Publications 2012

  • [PDF] W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. Adriansyah, A. A. K. de Medeiros, F. Arcieri, T. Baier, T. Blickle, J. C. R. P. Bose, P. van den Brand, R. Brandtjen, J. C. A. M. Buijs, A. Burattin, J. Carmona, M. Castellanos, J. Claes, J. Cook, N. Costantini, F. Curbera, E. Damiani, M. de Leoni, P. Delias, B. F. van Dongen, M. Dumas, S. Dustdar, D. Fahland, D. R. Ferreira, W. Gaaloul, F. van Geffen, S. Goel, C. W. Günther, A. Guzzo, P. Harmon, A. H. M. ter Hofstede, J. Hoogland, J. Espen Ingvaldsen, K. Kato, R. Kuhn, A. Kumar, M. La Rosa, F. Maggi, D. Malerba, R. S. Mans, A. Manuel, M. McCreesh, P. Mello, J. Mendling, M. Montali, H. Motahari Nezhad, M. zur Muehlen, J. Munoz-Gama, L. Pontieri, J. Ribeiro, A. Rozinat, H. Seguel Pérez, R. Seguel Pérez, M. Sepúlveda, J. Sinur, P. Soffer, M. S. Song, A. Sperduti, G. Stilo, C. Stoel, K. Swenson, M. Talamo, W. Tan, C. Turner, J. Vanthienen, G. Varvaressos, H. M. W. Verbeek, M. Verdonk, R. Vigo, J. Wang, B. Weber, M. Weidlich, A. J. M. M. Weijters, L. Wen, M. Westergaard, and M. T. Wynn, “Process mining manifesto,” in Bpm 2011 workshops, part i, 2012, pp. 169-194.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Aalst12,
    Title = {Process Mining Manifesto},
    Author = {Aalst, W. M. P. van der and Adriansyah, A. and Medeiros, A. K. Alves de and F. Arcieri and T. Baier and T. Blickle and Bose, R. P. Jagadeesh Chandra and Brand, P. van den and Brandtjen, R. and Buijs, J. C. A. M. and Burattin, A. and Carmona, J. and Castellanos, M. and Claes, J. and Cook, J. and Costantini, N. and Curbera, F. and E. Damiani and M. de Leoni and P. Delias and Dongen, B. F. van and Dumas, M. and S. Dustdar and Fahland, D. and Ferreira, D. R. and Gaaloul, W. and Geffen, F. van and Goel, S. and G\"{u}nther, C. W. and Guzzo, A. and Harmon, P. and Hofstede, A. H. M. ter and Hoogland, J. and Espen Ingvaldsen, J. and Kato, K. and Kuhn, R. and Kumar, A. and La Rosa, M. and Maggi, F. and Malerba, D. and Mans, R. S. and Manuel, A. and McCreesh, M. and Mello, P. and Mendling, J. and Montali, M. and Motahari Nezhad, H. and zur Muehlen, M. and Munoz-Gama, J. and Pontieri, L. and Ribeiro, J. and Rozinat, A. and Seguel P\'{e}rez, H. and Seguel P\'{e}rez, R. and Sep\'{u}lveda, M. and Sinur, J. and Soffer, P. and Song, M. S. and Sperduti, A. and Stilo, G. and Stoel, C. and Swenson, K. and Talamo, M. and Tan, W. and Turner, C. and Vanthienen, J. and Varvaressos, G. and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Verdonk, M. and Vigo, R. and Wang, J. and Weber, B. and Weidlich, M. and Weijters, A. J. M. M. and Wen, L. and Westergaard, M. and Wynn, M. T.},
    Booktitle = {BPM 2011 Workshops, Part I},
    Year = {2012},
    Editor = {Daniel, F. and Dustdar, S. and Barkaoui, K.},
    Month = {August},
    Organization = {LIMOS - Universit Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France},
    Pages = {169--194},
    Publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
    Series = {LNBIP},
    Volume = {99},
    Abstract = {Process mining techniques are able to extract knowledge from event logs commonly available in todays information systems. These techniques provide new means to discover, monitor, and improve processes in a variety of application domains. There are two main drivers for the growing interest in process mining. On the one hand, more and more events are being recorded, thus, providing detailed information about the history of processes. On the other hand, there is a need to improve and support business processes in competitive and rapidly changing environments. This manifesto is created by the IEEE Task Force on Process Mining and aims to promote the topic of process mining. Moreover, by defining a set of guiding principles and listing important challenges, this manifesto hopes to serve as a guide for software developers, scientists, consultants, business managers, and end-users. The goal is to increase the maturity of process mining as a new tool to improve the (re)design, control, and support of operational business processes.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Aalst12.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.11.28},
    Url = {http://www.win.tue.nl/ieeetfpm/doku.php?id=shared:process_mining_manifesto}
    }
  • [PDF] W. M. P. van der Aalst and H. M. W. Verbeek, “Process discovery and conformance checking using passages,” BPMCenter.org, BPM Center report BPM-12-21, 2012.
