pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22455 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

On the Hybrid Nature of ABPMS Process Frames and its Implications on Automated Process Discovery

Anti Alman , Izack Cohen , Avigdor Gal , Fabrizio Maria Maggi , Marco Montali
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords ABPMSprocess framehybrid process modelsprocedural and declarative modelsautomated process discoveryopen-world assumptionframed autonomyDeclare constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

An ABPMS process frame is a hybrid of semi-concurrently executed procedural and declarative models that supports framed autonomy through constraint-like interpretations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that process frames in AI-augmented business process management systems are best conceptualized as hybrids that combine procedural and declarative models executed in a semi-concurrent manner. This hybrid structure provides a more permissive representation than traditional single-formalism models, allowing autonomous behaviors to emerge within defined boundaries while incorporating heterogeneous knowledge such as procedures, rules, and best practices. The authors extend the open-world assumption from declarative models to procedural ones, treating each procedural fragment as constraining only its own activities without mandating executions or restricting other models. This creates a direct analogy to languages like Declare, where constraints act locally. The similarity then supports converting subsets of discovered declarative constraints into equivalent procedural fragments, which establishes a foundation for automated discovery of such hybrid frames.

Core claim

We conceptualize the notion of an ABPMS process frame as a hybrid business process representation, consisting of semi-concurrently executed procedural and declarative process models. We rely on our earlier works to outline the execution semantics of this type of process frame, arguing in favor of adopting the open-world assumption of the declarative paradigm also for procedural process models. The latter leads to a constraint-like interpretation, where each procedural model is considered to constrain the activities within that model, without imposing explicit execution requirements nor limitations on activities that may be present in other models. This is analogous to existing declarative 1s

What carries the argument

The hybrid process frame of semi-concurrently executed procedural and declarative models, with the open-world assumption applied to procedural models to yield constraint-like interpretations.

If this is right

  • The process frame becomes more permissive than traditional models, enabling framed autonomy to emerge in ABPMS.
  • Procedural models receive a constraint-like interpretation that affects only their own activities, without global execution mandates.
  • Subsets of discovered declarative constraints can be mapped to equivalent semi-concurrently executed procedural fragments.
  • This mapping lays the groundwork for automated discovery approaches that handle hybrid process frames.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The hybrid representation could allow ABPMS to integrate predefined procedures directly with commonsense rules and best practices in a single frame.
  • Automated discovery might handle mixed procedural and declarative knowledge more flexibly than approaches limited to one formalism.
  • This view suggests process discovery tools could alternate between constraint extraction and fragment assembly depending on input data.

Load-bearing premise

Adopting the open-world assumption for procedural process models preserves their core characteristics while enabling a constraint-like interpretation without explicit execution requirements.

