skip to main content
10.1145/3357384.3357882acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

BePT: A Behavior-based Process Translator for Interpreting and Understanding Process Models

Published:03 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sharing process models on the web has emerged as a common practice. Users can collect and share their experimental process models with others. However, some users always feel confused about the shared process models for lack of necessary guidelines or instructions. Therefore, several process translators have been proposed to explain the semantics of process models in natural language (NL). We find that previous studies suffer from information loss and generate semantically erroneous descriptions that diverge from original model behaviors. In this paper, we propose a novel process translator named BePT (Behavior-based Process Translator) based on the encoder-decoder paradigm, encoding a process model into a middle representation and decoding the representation into NL descriptions. Our theoretical analysis demonstrates that BePT satisfies behavior correctness, behavior completeness and description minimality. The qualitative and quantitative experiments show that BePT outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines.

References

  1. Banu Aysolmaz, Henrik Leopold, Hajo A. Reijers, and Onur Demirörs. 2018. A Semi-automated Approach for Generating Natural Language Requirements Documents based on Business Process Models . Information and Software Technology , Vol. 93 (2018), 14--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Miguel Ballesteros, Bernd Bohnet, Simon Mille, and Leo Wanner. 2014. Deep-Syntactic Parsing. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers . Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, 1402--1413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sarah Cohen Boulakia and Ulf Leser. 2011. Search, Adapt, and Reuse: The Future of Scientific Workflows . SIGMOD Record , Vol. 40 (2011), 6--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014a. On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder-Decoder Approaches. In Proceedings of SSST-8, Eighth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 103--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014b. Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder--Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) . Association for Computational Linguistics, 1724--1734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Massimiliano de Leoni, Fabrizio M. Maggi, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2015. An Alignment-based Framework to Check the Conformance of Declarative Process Models and to Preprocess Event-log Data . Inf. Syst. , Vol. 47, C (Jan. 2015), 258--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Joost Engelfriet. 1991. Branching Processes of Petri Nets . Acta Informatica , Vol. 28, 6 (1991), 575--591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Javier Esparza, Stefan Römer, and Walter Vogler. 2002. An Improvement of McMillan's Unfolding Algorithm . Formal Methods in System Design , Vol. 20, 3 (2002), 285--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Andrew Gemino. 2004. Empirical Comparisons of Animation and Narration in Requirements Validation . Requirements Engineering , Vol. 9, 3 (2004), 153--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Carole A Goble, Jiten Bhagat, Sergejs Aleksejevs, Don Cruickshank, Danius Michaelides, David Newman, Mark Borkum, Sean Bechhofer, Marco Roos, Peter Li, and David De Roure. 2010. myExperiment: A Repository and Social Network for the Sharing of Bioinformatics Workflows. Nucleic Acids Res , Vol. 38, Web Server issue (Jul 2010), W677--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Carole Anne Goble and David Charles De Roure. 2007. myExperiment: Social Networking for Workflow-using E-scientists. In WORKS@HPDC .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeremy Goecks, Anton Nekrutenko, James Taylor, and The Galaxy Team. 2010. Galaxy: A Comprehensive Approach for Supporting Accessible, Reproducible, and Transparent Computational Research in the Life Sciences . Genome Biology , Vol. 11, 8 (2010), R86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. U. Goltz and W. Reisig. 1983. The Non-sequential Behaviour of Petri Nets . Information and Control , Vol. 57, 2 (1983), 125--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jiawei Han, Micheline Kamber, and Jian Pei. 2012. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 327--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Duncan Hull, Katy Wolstencroft, Robert Stevens, Carole Goble, Mathew R Pocock, Peter Li, and Tom Oinn. 2006. Taverna: A Tool for Building and Running Workflows of Services . Nucleic Acids Research , Vol. 34, Web Server issue (07 2006), W729--W732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lin Jianhua. 1991. Divergence Measures based on the Shannon Entropy . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 37, 1 (1991), 145--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Benoit Lavoie and Owen Rambow. 1997. A Fast and Portable Realizer for Text Generation Systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (ANLC '97). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 265--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Henrik Leopold. 2013. Parsing and Annotating Process Model Elements . In Natural Language in Business Process Models , , Henrik Leopold (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 49--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Henrik Leopold, Jan Mendling, and Artem Polyvyanyy. 2012a. Generating Natural Language Texts from Business Process Models. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Jolita Ralyté , Xavier Franch, Sjaak Brinkkemper, and Stanislaw Wrycza (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 64--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Henrik Leopold, Jan Mendling, and Artem Polyvyanyy. 