A unified way to compare process mining models reveals true differences
String Diagrams for Process Mining
Logic in Computer ScienceDatabases
Summary
Different process mining tools often produce different diagrams from the same data because they use unique ways to show activity sequences and their relationships. The authors found a common way to represent all these diagrams that focuses on the core activities and how they connect, ignoring how each tool handles routing. This new method allows for direct and meaningful comparisons between process models, showing when processes are truly different or just look different. It also helps spot when one model adds behaviors invisible to simple sequence comparisons.
What this means in practice
- •For process analysts: Compare different process mining models rigorously to identify genuine behavioral differences beyond activity sequences.
- •For business process developers: Use a unified model representation to verify and translate process models across different notations, reducing misunderstandings.
- •For software integrators: Translate and verify process models automatically between Petri nets, BPMN, and other formats within process automation tools.$Commercial implications: Enables product features for automatic process model comparison and translation, improving integration tools for enterprise customers.
Tested on one dataset.
Authors
Antony R. Lee, Peter Tiňo, Iain B. Styles
Abstract
Run two process-discovery algorithms on the same event log and they return two different pictures of the same process. Petri nets, causal nets, process trees and BPMN each rely on routing machinery of their own, and their only common ground is the traces they generate. A trace lists activities one after another, so it discards the concurrency the notations exist to express, and two models with identical trace languages can describe genuinely different processes. Whether two discovered models mean the same thing therefore has no notation-independent answer. We show that all four notations admit one canonical presentation, a signature recording a model's activities and the typed interfaces along which they compose, and nothing of the routing machinery. Four construction theorems establish this presentation notation by notation, so two models are compared in a form that each notation determines on its own. Signature equality implies trace equivalence and is strictly finer, separating genuine concurrency from interleaved choice, which a trace comparison cannot, and signature inclusion implies trace inclusion. In a recovery study on one object-centric log, the discovered causal net has exactly the ground-truth signature, while the discovered Petri net's signature strictly contains it and locates every behaviour the Petri net adds in its silent structure. The gain is largest for object-centric data, where a single log supports several notations at once. The four notations become one calculus, in which a translation between them is a claim that can be checked.