What would settle it

A set of execution traces where applying the open-world assumption to a procedural model produces activity sequences that violate the original model's intended ordering or completeness semantics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22455 by Anti Alman, Avigdor Gal, Fabrizio Maria Maggi, Izack Cohen, Marco Montali.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ABPMS lifecycle (taken from [1]). Rounded rectangles represent lifecycle steps, view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conceptual overview of an ABPMS process frame. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Process frame and the resulting state-space (taken from [9]). view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Explicit representation of the the relation between view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DFA representations of the Declare templates used in [13] that do not have corresponding alternate-type templates. Arcs leading to non-accepting trap states are omitted for brevity. Furthermore, activities not listed on any of the DFA arcs are processed by staying in the current state (i.e., as implicit self-loops). • Alternate Response(A, B) – each time A occurs, B must follow before the next occurrence o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: DFAs of the relation Alternate Response(A, B) + Succession(A, B) and the ternary templates Interposition(A, B, C) and Balanced Enablement(A, B, C). Declare language to a minimum, which we achieve by using the Not Chain Succession template. Not Chain Succession is already part of the Declare language and allows us to identify, for each activity, which activities can and cannot be executed immediately after … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Petri nets illustrating the four variants of the sequence flow pattern. The layout view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Automata of the Declare constraints discovered from the four variants of the sequence flow Petri nets in view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Petri net demonstrating optional repeatable parallelism. Removing the silent view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Automata of the Declare constraints discovered from the four XOR choice variants derived from the Petri net in view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Petri net demonstrating optional repeatable XOR choice. Removing the silent view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Automata of the Declare constraints discovered from the four XOR choice variants derived from the Petri net in view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Petri net demonstrating optional repeatable OR choice. Removing the silent view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Automata of the Declare constraints discovered from the four OR choice variants derived from the Petri net in view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Petri net example of optional sequence flow with overlapping optional regions, view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Petri net example of sequence flow with overlapping repeatable regions, and view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Petri net example of parallelism with overlapping AND splits and joins, and view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Petri net example of exclusive choices with overlapping repeatable regions, and view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A core component of any AI-Augmented Business Process Management System (ABPMS) is the process frame, which gives the system process-awareness and defines the boundaries in which the system must operate. Compared to traditional process models, the process frame should, in principle, provide a somewhat more permissive representation of the managed processes, such that the (semi) autonomous behavior of an ABPMS, referred to as framed autonomy, could emerge. At the same time, it is not limited to a single linguistic or symbolic formalism and may incorporate heterogeneous knowledge ranging from predefined procedures to commonsense rules and best practices. In this paper, we conceptualize the notion of an ABPMS process frame as a hybrid business process representation, consisting of semi-concurrently executed procedural and declarative process models. We rely on our earlier works to outline the execution semantics of this type of process frame, arguing in favor of adopting the open-world assumption of the declarative paradigm also for procedural process models. The latter leads to a constraint-like interpretation, where each procedural model is considered to constrain the activities within that model, without imposing explicit execution requirements nor limitations on activities that may be present in other models. This is analogous to existing declarative languages, such as Declare, where each constraint has a direct effect only on the specific activities being constrained. Given this similarity, we propose mapping subsets of discovered declarative constraints into equivalent semi-concurrently executed procedural fragments, thus laying the foundation for a corresponding process (frame) discovery approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conceptualizes ABPMS process frames as hybrid business process representations consisting of semi-concurrently executed procedural and declarative process models. It argues for adopting the open-world assumption for procedural models to enable a constraint-like interpretation without explicit execution requirements, and proposes mapping subsets of discovered declarative constraints into equivalent procedural fragments as a foundation for automated process (frame) discovery.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work could provide a conceptual bridge between procedural and declarative paradigms in AI-augmented BPM, supporting more permissive 'framed autonomy' in ABPMS. The mapping proposal offers a potential direction for hybrid discovery techniques that integrate both model types.

major comments (1)
  1. The argument for reinterpreting procedural models under the open-world assumption (detailed in the abstract and the section on execution semantics) is load-bearing for the hybrid claim but provides no formal preservation proof or detailed semantics showing that core prescriptive control-flow properties are retained while remaining distinct from declarative models. Without this, the semi-concurrent hybrid execution risks reducing to an effectively declarative representation, undermining the stated distinction and the proposed mapping.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript relies heavily on 'our earlier works' for execution semantics; including a self-contained summary or explicit cross-references to specific prior results would improve accessibility.
  2. The proposal for mapping declarative constraints to procedural fragments is outlined at a high level; adding a concrete example or pseudocode sketch would clarify the implications for automated discovery.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the opportunity to clarify the conceptual foundations of ABPMS process frames. We address the major comment point by point below, with a commitment to strengthen the manuscript through targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The argument for reinterpreting procedural models under the open-world assumption (detailed in the abstract and the section on execution semantics) is load-bearing for the hybrid claim but provides no formal preservation proof or detailed semantics showing that core prescriptive control-flow properties are retained while remaining distinct from declarative models. Without this, the semi-concurrent hybrid execution risks reducing to an effectively declarative representation, undermining the stated distinction and the proposed mapping.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript, being primarily conceptual, outlines the execution semantics by reference to our prior works without providing a self-contained formal preservation proof in this submission. The intended distinction rests on procedural models retaining intra-model control-flow prescriptions (e.g., ordering or concurrency relations among their own activities) even under open-world semantics, while declarative components impose cross-model constraints without such structure; semi-concurrent execution then interleaves the two without collapsing the procedural fragments into pure constraints. To address the concern directly, the revised manuscript will expand the execution semantics section with a proof sketch that formally shows preservation of these prescriptive properties within each procedural fragment, demonstrates non-equivalence to a fully declarative model, and illustrates how this supports the proposed mapping of declarative constraints to procedural fragments. This addition will also include a small illustrative example of the hybrid execution trace. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Core hybrid execution semantics and mapping proposal reduce to self-cited prior works