    [Bibtex]
    @TechReport{Aalst12a,
    Title = {Process Discovery and Conformance Checking Using Passages},
    Author = {Aalst, W. M. P. van der and Verbeek, H. M. W.},
    Institution = {BPMCenter.org},
    Year = {2012},
    Number = {BPM-12-21},
    Type = {BPM Center report},
    Abstract = {The two most prominent process mining tasks are process discovery (i.e., learning a process model from an event log) and conformance checking (i.e., diagnosing and quantifying differences between observed and modeled behavior). The increasing availability of event data makes these tasks highly relevant for process analysis and improvement. Therefore, process mining is considered to be one of the key technologies for Business Process Management (BPM). However, as event logs and process models grow, process mining becomes more challenging. Therefore, we propose an approach to decompose process mining problems into smaller problems using the notion of passages. A passage is a pair of two non-empty sets of activities (X; Y ) such that the set of direct successors of X is Y and the set of direct predecessors of Y is X. Any Petri net can be partitioned using passages. Moreover, process discovery and conformance checking can be done per passage and the results can be aggregated. This has advantages in terms of efficiency and diagnostics. Moreover, passages can be used to distribute process mining problems over a network of computers. Passages are supported through ProM plug-ins that automatically decompose process discovery and conformance checking tasks.},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2013.01.16},
    Url = {http://bpmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/2012/BPM-12-21.pdf}
    }
  • [PDF] [DOI] D. M. M. Schunselaar, H. M. W. Verbeek, W. M. P. van der Aalst, and H. A. Reijers, “Creating sound and reversible configurable processes models using cosenets,” in Business information systems – 15th international conference, bis 2012, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2012, pp. 24-35.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Schunselaar12,
    Title = {Creating Sound and Reversible Configurable Processes Models using CoSeNets},
    Author = {Schunselaar, D. M. M. and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der and Reijers, H. A.},
    Booktitle = {Business Information Systems - 15th International Conference, BIS 2012},
    Year = {2012},
    Address = {Vilnius, Lithuania},
    Editor = {Abramowicz, W. and Kriksciuniene, D. and Sakalauskas, V.},
    Month = {May},
    Pages = {24--35},
    Publisher = {Springer},
    Series = {Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing},
    Volume = {117},
    Abstract = {All Dutch municipalities offer the same range of services, and the processes delivering these services are quite similar. Therefore, these municipalities can benefit from configurable process models. This requires the merging of existing process variants into configurable models. Unfortunately, existing merging techniques (1) allow for configurable process models which can be instantiated to unsound process models, and (2) are not always reversible, which means that not all original models can be obtained by instantiation of the configurable process model. In this paper, we propose to capture the control-flow of a process by a CoSeNet: a configurable, tree-like representation of the process model, which is sound by construction, and we describe how to merge two CoSeNets into another CoSeNet such that the merge is reversible. Initial experiments show that this approach does not influence complexity significantly, i.e. it results in similar complexities for the configurable process model compared to existing techniques, while it guarantees soundness and reversibility.},
    Doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-30359-3_3},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Schunselaar12:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2012.03.08}
    }
  • [PDF] H. M. W. Verbeek, “Bpi challenge 2012: the transition system case,” , 2012.
    [Bibtex]
    @Electronic{Verbeek12b,
    Title = {BPI Challenge 2012: The Transition System Case},
    Author = {Verbeek, H. M. W.},
    Month = {September},
    Url = {http://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Verbeek12b.pdf},
    Year = {2012},
    Abstract = {The Transition System Miner, together with the Simple Log Filter and the Transition System Analyzer, is used to investigate the log used for the BPI Challenge 2012. Conclusions are drawn for the control-flow perspective, the date perspective, and the resource perspective, which shows the flexibility of the Miner. The results show that the process as captured in the event log is nicely structured, that it contains hardly any noise, and that the different events (Application, Offer, and Work Item) can be nicely captured by transition systems. Furthermore, it shows that the company who owns the process does not use case managers for handling the applications, as a lot of handover-of-works occur.},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2012.09.17}
    }
  • [PDF] H. M. W. Verbeek and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “An experimental evaluation of passage-based process discovery,” in Bpi 2012 workshop pre-proceedings, Tallinn, 2012, pp. 71-76.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Verbeek12,
    Title = {An Experimental Evaluation of Passage-Based Process Discovery},
    Author = {Verbeek, H. M. W. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Booktitle = {BPI 2012 Workshop Pre-proceedings},
    Year = {2012},
    Address = {Tallinn},
    Editor = {Dongen, B. F. van and Ferreira, D. R. and Weber, B.},
    Month = {September},
    Note = {Accepted as short paper},
    Pages = {71--76},
    Abstract = {In the area of process mining, the ILP Miner is known for the fact that it always returns a Petri net that perfectly ts a given event log. Like for most process discovery algorithms, its complexity is linear in the size of the event log and exponential in the number of event classes (i.e., distinct activities). As a result, the potential gain by partitioning the event classes is much higher than the potential gain by partitioning the traces in the event log over multiple event logs. This paper proposes to use the so-called passages to split up the event classes over multiple event logs, and shows what the results are for seven large event logs. The results show that indeed the use of passages alleviates the complexity, but that much hinges on the size of the largest passage detected: The smaller this passage, the better the run time.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Verbeek12.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2012.07.12},
    Url = {http://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Verbeek12.pdf}
    }
  • [PDF] H. M. W. Verbeek and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “An experimental evaluation of passage-based process discovery,” BPMcenter.org, BPM Center Report BPM-12-14, 2012.
    [Bibtex]
    @TechReport{Verbeek12a,
    Title = {An Experimental Evaluation of Passage-Based Process Discovery},
    Author = {Verbeek, H. M. W. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Institution = {BPMcenter.org},
    Year = {2012},
    Number = {BPM-12-14},
    Type = {BPM Center Report},
    Abstract = {In the area of process mining, the ILP Miner is known for the fact that it always returns a Petri net that perfectly fits a given event log. However, the downside of the ILP Miner is that its complexity is exponential in the number of event classes in that event log. As a result, the ILP Miner may take a very long time to return a Petri net. Partitioning the traces in the event log over multiple event logs does not really alleviate this problem. Like for most process discovery algorithms, the complexity is linear in the size of the event log and exponential in the number of event classes (i.e., distinct activities). Hence, the potential gain by partitioning the event classes is much higher. This paper proposes to use the so-called passages to split up the event classes over multiple event logs, and shows what the results are for seven large event logs. The results show that indeed the use of passages alleviates the complexity, but that much hinges on the size of the largest passage detected: The smaller this passage, the better the run time.},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Verbeek12a.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.10.03},
    Url = {http://bpmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/2012/BPM-12-14.pdf}
    }
  • [PDF] [DOI] 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,” in Bpm 2011 workshops, part ii, 2012, pp. 50-61.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Vogelaar12,
    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},
    Booktitle = {BPM 2011 Workshops, Part II},
    Year = {2012},
    Editor = {Daniel, F. and Dustdar, S. and Barkaoui, K.},
    Month = {August},
    Organization = {LIMOS - Universit Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France},
    Pages = {50--61},
    Publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
    Series = {LNBIP},
    Volume = {100},
    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 processes, 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 cross-organizational 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 a configurable process model.},
    Doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-28115-0_6},
    File = {Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Vogelaar12.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2011.10.03}
    }
  • [PDF] [DOI] J. M. E. M. van der Werf, H. M. W. Verbeek, and W. M. P. van der Aalst, “Context-aware compliance checking,” in Bpm 2012 proceedings, Tallinn, 2012, pp. 98-113.
    [Bibtex]
    @InProceedings{Werf12,
    Title = {Context-Aware Compliance Checking},
    Author = {Werf, J. M. E. M. van der and Verbeek, H. M. W. and Aalst, W. M. P. van der},
    Booktitle = {BPM 2012 Proceedings},
    Year = {2012},
    Address = {Tallinn},
    Editor = {Barros, A. and Gal, A. and Kindler, E.},
    Month = {September},
    Note = {Accepted as regular paper},
    Pages = {98--113},
    Publisher = {Springer},
    Series = {LNCS},
    Volume = {7481},
    Abstract = {Organizations face more and more the burden to show that their business is compliant with respect to many different boundaries. The activity of compliance checking is commonly referred to as auditing. As information systems supporting the organizations business record their usage, process mining techniques such as conformance checking offer the auditor novel tools to automate the auditing activity. However, these techniques tend to look at process instances (i.e., cases) in isolation, whereas many compliance rules can only be evaluated when considering interactions between cases and contextual information. For example, a rule like a paper should not be reviewed by a reviewer that has been a co-author cannot be checked without considering the corresponding context (i.e., other papers, other issues, other journals, etc.). To check such compliance rules, we link event logs to the context. Events modify a pre-existing context and constraints can be checked on the resulting context. The approach has been implemented in ProM. The resulting context is represented as an ontology, and the semantic web rule language is used to formalize constraints.},
    Doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_7},
    File = {Volume 7481 of LNCS:http\://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5:URL;Preprint of published paper:http\://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Werf12.pdf:URL},
    Owner = {hverbeek},
    Timestamp = {2012.07.12},
    Url = {http://www.win.tue.nl/~hverbeek/downloads/preprints/Werf12.pdf}
    }

Leave a Reply