Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses fundamental limitations in process mining, demonstrating how standard event log analysis often fails to distinguish between concurrent and sequential operations without additional data features like precise timestamps or object-centric records. By characterizing the theoretical resolution limits of such data, the study provides a critical framework for operational managers to accurately model complex workflows in sectors like healthcare, ensuring resource planning reflects true system behavior rather than algorithmic assumptions.
Sources coveringarXiv, AI Alignment Forum, AWS, The Verge
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Resolution limits for process comparison from event data

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.20489v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: One hospital runs bloods and imaging at the same time. Another runs them one after the other, in either order, equally often. Knowing which actually happened, and how it is recorded in data, is critical for all operational managers. In process mining, the standard approach is to construct an event log, and attempt to discover concurrent and sequential processes in a data-driven way. We show this standard approach, built on the stochastic language of an event log, reports only the assumptions of its discovery algorithm, because every such log is explained equally well by a model with no concurrency at all. Further, before any data is acquired, we characterise when data can and cannot distinguish concurrent behaviour. Where it cannot, the distinction is recoverable from evidence the stochastic language discards, such as the times at which activities start and end, or object-centric records that fix an order within an execution. The remedy is therefore a choice of what is recorded, rather than a larger sample. This impacts decision making, as planning resource for truly concurrent services is very different from sequential services.

Abstract:One hospital runs bloods and imaging at the same time. Another runs them one after the other, in either order, equally often. Knowing which actually happened, and how it is recorded in data, is critical for all operational managers. In process mining, the standard approach is to construct an event log, and attempt to discover concurrent and sequential processes in a data-driven way. We show this standard approach, built on the stochastic language of an event log, reports only the assumptions of its discovery algorithm, because every such log is explained equally well by a model with no concurrency at all. Further, before any data is acquired, we characterise when data can and cannot distinguish concurrent behaviour. Where it cannot, the distinction is recoverable from evidence the stochastic language discards, such as the times at which activities start and end, or object-centric records that fix an order within an execution. The remedy is therefore a choice of what is recorded, rather than a larger sample. This impacts decision making, as planning resource for truly concurrent services is very different from sequential services.

Databases (cs.DB); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2609.20489 [cs.DB]

(or arXiv:2609.20489v1 [cs.DB] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.20489 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

supplementary.pdf

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 282 words

Related coverage