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "We rely on our earlier works to outline the execution semantics of this type of process frame, arguing in favor of adopting the open-world assumption of the declarative paradigm also for procedural process models. The latter leads to a constraint-like interpretation, where each procedural model is considered to constrain the activities within that model, without imposing explicit execution requirements nor limitations on activities that may be present in other models. ... Given this similarity, we propose mapping subsets of discovered declarative constraints into equivalent semi-concurrently 0"

    The execution semantics enabling the open-world constraint-like view of procedural models (and thus the hybrid semi-concurrent execution and the mapping proposal) are justified solely by citation to the authors' prior works. This semantics is load-bearing: without it, the claimed hybrid nature (distinct from pure declarative) and the foundation for automated discovery do not follow from the paper's own arguments.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of the ABPMS process frame as a hybrid representation and the proposed mapping of declarative constraints to procedural fragments both rest on execution semantics that are explicitly outlined only via reference to the authors' earlier works. The open-world reinterpretation of procedural models (constraint-like without explicit execution requirements) is presented as enabling the semi-concurrent hybrid and the mapping, yet no independent formal preservation argument or external benchmark is supplied here. This constitutes self-citation load-bearing for the central claim, as the hybrid distinction and discovery implications collapse without the prior self-defined semantics. The paper remains self-contained on the high-level conceptualization but the load-bearing steps are not independently verified within this manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on conceptual re-interpretation of existing paradigms rather than new empirical or formal results; it introduces the hybrid frame as a synthesis without independent validation.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Open-world assumption applies to procedural process models, treating them as constraints without explicit execution requirements
    Invoked to argue for constraint-like interpretation analogous to Declare constraints
invented entities (1)
  • Hybrid ABPMS process frame no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide process-awareness and enable framed autonomy in AI-augmented systems
    New conceptual entity defined as semi-concurrent procedural and declarative models

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1209 out tokens · 41098 ms · 2026-05-08T11:51:52.166080+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dumas, F

    M. Dumas, F. Fournier, L. Limonad, A. Marrella, M. Montali, J. Rehse, R. Accorsi, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Fahland, A. Gal, M. La Rosa, H. Völzer, I. Weber, AI-augmented business process management systems: A research manifesto, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 14 (1) (2023) 11:1–11:19

    2023

  2. [2]

    A. A. Andaloussi, A. Burattin, T. Slaats, E. Kindler, B. Weber, On the declarative paradigm in hybrid business process representations: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature study, Inf. Syst. 91 (2020) 101505

    2020

  3. [3]

    Bandara, A

    W. Bandara, A. Van Looy, M. Rosemann, L. Meyers, A call for ’holistic’ business process management, in: Problems@BPM, Vol. 2938 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2021, pp. 6–10

    2021

  4. [4]

    Alman, F

    A. Alman, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, F. Patrizi, A. Rivkin, Monitoring hybrid process specifications with conflict management: An automata- theoretic approach, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 139 (2023) 102512

    2023

  5. [5]

    Alman, F

    A. Alman, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, F. Patrizi, A. Rivkin, A framework for modeling, executing, and monitoring hybrid multi-process specifi- cations with bounded global–local memory, Information Systems 119 (2023) 102271. 34

    2023

  6. [6]

    Acitelli, A

    G. Acitelli, A. Alman, F. M. Maggi, A. Marrella, Achieving framed au- tonomy in AI-augmented business process management systems through automated planning, Inf. Syst. 133 (2025) 102573

    2025

  7. [7]

    P.H.Wittlinger, G.Acitelli, A.Alman, F.M.Maggi, A.Marrella, Fraim: A what-if analysis tool enabling framed autonomy via automated plan- ning, in: BPM (Demos / Resources Forum), CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings, CEUR-WS.org, 2025, pp. 192–199

    2025

  8. [8]

    Alman, F

    A. Alman, F. M. Maggi, S. Rinderle-Ma, A. Rivkin, K. Winter, Towards a multi-model paradigm for business process management, in: CAiSE, Vol. 14663 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2024, pp. 178–194

