Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Discovery of Process Models from Event Logs: Review and Benchmark

Open access
Augusto, Adriano, Conforti, Raffaele, Dumas, Marlon, Rosa, Marcello La, Maggi, Fabrizio Maria, Marrella, Andrea, Mecella, Massimo, Soo, Allar·2019·IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Abstract

Process mining allows analysts to exploit logs of historical executions of business processes to extract insights regarding the actual performance of these processes. One of the most widely studied process mining operations is automated process discovery. An automated process discovery method takes as input an event log, and produces as output a business process model that captures the control-flow relations between tasks that are observed in or implied by the event log. Various automated process discovery methods have been proposed in the past two decades, striking different tradeoffs between scalability, accuracy, and complexity of the resulting models. However, these methods have been evaluated in an ad-hoc manner, employing different datasets, experimental setups, evaluation measures, and baselines, often leading to incomparable conclusions and sometimes unreproducible results due to the use of closed datasets. This article provides a systematic review and comparative evaluation of automated process discovery methods, using an open-source benchmark and covering 12 publicly-available real-life event logs, 12 proprietary real-life event logs, and nine quality metrics. The results highlight gaps and unexplored tradeoffs in the field, including the lack of scalability of some methods and a strong divergence in their performance with respect to the different quality metrics used.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tkde.2018.2841877

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Metadata

Authors
Augusto, A., Conforti, R., Dumas, M., Rosa, M. L., Maggi, F. M., Marrella, A., Mecella, M., & Soo, A.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Published
2019-04-01
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
686-705
ISSN
  • 1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2191
  • 2326-3865
OpenAlex
W2613062404
Cited by
438
References
34
FWCI
67.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Discovery of Process Models from Event Logs: Review and Benchmark. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tkde.2018.2841877
The paper
Augusto, A., Conforti, R., Dumas, M., Rosa, M. L., Maggi, F. M., Marrella, A., Mecella, M., & Soo, A. (2019). Automated Discovery of Process Models from Event Logs: Review and Benchmark. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2018.2841877

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.