Automata Learning Versus Process Mining: The Case for User Journeys

0Citations
Citations of this article
3Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

With the servitization of business, understanding how users experience services becomes a crucial success factor for companies. Therefore, there is a need to include feedback from user experiences in the software engineering process. Behavioral models of user journeys, describing how users experience their interaction with a service, can provide insights and potentially improve services. In this paper, we investigate techniques that allow the automatic generation of behavioral models from user interactions with a service, recorded in an event log. We first compare two established techniques that generate behavioral models from a given event log: automata learning and process mining. Afterward, we present a novel, hybrid method that combines both automata learning and process mining methods to overcome their limitations. For the existing techniques, we present methods to learn models of user journeys and evaluate the accuracy of the resulting models. We then compare these techniques with our novel method for the automatic extraction of user journey models from the event logs of digital services. We assess the practical applicability of all techniques by evaluating real-world applications. Our results show that process mining techniques rely on expert knowledge, while automata learning techniques depend on the distribution of events in the given event log. We further show that the proposed hybrid technique combines the strengths of both process mining and automata learning, automatically selecting the best method and parameter settings for a given event log to learn very accurate models.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kobialka, P., Pferscher, A., Aichernig, B. K., Johnsen, E. B., & Tarifa, S. L. T. (2026). Automata Learning Versus Process Mining: The Case for User Journeys. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 52(6), 1858–1874. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2026.3679253

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free