Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study
description
Transcript of Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study
![Page 1: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Decomposing Replay Problems:A Case Study
Eric Verbeek and Wil van der Aalst
![Page 2: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Replay
In• Event log
• Traces− Events
− Activity• Petri net
• Labeled transitions− Activity
• Initial marking• Final markings
• Cost structure
Out• Alignments
• Transition sequence− Activity
− Synchronous− Net only
− Silent transition• Trace
− Activity− Synchronous− Log only
• Minimal costs
PAGE 2
![Page 3: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Decomposition using Passages
Rule DescriptionR1 Incident arcs of places are equivalent
R2 Incident arcs of invisible transitions are equivalent
R3 Incident arcs of visible transitions with non-unique labels are equivalent to incident arcs of all transitions with the same label
PAGE 3
![Page 4: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Decomposed Replay
• Decompose Petri net into subnets• Using passages (subsuming activities)• Adapt cost structure
• Decompose Event log into sublogs• Empty traces!
• Replay every sublog on corresponding subnet• Idea: Replaying sublogs on subnets is more efficient
than replaying event log on Petri net• Can easily be done on multiple cores
• Merge replay results• Aggregate costs
− SumPAGE 4
![Page 5: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Case Study – Settings – Petri nets
Petri net Transitions Places Arcs LabelsRepairExample 12 12 26 8
A32 32 32 74 32
Bpic2012A 11 14 28 10
Bpic2012 58 44 124 36
PAGE 5
![Page 6: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Case Study – Settings – Event logs
Event log Cases Events LabelsRepairExample 1104 11,855 12
A32f1n00 1000 24,510 32
A32f1n10 1000 24,120 32
A32f1n50 1000 22,794 32
Bpic2012A 13,087 60,849 10
Bpic2012 13,087 262,200 36
PAGE 6
![Page 7: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Case Study – Settings – Replay results
Event log Running time (secs) CostsRepairExample 0.25 0.197
A32f1n00 11.00 0.000
A32f1n10 17.00 0.993
A32f1n50 32.00 4.521
Bpic2012A 0.59 1.293
Bpic2012 480.00 14.228
PAGE 7
![Page 8: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Case Study – Decomp. Replay Results
Event log Passages Running time CostsRepairExample 6 0.43 171% 0.196 99%
A32f1n00 30 1.30 12% 0.000 100%
A32f1n10 30 1.10 7% 0.444 45%
A32f1n50 30 1.20 4% 2.155 48%
Bpic2012A 8 2.20 378% 0.629 49%
Bpic2012 12 DNF
PAGE 8
![Page 9: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Bpic2012
PAGE 9
![Page 10: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Bpic2012 – Problematic Passage
PAGE 10
![Page 11: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 1
PAGE 11
Running time Costs470.00 98% 8.722 61%
![Page 12: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 2
PAGE 12
Running time Costs190.00 40% 6.676 47%
![Page 13: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 3a
PAGE 13
Rule DescriptionR1 Incident arcs of places are equivalent
R2 Incident arcs of invisible transitions are equivalent
R3 Incident arcs of visible transitions with non-unique labels are equivalent to incident arcs of all transitions with the same label
R4 The i-th input arc of a visible transition with unique label is equivalent to the i-th output arc of that transition, if both exist
![Page 14: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Case Study – Attempt 3a – Results
Event log Passages Running time CostsRepairExample 2 0.31 136% 0.197 100%
A32f1n00 4 1.90 18% 0.000 100%
A32f1n10 4 2.10 13% 0.929 94%
A32f1n50 4 3.10 10% 4.322 96%
Bpic2012A 1 0.74 125% 1,293 100%
Bpic2012 1 480.00 101% 14.228 100%
PAGE 14
![Page 15: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 3b
PAGE 15
Rule DescriptionR1 Incident arcs of places are equivalent
R2 The i-th input arc of an invisible transition is equivalent to the i-th output arc of that transition, it both exist
R3 Incident arcs of visible transitions with non-unique labels are equivalent to incident arcs of all transitions with the same label
R4 The i-th input arc of a visible transition with unique label is equivalent to the i-th output arc of that transition, if both exist
![Page 16: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Case Study – Attempt 3b – Results
Event log Passages Running time CostsRepairExample 2 0.31 136% 0.197 100%
A32f1n00 4 1.90 18% 0.000 100%
A32f1n10 4 2.10 13% 0.929 94%
A32f1n50 4 3.10 10% 4.322 96%
Bpic2012A 3 2.30 391% 1.272 98%
Bpic2012 3 400.00 83% 14.227 100%
PAGE 16
![Page 17: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 3c
PAGE 17
Rule DescriptionR1 Incident arcs of places are equivalent
R2 The i-th input arc of an invisible non-milestone transition is equivalent to the i-th output arc of that transition, it both exist
R3 Incident arcs of visible transitions with non-unique labels are equivalent to incident arcs of all transitions with the same label
R4 The i-th input arc of a visible non-milestone transition with unique label is equivalent to the i-th output arc of that transition, if both exist
![Page 18: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
BPIC2012 – Attempt 3c - Milestones
PAGE 18
Running time Costs100.00 22% 11.722 82%
![Page 19: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Wrapping Up
Event log Passages Running time CostsA32f1n00 1
411.01.9 18%
0.0000.000 100%
A32f1n10 14
17.02.1 13%
0.9930.929 100%
A32f1n50 14
32.03.1 10%
4.5214.332 96%
Bpic2012 14
480.0100.0 22%
14.22811.722 82%
PAGE 19
![Page 20: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Take-Home Points
• Decomposed Replay can be faster• At acceptable costs
• Decomposed Replay can be slower, much slower• What are good passages?
• Given the replayer we’re using• Chaining passages seems to help• Sparsest cuts through the net?
PAGE 20
![Page 21: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Bpic2012 – Attempt 1
PAGE 21
![Page 22: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Bpic2012 – Attempt 2
PAGE 22
![Page 23: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Bpic2012 – Attempt 3c
PAGE 23
Subnet Running time Costs
A 100.0 7.102
B 66.0 0.951
C 2.8 0.863
D 97.0 2.806
Total 260.0 11.722
A
BC
D
![Page 24: Decomposing Replay Problems: A Case Study](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062410/56816252550346895dd29b4e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Tool Implementation – ProM 6
PAGE 24