## 5 Result and Discussion
### Real-Life Experiments
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 4**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 5**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** \\ \hline Exhaustive & 0.915 & 0.951 & **0.919** & 0.980 & 0.962 & **0.978** & 0.948 & 0.894 & **0.943** & 0.986 & 0.978 & **0.985** & 0.949 & 0.975 & **0.952** \\ Genetic & 0.911 & 0.951 & **0.915** & 0.980 & 0.962 & **0.978** & 0.948 & 0.894 & **0.943** & 0.986 & 0.978 & **0.985** & 0.949 & 0.975 & **0.952** \\ Greedy & 0.911 & 0.951 & **0.915** & 0.970 & 0.970 & 0.970 & 0.938 & 0.911 & 0.935 & 0.985 & 0.899 & 0.976 & 0.947 & 0.976 & 0.950 \\ ETM & 0.913 & 0.921 & 0.914 & 0.980 & 0.962 & **0.978** & 0.948 & 0.894 & **0.943** & 0.986 & 0.978 & **0.985** & 0.949 & 0.975 & **0.952** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} f = fitness, p = precision, fpc = conformance.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results for CPT 4-C and the event logs corresponding to the five process variants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 3**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 4**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Variant 5**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** & **f** & **p** & **fpc** \\ \hline Exhaustive & 0.941 & 0.745 & 0.921 & 0.962 & 0.768 & 0.943 & 0.936 & 0.646 & **0.907** & 0.985 & 0.751 & 0.962 & 0.950 & 0.797 & 0.935 \\ Genetic & 0.941 & 0.745 & 0.921 & 0.962 & 0.768 & 0.943 & 0.936 & 0.646 & **0.907** & 0.985 & 0.751 and genetic strategies are the same. On the other hand, the greedy strategy obtained the best results in four of the five variants, except on Variant 4. When the CPTs have greater flexibility than the CPT used by ETM (CPTs based on ETM Approach 4, CPT 4-B and CPT 4-C, shown in Figure 15b,c, respectively), the search space is larger, so eventually, there could be a better configuration. This actually occurs in Variant 1 in Table 5 and Variant 1 and Variant 3 in Table 6. Moreover, in these highlighted cases, all three strategies are able to find better configurations. However, in general, the same results were obtained as those obtained by the ETM, as shown for the other variants in Tables 5 and 6. When the CPTs have a different flexibility than the CPT used by ETM (CPTs based on ETM Approach 3, CPT 3-A and CPT 3-B, shown in Figure 14a,b, respectively), the search spaces are not directly comparable. Therefore, in some cases, the strategies obtain better results; in other cases, the ETM obtains better results, and in others, the results are equivalent, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. In this experimental setting, the CPTs are small and the event logs do not contain many variants; therefore, when the CPTs do not contain many configurable nodes, the experiments run very fast for all strategies. However, due to the exponential nature of the search space, when the number of configurable nodes grows, the exhaustive strategy may take a long time, such as in CPT 4-C, in which the exhaustive strategy took between 37 min (for Variant 3) and almost three hours (for Variant 5).