations

    • Set of configurations

    • Equivalence

  • Equivalence for capturing causal dependencies

    • Same markings

    • The marking was generated by the firing of the same transitions


  • Customized complete prefix unfolding 2

    Customized complete prefix unfolding(2)

    • Cyclic behavior:

      • A transition c is part of cyclic behavior if there is a configuration with two occurrences of c

      • Transition c is repeated 1 or more times if it occurs in all runs

      • Transition c is repeated 0 or more times if it does not occur in all runs


    Not canonical unfolding

    Not canonical unfolding

    • It does not guarantee a canonical complete prefix unfolding for equivalent models (pomset-trace equivalence)


    Comparison

    Comparison

    • Relations among matched events

    • In model 2, there is a state after the execution of task cwhere d and c are mutually exclusive; whereas in model 1, there is a state after the execution of b where c can occur before d, or c can be skipped

    • In model 2, there is a state after the execution of task a where c can occur before d, or c can be skipped; whereas in model 1, there is a state after the execution of a where c precedes d

    • Mismatching repetitive behavior

    • Task b may occur many times in model 2; whereas in model 1, it is not repeated any time

    • Task c may occur many times in model 2; whereas in model 1, it is not repeated any time

    • Unmatched events

    • There is an additional occurrence of task bafter c in model 2

    • There is an additional occurrence of task cafter b in model 2


    Conclusions

    Conclusions

    • Technique for a behavioral comparison of process models using AES

      • Canonical folding of AES

      • Finite representation using Petri net unfoldings

        • Characterization of cyclic behavior according to task repetitions

      • Categorization of discrepancies for offering a more understandable feedback


    Future work

    Future work

    • Visualization of discrepancies in the models

    • Empirical evaluation of the usefulness of diagnostics using real-world process models

    • Test if a more refined feedback can be given by using other models of concurrency


    Comparison1

    Comparison

    • Consider only common behavior (common labels of tasks)

    • One model can have more behavior than other

      • Error tolerant graph matching techniques

    • Discrepancies

      • Mismatching relations among matched events (approximate context)

      • Mismatching repetitive behavior

      • Unmatched events (approximate context)


  • Login