A Divide-and-Conquer Approach for Modeling Arrival Times in Business Process Simulation

Business Process Simulation (BPS) is a critical tool for analyzing and improving organizational processes by estimating the impact of process changes. A key component of BPS is the case-arrival model, which determines the pattern of new case entries into a process. Although accurate case-arrival modeling is essential for reliable simulations, as it influences waiting and overall cycle times, existing approaches often rely on oversimplified static distributions of inter-arrival times. These approaches fail to capture the dynamic and temporal complexities inherent in organizational environments, leading to less accurate and reliable outcomes. To address this limitation, we propose Auto Time Kernel Density Estimation (AT-KDE), a divide-and-conquer approach that models arrival times of processes by incorporating global dynamics, day-of-week variations, and intraday distributional changes, ensuring both precision and scalability. Experiments conducted across 20 diverse processes demonstrate that AT-KDE is far more accurate and robust than existing approaches while maintaining sensible execution time efficiency.

Rethinking BPS: A Utility-Based Evaluation Framework

Business process simulation (BPS) is a key tool for analyzing and optimizing organizational workflows, supporting decision-making by estimating the impact of process changes. The reliability of such estimates depends on the ability of a BPS model to accurately mimic the process under analysis, making rigorous accuracy evaluation essential. However, the state-of-the-art approach to evaluating BPS models has two key limitations. First, it treats simulation as a forecasting problem, testing whether models can predict unseen future events. This fails to assess how well a model captures the as-is process, particularly when process behavior changes from train to test period. Thus, it becomes difficult to determine whether poor results stem from an inaccurate model or the inherent complexity of the data, such as unpredictable drift. Second, the evaluation approach strongly relies on Earth Mover's Distance-based metrics, which can obscure temporal patterns and thus yield misleading conclusions about simulation quality. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework that evaluates simulation quality based on its ability to generate representative process behavior. Instead of comparing simulated logs to future real-world executions, we evaluate whether predictive process monitoring models trained on simulated data perform comparably to those trained on real data for downstream analysis tasks. Empirical results show that our framework not only helps identify sources of discrepancies but also distinguishes between model accuracy and data complexity, offering a more meaningful way to assess BPS quality.