Publications 2011

  • [PDF] [DOI] W. M. P. van der Aalst, K. M. van Hee, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, N. Sidorova, H. M. W. Verbeek, M. Voorhoeve, and M. T. Wynn, “Soundness of workflow nets: classiffication, decidability, and analysis,” Formal aspects of computing, vol. 23, iss. 3, pp. 333-363, 2011.
    [Bibtex]
    @Article{Aalst11,
    Title = {Soundness of Workflow Nets: Classiffication, Decidability, and Analysis},
    Author = {Aalst, W. M. P. van der and Hee, K. M. van and Hofstede, A. H. M. ter and Sidorova, N. and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Voorhoeve, M. and Wynn, M. T.},
    Journal = {Formal Aspects of Computing},
    Year = {2011},
    Month = {May},
    Note = {Accepted for publication},
    Number = {3},
    Pages = {333--363},
    Volume = {23},
    Abstract = {Workflow nets, a particular class of Petri nets, have become one of the standard ways to model and analyze workflows. Typically, they are used as an abstraction of the workflow that is used to check the so-called soundness property. This property guarantees the absence of livelocks, deadlocks, and other anomalies that can be detected without domain knowledge. Several authors have proposed alternative notions of soundness and have suggested to use more expressive languages, e.g., models with cancellations or priorities. This paper provides an overview of the different notions of soundness and investigates these in the presence of different extensions of workflow nets. We will show that the eight soundness notions described in the literature are decidable for workflow nets. However, most extensions will make all of these notions undecidable. These new results show the theoretical limits of workflow verification. Moreover, we discuss some of the analysis approaches described in the literature.},
    Doi = {10.1007/s00165-010-0161-4},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Aalst11.pdf:PDF},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2010.07.19}
    }
  • [PDF] J. C. R. P. Bose, H. M. W. Verbeek, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “Discovering hierarchical process models using prom,” in Caise forum 2011, London, UK, 2011, pp. 33-40.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Bose11,
    Title = {Discovering Hierarchical Process Models Using ProM},
    Author = {Bose, R. P. Jagadeesh Chandra and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Booktitle = {CAiSE Forum 2011},
    Year = {2011},
    Address = {London, UK},
    Editor = {Nurcan, S.},
    Month = {June},
    Pages = {33--40},
    Publisher = {CEUR-WS.org},
    Series = {CEUR-WS},
    Volume = {734},
    Abstract = {Process models can be seen as "maps" describing the operational processes of organizations. Traditional process discovery algorithms have problems dealing with fine-grained event logs and less-structured processes. The discovered models (i.e., "maps") are spaghettilike and are difficult to comprehend or even misleading. One of the reasons for this can be attributed to the fact that the discovered models are flat (without any hierarchy). In this paper, we demonstrate the discovery of hierarchical process models using a set of interrelated plugins implemented in ProM. The hierarchy is enabled through the automated discovery of abstractions (of activities) with domain signficance.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Bose11.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.05.13},
    Url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-734/PaperDemo05.pdf}
    }
  • [PDF] [DOI] H. M. W. Verbeek, J. C. A. M. Buijs, B. F. van Dongen, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “Xes, xesame, and prom 6,” in Information system evolution, P. Soffer and E. Proper, Eds., Hammamet, Tunisia: Springer, 2011, vol. 72, pp. 60-75.