    2024

  9. [9]

    F. M. Maggi, A. Alman, P. H. Wittlinger, From constraint-based pro- cess modeling to framed autonomy: A historical excursus, in: Mining a Scientist’s Process: Essays Dedicated to Wil van der Aalst on the Oc- casion of His 60th Birthday, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2026, pp. 199–211

    2026

  10. [10]

    Murata, Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications, Proc

    T. Murata, Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications, Proc. IEEE 77 (4) (1989) 541–580

    1989

  11. [11]

    K. M. van Hee, N. Sidorova, J. M. E. M. van der Werf, Business process modeling using Petri nets, Trans. Petri Nets Other Model. Concurr. 7 (2013) 116–161

    2013

  12. [12]

    Pesic, H

    M. Pesic, H. Schonenberg, W. M. P. van der Aalst, DECLARE: Full support for loosely-structured processes, in: EDOC, IEEE Computer Society, 2007, pp. 287–300

    2007

  13. [13]

    Alman, I

    A. Alman, I. Cohen, A. Gal, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, Discovering pro- cess framing for AI-augmented BPM systems in a multi-process setting, in: PMAI@ECAI, Vol. 3779 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR- WS.org, 2024, pp. 47–58

    2024

  14. [14]

    Sadiq, W

    S. Sadiq, W. Sadiq, M. E. Orlowska, Pockets of flexibility in workflow specification, in: ER, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2001, pp. 513–526. 35

    2001

  15. [15]

    Pesic, Constraint-based workflow management systems : shifting control to users, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2008)

    M. Pesic, Constraint-based workflow management systems : shifting control to users, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2008)

    2008

  16. [16]

    Alman, C

    A. Alman, C. Di Ciccio, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, H. van der Aa, RuM: Declarative process mining, distilled, in: BPM, Vol. 12875 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2021, pp. 23–29

    2021

  17. [17]

    P. Bär, M. T. Wynn, S. J. J. Leemans, A full picture in conformance checking: Efficiently summarizing all optimal alignments, in: BPM, Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2025, pp. 69–87

    2025

  18. [18]

    URLhttps://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF

    OMG, Business process model and notation (BPMN), Technical report, Object Management Group, version 2.0.2 (2014). URLhttps://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/PDF

    2014

  19. [19]

    Debois, T

    S. Debois, T. T. Hildebrandt, T. Slaats, Hierarchical declarative mod- elling with refinement and sub-processes, in: BPM, Vol. 8659, Springer, 2014, pp. 18–33

    2014

  20. [20]

    T. T. Hildebrandt, R. R. Mukkamala, Declarative event-based workflow as distributed dynamic condition response graphs, in: PLACES, Vol. 69 of EPTCS, 2010, pp. 59–73

    2010

  21. [21]

    URLhttps://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.5/

    OMG, Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR), Technical report, Object Management Group, (accessed 22.01.26) (2019). URLhttps://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.5/

    2019

  22. [22]

    Boley, S

    H. Boley, S. Tabet, G. Wagner, Design rationale for RuleML: A markup language for semantic web rules, in: SWWS, 2001, pp. 381–401

    2001

  23. [23]

    D. L. McGuinness, F. Van Harmelen, OWL web ontology language overview, W3C recommendation(accessed 22.01.26) (2004). URLhttp://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

    2004

  24. [24]

    A. B. Benevides, G. Guizzardi, A model-based tool for conceptual mod- eling and domain ontology engineering in ontouml, in: ICEIS, Vol. 24 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2009, pp. 528–538. 36

    2009

  25. [25]

    Sterling, K

    L. Sterling, K. Taveter, The art of agent-oriented modeling, MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  26. [26]

    Dumas, M

    M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, J. Mendling, H. A. Reijers, Fundamentals of Business Process Management, Second Edition, Springer, 2018

    2018

  27. [27]

    A. J. M. M. Weijters, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Rediscovering workflow models from event-based data using little thumb, Integr. Comput. Aided Eng. 10 (2) (2003) 151–162

    2003

  28. [28]

    S. J. J. Leemans, D. Fahland, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Discovering block-structured process models from event logs containing infrequent behaviour, in: Business Process Management Workshops, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2013, pp. 66–78

    2013

  29. [29]

    Augusto, R

    A. Augusto, R. Conforti, M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, A. Polyvyanyy, Split miner: Automated discovery of accurate and simple business process models from event logs, Knowl. Inf. Syst. 59 (2) (2019) 251–284

    2019

  30. [30]

    Support Syst

    J.DeSmedt, J.DeWeerdt, J.Vanthienen, Fusionminer: Processdiscov- ery for mixed-paradigm models, Decis. Support Syst. 77 (2015) 123–136

    2015

  31. [31]

    8659 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2014, pp

    F.M.Maggi, T.Slaats, H.A.Reijers, Theautomateddiscoveryofhybrid processes, in: BPM, Vol. 8659 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2014, pp. 392–399

    2014

  32. [32]

    W. M. P. van der Aalst, Object-centric process mining: Dealing with divergence and convergence in event data, in: SEFM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2019, pp. 3–25

    2019

  33. [33]

    W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. Berti, Discovering object-centric Petri nets, Fundam. Informaticae 175 (1-4) (2020) 1–40

    2020

  34. [34]

    J. N. van Detten, P. Schumacher, S. J. J. Leemans, Discovering compact, live and identifier-sound object-centric process models, in: ICPM, IEEE, 2024, pp. 113–120

    2024

  35. [35]

    Küsters, W

    A. Küsters, W. M. P. van der Aalst, OC-DECLARE: Discovering object- centric declarative patterns with synchronization, in: BPM, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2025, pp. 162–179. 37

    2025

  36. [36]

    Haisjackl, S

    C. Haisjackl, S. Zugal, P. Soffer, I. Hadar, M. Reichert, J. Pinggera, B. Weber, Making sense of declarative process models: Common strate- gies and typical pitfalls, in: BMMDS/EMMSAD, Lecture Notes in Busi- ness Information Processing, Springer, 2013, pp. 2–17

    2013

  37. [37]

    De Smedt, J

    J. De Smedt, J. De Weerdt, E. Serral, J. Vanthienen, Discovering hidden dependencies in constraint-based declarative process models for improv- ing understandability, Inf. Syst. 74 (Part) (2018) 40–52

    2018

  38. [38]

    C. W. Günther, A. Rozinat, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Activity mining by global trace segmentation, in: Business Process Management Work- shops, LectureNotesinBusinessInformationProcessing, Springer, 2009, pp. 128–139

    2009

  39. [39]

    F. M. Maggi, C. Di Ciccio, C. Di Francescomarino, T. Kala, Parallel algorithms for the automated discovery of declarative process models, Inf. Syst. 74 (Part) (2018) 136–152

    2018

  40. [40]

    C. D. Ciccio, M. Mecella, On the discovery of declarative control flows for artful processes, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 5 (4) (2015) 24:1– 24:37

    2015

  41. [41]

    Westergaard, Better algorithms for analyzing and enacting declar- ative workflow languages using LTL, in: BPM, Vol

    M. Westergaard, Better algorithms for analyzing and enacting declar- ative workflow languages using LTL, in: BPM, Vol. 6896 of LNCS, Springer, 2011, pp. 83–98

    2011

  42. [42]

    M. B. Dwyer, G. S. Avrunin, J. C. Corbett, Patterns in property speci- fications for finite-state verification, in: ICSE, ACM, 1999, pp. 411–420

    1999

  43. [43]

    Montali, Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Inter- action Models - A Logic-Based Approach, Vol

    M. Montali, Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Inter- action Models - A Logic-Based Approach, Vol. 56 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2010

    2010

  44. [44]

    W. M. P. van der Aalst, Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes, Springer, 2011

    2011

  45. [45]

    Alman, F

    A. Alman, F. M. Maggi, M. Montali, A. Rivkin, Generating event logs from hybrid process models, in: Business Process Management Work- shops, Vol. 492 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2023, pp. 289–301. 38

    2023

  46. [46]

    Kupferman, M

    O. Kupferman, M. Y. Vardi, Vacuity detection in temporal model check- ing, Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 4 (2) (2003) 224–233

    2003

  47. [47]

    F. M. Maggi, R. P. J. C. Bose, W. M. P. van der Aalst, A knowledge- based integrated approach for discovering and repairing declare maps, in: CAiSE, Vol. 7908 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2013, pp. 433–448

    2013

  48. [48]

    M. L. Bernardi, A. Casciani, M. Cimitile, A. Marrella, A preliminary study on business process-aware large language models, in: Ital-IA, Vol. 3762 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2024, pp. 441– 446

    2024

  49. [49]

    Casciani, Conversational AI for framed autonomy in AI-augmented business process management, in: BPM (Demos / Resources Forum), Vol

    A. Casciani, Conversational AI for framed autonomy in AI-augmented business process management, in: BPM (Demos / Resources Forum), Vol. 3758 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2024, pp. 53–60

    2024

  50. [50]

    Casciani, Integrating LLMs and symbolic reasoning for framed auton- omy in AI-augmented business process management, in: CAiSE Forum, Vol

    A. Casciani, Integrating LLMs and symbolic reasoning for framed auton- omy in AI-augmented business process management, in: CAiSE Forum, Vol. 557 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2025, pp. 277–285

    2025

  51. [51]

    Casciani, M

    A. Casciani, M. L. Bernardi, M. Cimitile, A. Marrella, Conversational systems for AI-augmented business process management, in: RCIS (1), Vol. 513 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2024, pp. 183–200

    2024

  52. [52]

    Conversational Process Model Redesign

    N. Klievtsova, T. Kampik, J. Mangler, S. Rinderle-Ma, Conversational process model redesign, CoRR abs/2505.05453 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Fettke, F

    P. Fettke, F. Fournier, L. Limonad, A. Metzger, S. Rinderle-Ma, B. We- ber, XABPs: Towards explainable autonomous business processes, CoRR abs/2507.23269 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Limonad, F

    L. Limonad, F. Fournier, H. Mulian, G. Manias, S. Borotis, D. Kyrkou, Selecting the right LLM for eGov explanations, CoRR abs/2504.21032 (2025). 39

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Fournier, L

    F. Fournier, L. Limonad, I. Skarbovsky, Towards a benchmark for causal business process reasoning with LLMs, in: Business Process Manage- ment Workshops, Vol. 534 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2024, pp. 233–246

    2024

  56. [56]

    M. L. Bernardi, A. Casciani, M. Cimitile, A. Marrella, Conversing with business process-aware large language models: the BPLLM framework, J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 62 (6) (2024) 1607–1629

    2024

  57. [57]

    A. Buss, W. Kratsch, S. J. Schmid, H. Wang, ProcessLLM: A large lan- guage model specialized in the interpretation, analysis, and optimization ofbusinessprocesses, in: BusinessProcessManagementWorkshops, Vol. 534 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2024, pp. 221–232

    2024

  58. [58]

    Kampik, C

    T. Kampik, C. Warmuth, A. Rebmann, R. Agam, L. N. P. Egger, A. Gerber, J. Hoffart, J. Kolk, P. Herzig, G. Decker, H. van der Aa, A. Polyvyanyy, S. Rinderle-Ma, I. Weber, M. Weidlich, Large process models: A vision for business process management in the age of gener- ative AI, Künstliche Intell. 39 (2) (2025) 81–95

    2025

  59. [59]

    Chapela-Campa, M

    D. Chapela-Campa, M. Dumas, From process mining to augmented pro- cess execution, Softw. Syst. Model. 22 (6) (2023) 1977–1986

    2023

  60. [60]

    Elyasaf, A

    A. Elyasaf, A. Metzger, S. Sardina, A. Senderovich, E. S. Asensio, N. Tax, Toward self-modifying autonomous business process systems, in: PMAI, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2025

    2025

  61. [61]

    Acitelli, S

    G. Acitelli, S. Agostinelli, A. Casciani, A. Marrella, An end-to-end ex- ecution of a logistic process in an AI-augmented business process man- agement system, in: PMAI@ECAI, Vol. 3779 of CEUR Workshop Pro- ceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2024, pp. 5–10

    2024

  62. [62]

    Agentic Business Process Management: A Research Manifesto

    D. Calvanese, A. Casciani, G. D. Giacomo, M. Dumas, F. Fournier, T. Kampik, E. L. Malfa, L. Limonad, A. Marrella, A. Metzger, M. Mon- tali, D. Amyot, P. Fettke, A. Polyvyanyy, S. Rinderle-Ma, S. Sardiña, N. Tax, B. Weber, Agentic business process management: A research manifesto (2026). arXiv:2603.18916. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Montali, AI for declarative processes: Representation, mining, syn- thesis, in: ECAI, Vol

    M. Montali, AI for declarative processes: Representation, mining, syn- thesis, in: ECAI, Vol. 392 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Ap- plications, IOS Press, 2024, pp. 17–24

    2024

  64. [64]

    S. W. Sadiq, M. E. Orlowska, W. Sadiq, Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows, Inf. Syst. 30 (5) (2005) 349– 378

    2005

  65. [65]

    A. H. M. ter Hofstede, W. M. P. van der Aalst, M. Adams, N. Russell (Eds.), Modern Business Process Automation - YAWL and its Support Environment, Springer, 2010

    2010

  66. [66]

    Slaats, D

    T. Slaats, D. M. M. Schunselaar, F. M. Maggi, H. A. Reijers, The se- mantics of hybrid process models, in: OTM Conferences, Vol. 10033, 2016, pp. 531–551

    2016

  67. [67]

    D. M. M. Schunselaar, T. Slaats, F. M. Maggi, H. A. Reijers, W. M. P. vanderAalst, Mining hybrid business process models: A quest for better precision, in: BIS, Vol. 320 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2018, pp. 190–205

    2018

  68. [68]

    S. J. J. Leemans, D. Fahland, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Discovering block- structured process models from event logs - A constructive approach, in: Petri Nets, Vol. 7927 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2013, pp. 311–329

    2013

  69. [69]

    De Smedt, J

    J. De Smedt, J. De Weerdt, J. Vanthienen, G. Poels, Mixed-paradigm process modeling with intertwined state spaces, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 58 (1) (2016) 19–29

    2016

  70. [70]

    B. F. van Dongen, J. De Smedt, C. Di Ciccio, J. Mendling, Conformance checking of mixed-paradigm process models, Inf. Syst. 102 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    N. Tax, N. Sidorova, R. Haakma, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Mining local process models, J. Innov. Digit. Ecosyst. 3 (2) (2016) 183–196

    2016

  72. [72]

    Brunings, D

    M. Brunings, D. Fahland, B. F. van Dongen, Defining meaningful local process models, Trans. Petri Nets Other Model. Concurr. 16 (2022) 24– 48. 41

    2022

  73. [73]

    Carmona, Projection approaches to process mining using region-based techniques, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 24 (2012) 218–246

    J. Carmona, Projection approaches to process mining using region-based techniques, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 24 (2012) 218–246

    2012

  74. [74]

    M. Solé, J. Carmona, Region-based foldings in process discovery, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 25 (1) (2011) 192– 205

    2011

  75. [75]

    R. H. Bemthuis, M. Koot, M. R. K. Mes, F. A. Bukhsh, M. Iacob, N. Meratnia, An agent-based process mining architecture for emergent behavior analysis, in: EDOC Workshops, IEEE, 2019, pp. 54–64

    2019

  76. [76]

    W. M. P. van der Aalst, Object-centric process mining: Unraveling the fabric of real processes, Mathematics 11 (12) (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    A. K. F. Christfort, A. Rivkin, D. Fahland, T. T. Hildebrandt, T. Slaats, Discovery of object-centric declarative models, in: ICPM, IEEE, 2024, pp. 121–128

    2024

  78. [78]

    Fahland, Process mining over multiple behavioral dimensions with event knowledge graphs, in: Process Mining Handbook, Vol

    D. Fahland, Process mining over multiple behavioral dimensions with event knowledge graphs, in: Process Mining Handbook, Vol. 448 of Lec- ture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, 2022, pp. 274– 319

    2022

  79. [79]

    De Smedt, S

    J. De Smedt, S. vanden Broucke, J. Weerdt, J. Vanthienen, A full R/I- net construct lexicon for declare constraints, Tech. rep., KU Leuven (02 2015)

    2015

  80. [80]

    A. K. A. De Medeiros, Genetic process mining, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven (2006). 42

    2006