To prevent spam users, you can only post on this forum after registration, which is by invitation. If you want to post on the forum, please send me a mail (h DOT m DOT w DOT verbeek AT tue DOT nl) and I'll send you an invitation in return for an account.

Flexible Heuristics Miner - Visualization; Join/Split Selection; PetriNet Mapping

edited August 2011 in - Usage

I have a couple of questions regarding the flexible heuristics miner resp. its implementation in ProM6: thanks



  •  Hi Markus,

     The splits/joins mining follows exactly the strategy presented in As far as I know, the paper LNCS3812.pdf has nothing to do with this strategy. Currently, every pattern is taken into account. Actually, since split/join pattern tables are ordered by frequency, the low-frequent patterns are useful to check - for instance - whether we have noise or not.

     Can you provide me a small example where you need some assumption to avoid inconsistency? My feeling is that the current converters do not generate the simpler Petri Net (i.e., a lot of redundant hidden places are generated) but the splits/joins are converted well.

     The visualization with annotations (equivalent to the WP334 paper's one) was released last month. Remark that this is not the default visualization. So, after generating the augmented C-Net, just select "Visualize Causal Net with Annotations" in the combo box above the result view.

     I hope my answers are clear. If not, please let me know!


  • Hi,

    thanks for your answer.

    I meanwhile got the visualization running. The key was to start -everything- (package manager, prom, ...) in Adminstrator Mode in Windows 7, otherwise some required classes are not found.

    I however still have problems understanding the counting and split/join conversion for FHM results from the augmented C-net.
    For example, is a trace ABAC counted as A->B A->C; or A->BC A->C; or ...? From the descriptions in the paper I would guess the first one, but I didn't find any explicit mentioning in the paper (sorry again if I missed something).

    Second, I have attached an example for one of my mining results (with anonymized tasks). You said in your last post that also the non-frequent patterns are taken into account. So I would expect that the split gateways after A model a behavior as "at least one or both" of B and C. However, from the converted net (right handside) I would tell that C always gets activated by A. Is there any error in my interpretation?

    Thanks alot and best

  • mardo
    edited August 2011
    please ignore the attached "livelock".png
  •  Hi Markus,

     That's right! Assuming that the only input of B and C is A, the trace ABAC originates both the A -> B and A -> C split patterns. The pattern A -> BC would be originated by a trace like ABCA (in this case an empty pattern A -> {} for the second A would be originated as well). The idea is that every non-ending activity in the trace has always one split pattern. Let's say that at the beginning the split pattern of an activity (e.g., Abac) is formed by its outputs (A -> BC). Then, for each output in the pattern (B and C), it is necessary to check whether they appear in the trace after the given activity (the first A) and without any other possible input (e.g., any other A) in between the given activity and the output. So, considering the trace ABAC, the first A is followed exclusively by B (i.e., A -> B), while the second is followed by C (i.e., A -> C). (the same logic applies to the join patterns)

     Regarding your second question, I think that something is not right with the conversion. I'd expect to see clearly the three patterns (B, C, and BC) in the picture (right-hand side). Maybe you need to check whether the BPMN converter is working properly.


Sign In or Register to comment.