2014. Supporting Process Model Validation through Natural Language Generation . IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , Vol. 40, 8 (2014), 818--840.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Henrik Leopold, Sergey Smirnov, and Jan Mendling. 2011. Recognising Activity Labeling Styles in Business Process Models . Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures , Vol. 6 (2011), 16--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Henrik Leopold, Sergey Smirnov, and Jan Mendling. 2012b. On the Refactoring of Activity Labels in Business Process Models . Information Systems , Vol. 37, 5 (2012), 443--459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Guang Li, Shubo Ma, and Yahong Han. 2015. Summarization-based Video Caption via Deep Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1191--1194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rong Liu and Akhil Kumar. 2005. An Analysis and Taxonomy of Unstructured Workflows. In Business Process Management , , Wil M. P. van der Aalst, Boualem Benatallah, Fabio Casati, and Francisco Curbera (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 268--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Saleem Malik and Imran Sarwar Bajwa. 2013. Back to Origin: Transformation of Business Process Models to Business Rules. In Business Process Management Workshops, Marcello La Rosa and Pnina Soffer (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 611--622.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. K. L. McMillan and D. K. Probst. 1995. A Technique of State Space Search based on Unfolding . Formal Methods in System Design , Vol. 6, 1 (1995), 45--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Farid Meziane, Nikos Athanasakis, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2008. Generating Natural Language specifications from UML class diagrams . Requirements Engineering , Vol. 13, 1 (2008), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: A Lexical Database for English . Commun. ACM , Vol. 38, 11 (Nov. 1995), 39--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. T. Murata. 1989. Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications . Proc. IEEE , Vol. 77, 4 (1989), 541--580.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Mogens Nielsen, Gordon Plotkin, and Glynn Winskel. 1979. Petri Nets, Event Structures and Domains. In Semantics of Concurrent Computation , , Gilles Kahn (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 266--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Chen Qian and Lijie Wen. 2018. Solving Algorithm for Scheduling Problem with Control-flow Constraints . Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems , Vol. 24, 7 (2018), 1598--1607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Chen Qian, Lijie Wen, Jianmin Wang, Akhil Kumar, and Haoran Li. 2017. Structural Descriptions of Process Models Based on Goal-Oriented Unfolding. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Eric Dubois and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 397--412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Brian Roark, Murat Saraclar, and Michael Collins. 2007. Discriminative N-gram Language Modeling . Comput. Speech Lang. , Vol. 21, 2 (April 2007), 373--392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Philip Schulz, Wilker Aziz, and Trevor Cohn. 2018. A Stochastic Decoder for Neural Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 1243--1252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Johannes Starlinger, Bryan Brancotte, Sarah Cohen-Boulakia, and Ulf Leser. 2014. Similarity Search for Scientific Workflows . Proc. VLDB Endow. , Vol. 7, 12 (Aug. 2014), 1143--1154.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. W. van der Aalst, T. Weijters, and L. Maruster. 2004. Workflow Mining: Discovering Process Models from Event Logs . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , Vol. 16, 9 (2004), 1128--1142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. W. M. P. van der Aalst. 1998. Three Good Reasons for Using a Petri-Net-Based Workflow Management System. Springer US, Boston, MA, 161--182.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. W. M. P. van der Aalst. 2000. Workflow Verification: Finding Control-Flow Errors Using Petri-Net-Based Techniques. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 161--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jussi Vanhatalo, Hagen Völzer, and Jana Koehler. 2008. The Refined Process Structure Tree. In Business Process Management , , Marlon Dumas, Manfred Reichert, and Ming-Chien Shan (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 100--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator . 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2015), 3156--3164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. M. Weidlich, J. Mendling, and M. Weske. 2011. Efficient Consistency Measurement Based on Behavioral Profiles of Process Models . IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , Vol. 37, 3 (2011), 410--429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Huijun Wu, Chen Wang, Jie Yin, Kai Lu, and Liming Zhu. 2018. Sharing Deep Neural Network Models with Interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 177--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. BePT: A Behavior-based Process Translator for Interpreting and Understanding Process Models

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CIKM '19: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
          November 2019
          3373 pages
          ISBN:9781450369763
          DOI:10.1145/3357384

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 November 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CIKM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate202of1,031submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader