Abstract
The detection of undesired behavior is a key task in process mining, supported by techniques for conformance checking and anomaly detection. A downside of conformance checking, though, is that it requires a process model as a basis, limiting its applicability, whereas existing anomaly detection techniques look for statistically infrequent behavior, even though infrequency does not necessarily imply undesirability. The recently introduced concept of semantic anomaly detection overcomes these issues by detecting behavior that stands out from a semantic point of view, such as a claim being paid after it has been rejected. In this manner, it detects behavior that is undesirable, while its grounding in natural language analysis allows it to consider behavioral regularities extracted from other processes, alleviating the need to have a process model available. However, the state-of-the-art approach for semantic anomaly detection, a rigid, rule-based approach, is limited in its scope and accuracy. Therefore, we propose a machine learning-based alternative, which uses a classifier trained to recognize whether observed process behavior is normal or anomalous. Our experiments show that this learning-based approach greatly outperforms the state of the art. Users can directly apply our approach to detect semantic anomalies in their own event data by using one of our pre-trained classifiers, even if their data contains so far unseen process behavior.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that rework considerations would also apply to directly-follows relations, e.g., in \(\langle .. \), check, reject, check, accept \(\rangle \) we observe that check [request] (directly) follows reject [request], rather than vice versa, yet that this is allowed due to rework being conducted.
- 2.
For clarity, we use \(\prec ^{+}\) and \(\prec ^{-}\) to denote positive and negative training samples, respectively.
- 3.
- 4.
We provide detailed results of the hyper-parameter optimization in our repository.
- 5.
Note that such false positives would be avoided when using an object-centric event log, since there would be no relation between the events related to pre-payments and declarations.
References
van der Aa, H., Rebmann, A., Leopold, H.: Natural language-based detection of semantic execution anomalies in event logs. Inf. Syst. 102, 101824 (2021)
van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action, vol. 2. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4
Carmona, J., van Dongen, B., Solti, A., Weidlich, M.: Conformance Checking. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99414-7
Chauhan, V.K., Dahiya, K., Sharma, A.: Problem formulations and solvers in linear SVM: a review. Artif. Intell. Rev. 52(2), 803–855 (2019)
Chklovski, T., Pantel, P.: VerbOcean: mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations. In: EMNLP, pp. 33–40 (2004)
Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: NAACL, pp. 4171–4186. ACL, Minneapolis, Minnesota (2019)
Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C.: Predictive process monitoring. In: W.M.P., Carmona, J. (eds.) Process Mining Handbook. vol. 448. LNBIP, pp. 320–346. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08848-3_10
Dixit, P.M., et al.: Detection and interactive repair of event ordering imperfection in process logs. In: Krogstie, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) CAiSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 10816, pp. 274–290. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91563-0_17
van Dongen, B.: BPI challenge 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4121/UUID:52FB97D4-4588-43C9-9D04-3604D4613B51
Fahrenkrog-Petersen, S.A., Kabierski, M., van der Aa, H., Weidlich, M.: Semantics-aware mechanisms for control-flow anonymization in process mining. Inf. Syst 114, 102169 (2023)
Havasi, C., Speer, R., Alonso, J.: ConceptNet 3: a flexible, multilingual semantic network for common sense knowledge. In: RANLP. pp. 27–29. John Benjamins Philadelphia, PA (2007)
Krajsic, P., Franczyk, B.: Semi-supervised anomaly detection in business process event data using self-attention based classification. Proc. Comput. Sci. 192, 39–48 (2021)
Krajsic, P., Franczyk, B.: Variational autoencoder for anomaly detection in event data in online process mining. In: ICEIS (1), pp. 567–574 (2021)
Leemans, S.J.J., Fahland, D., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Discovering block-structured process models from event logs - a constructive approach. In: Colom, J.-M., Desel, J. (eds.) PETRI NETS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7927, pp. 311–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38697-8_17
Losing, V., Fischer, L., Deigmoeller, J.: Extraction of common-sense relations from procedural task instructions using BERT. In: 11th Global Wordnet Conference, pp. 81–90 (2021)
Mannhardt, F., de Leoni, M., Reijers, H.A., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Data-driven process discovery - revealing conditional infrequent behavior from event logs. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 545–560. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59536-8_34
Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)
Nolle, T., Luettgen, S., Seeliger, A., Mühlhäuser, M.: BiNet: multi-perspective business process anomaly classification. Inf. Syst. 103, 101458 (2019)
Nolle, T., Luettgen, S., Seeliger, A., Mühlhäuser, M.: Analyzing business process anomalies using autoencoders. Mach. Learn. 107(11), 1875–1893 (2018)
Omeliyanenko, J., Zehe, A., Hettinger, L., Hotho, A.: LM4KG: improving common sense knowledge graphs with language models. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2020. LNCS, vol. 12506, pp. 456–473. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_26
Pennington, J., Socher, R., Manning, C.: GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In: EMNLP, pp. 1532–1543. ACL, Doha, Qatar (2014)
Rebmann, A., van der Aa, H.: Enabling semantics-aware process mining through the automatic annotation of event logs. Inf. Syst. 110, 102111 (2022)
Tandon, N., Dalvi, B., Grus, J., Yih, W.t., Bosselut, A., Clark, P.: Reasoning about actions and state changes by injecting commonsense knowledge. In: EMNLP, pp. 57–66 (2018)
Vaswani, A., et al.: Attention is all you need. In: NeurIPS, vol. 30 (2017)
Weske, M., Decker, G., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A.: Model Collection of the Business Process Management Academic Initiative (2020)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caspary, J., Rebmann, A., van der Aa, H. (2023). Does This Make Sense? Machine Learning-Based Detection of Semantic Anomalies in Business Processes. In: Di Francescomarino, C., Burattin, A., Janiesch, C., Sadiq, S. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14159. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41620-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41619-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41620-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)