Framework for Grouping Local Process Models
2026-07-06 • Machine Learning
Machine Learning
AI summaryⓘ
The authors studied Local Process Models (LPMs), which are small patterns found within event data that show how processes behave. They found that current methods produce many similar LPMs, making it hard for analysts to use them effectively. Instead of just picking the highest-scoring LPMs, the authors suggest grouping similar models and choosing one example from each group. This approach helps provide a better and less repetitive set of patterns for understanding the process.
Local Process ModelsProcess MiningEvent DataPattern MiningModel SimilarityProcess Model CoverageLoopConcurrencyModel ExplosionModel Repetition
Authors
Viki Peeva, Wil M. P. van der Aalst
Abstract
Local Process Models (LPMs) are an underexplored concept in process mining. LPMs describe patterns in event data considering sequence, choice, concurrency, and loop. In recent years, process mining has proved successful in the analysis and improvement of operational processes. More often than not, surprising findings are found when one does not consider the full process, making LPMs and their discovery highly valuable. However, similar to other pattern mining approaches, LPM discovery algorithms face the problems of model explosion and model repetition, i.e., the algorithms may create hundreds if not thousands of LPMs, and subsets of them are close in structure or behavior. Practically, no analyst would be able to comb through thousands of LPMs leading to using a sample of LPMs that are easily accessible. The current sentiment is that the top-scoring LPMs form the optimal sample to be presented. However, different applications should demand a different optimal sample. With this work, we show that if the goal of the mined LPMs is to understand a process, using the top-scoring LPMs as an optimal sample is a poor choice because of high repetition. We propose a framework for grouping LPMs and creating an optimal sample by taking one representative LPM for each group. We measure similarity between models via established process model similarity measures or by comparing the context in which an LPM appears. The context is formed using data attributes available in the underlying event logs. We demonstrate the usefulness of grouping on multiple event logs by comparing repetition and coverage between samples comprised of the top-scoring models and the representatives of discovered groups.