    [Bibtex]
    @InCollection{Verbeek11,
    Title = {XES, XESame, and ProM 6},
    Author = {Verbeek, H. M. W. and Buijs, J. C. A. M. and Dongen, B. F. van and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Booktitle = {Information System Evolution},
    Publisher = {Springer},
    Year = {2011},
    Address = {Hammamet, Tunisia},
    Editor = {Soffer, P. and Proper, E.},
    Month = {June 7-9},
    Pages = {60--75},
    Series = {Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP)},
    Volume = {72},
    Abstract = {Process mining has emerged as a new way to analyze business processes based on event logs. These events logs need to be extracted from operational systems and can subsequently be used to discover or check the conformance of processes. ProM is a widely used tool for process mining. In earlier versions of ProM, MXML was used as an input format. In future releases of ProM, a new logging format will be used: the eXtensible Event Stream (XES) format. This format has several advantages over MXML. The paper presents two tools that use this format - XESame and ProM 6 - and highlights the main innovations and the role of XES. XESame enables domain experts to specify how the event log should be extracted from existing systems and converted toXES.ProM 6 is a completely new process mining framework based onXES and enabling innovative process mining functionality.},
    Doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-17722-4_5},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Verbeek11.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2010.09.21}
    }
  • [PDF] J. J. L. C. Vogelaar, H. M. W. Verbeek, B. Luka, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “Comparing business processes to determine the feasibility of configurable models: a case study,” BPMcenter.org, BPM Center Report BPM-11-17, 2011.
    [Bibtex]
    @TechReport{Vogelaar11,
    Title = {Comparing Business Processes to Determine the Feasibility of Configurable Models: A Case Study},
    Author = {Vogelaar, J. J. L. C. and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Luka, B. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Institution = {BPMcenter.org},
    Year = {2011},
    Number = {BPM-11-17},
    Type = {BPM Center Report},
    Abstract = {Organizations are looking for ways to collaborate in the area of process management. Common practice until now is the (partial) standardization of processes. This has the main disadvantage that most organizations are forced to adapt their processes to adhere to the standard. In this paper we analyze and compare the actual processes of ten Dutch municipalities. Configurable process models provide a potential solution for the limitations of classical standardization processes as they contain all the behavior of individual models, while only needing one model. The question rises where the limits are though. It is obvious that one configurable model containing all models that exist is undesirable. But are company-wide configurable models feasible? And how about crossorganizational configurable models, should all partners be considered or just certain ones? In this paper we apply a similarity metric on individual models to determine means of answering questions in this area. This way we propose a new means of determining beforehand whether configurable models are feasible. Using the selected metric we can identify more desirable partners and processes before computing configurable process models.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Vogelaar11.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.10.03},
    Url = {http://bpmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/2011/BPM-11-17.pdf}
    }
  • [PDF] M. Westergaard and H. M. W. Verbeek, “Efficient implementation of prioritized transitions for high-level petri nets,” in Pnse’11, Newcatle upon Tyne, UK, 2011.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Westergaard11,
    Title = {Efficient Implementation of Prioritized Transitions for High-level Petri Nets},
    Author = {Westergaard, M. and Verbeek, H. M. W.},
    Booktitle = {PNSE'11},
    Year = {2011},
    Address = {Newcatle upon Tyne, UK},
    Editor = {Moldt, D. and Duvigneau, M. and Hiraishi, K.},
    Month = {June},
    Note = {Accepted},
    Abstract = {Transition priorities can be a useful mechanism when modeling using Petri nets. For example, high-priority transitions can be used to model exception handling and low-priority transitions can be used to model background tasks that should only be executed when no other transition is enabled. Transition priorities can be simulated in Petri nets using, e.g., inhibitor arcs, but such constructs tend to unnecessarily clutter models, making it useful to support priorities directly.
    Computing the enabling of transitions in high-level Petri nets is an expensive operation and should be avoided. As transition priorities introduce a nonlocal enabling condition, at first sight this forces us to compute enabling for all transitions in a highest-priority-first order, but it is possible to do better. Here we describe our implementation of transition priorities in CPN Tools 3.0, where we minimize the number of enabling computations. We describe algorithms for executing transitions at random, useful for automatic simulation without user interactions, and for maintaining a set of known enabled transitions, useful for interactive user-guided simulation. Experiments show that using our algorithms we can execute 4-7 million transitions a minute for real-life models and more than 20 million transitions a minute for other models, a significant improvement over the 1-5 million transitions a minute possible for simpler algorithms.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Westergaard11.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.05.13},
    Url = {http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-723/paper3.pdf}
    }

Leave a Reply