<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Predictive and Prescriptive Monitoring of Business Process Outcomes</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Irene Teinemaa Supervisors: Marlon Dumas</string-name>
          <email>irene.teinemaa@ut.ee</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Fabrizio Maria Maggi</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University of Tartu</institution>
          ,
          <country country="EE">Estonia</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This thesis covers a wide range of aspects related to predictive business process monitoring with a focus on process outcomes: from model training and evaluation to the practical application of prediction models. The rst contribution of the thesis is a taxonomy and a comparative experimental evaluation of existing predictive monitoring methods. Secondly, the thesis proposes a framework that exploits textual data payload in addition to the commonly used numeric and categorical data. Thirdly, a novel quality dimension of temporal prediction stability and a metric for measuring it are introduced. Lastly, the thesis proposes a framework for generating alarms based on predictive models, in order to optimize the net cost of negative outcomes in a business process.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Predictive Business Process Monitoring Machine Learning Business Process Management</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Recent years have witnessed a growing adoption of machine learning techniques
for business improvement across various elds. Among other emerging
applications, organizations are exploiting opportunities to improve the performance of
their business processes by using predictive models for runtime monitoring. Such
predictive process monitoring techniques take an event log (a set of completed
business process execution traces) as input and use machine learning techniques
to train predictive models. At runtime, these techniques predict either the next
event, the remaining time until the end, or the nal outcome of an ongoing case,
given its incomplete execution trace consisting of the events performed up to the
present moment in the given case. In particular, a family of techniques called
outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring focuses on predicting whether
a case will end with a desired or an undesired outcome. An outcome-oriented
predictive process monitoring system is expected to make accurate predictions
in the early execution stages, i.e. given as few events as possible. The user of the
system can use the predictions to decide whether or not to intervene, with the
purpose of preventing an undesired outcome or mitigating its negative e ects.
Prescriptive process monitoring systems go beyond purely predictive ones, by not
only generating predictions but also advising the user if and how to intervene in
a running case in order to optimize a given utility function.</p>
      <p>In this context, the thesis addresses the question of \How to train, evaluate,
and use machine learning models in the context of outcome-oriented predictive
and prescriptive business process monitoring?". The following sections describe
the problems tackled in the thesis and the respective contributions in more
details.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Problem statement</title>
      <p>The task of training predictive models for predictive business process monitoring
has been tackled by several research teams in the past years, resulting in a rich
eld of outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring methods. However, these
techniques have been developed largely in isolation from each other, resulting in a
situation with no clear overview of how the di erent techniques compare to each
other and leaving several unaddressed gaps in di erent steps in the work ow,
i.e. in training, evaluating, and using of the predictive models. The following
paragraphs describe the speci c problems tackled in this thesis.
Lack of a clear framework for predictive monitoring techniques Even though
existing predictive monitoring methods serve a common goal, di erent authors
have used di erent datasets, experimental settings, evaluation measures, and
baselines, resulting in a situation with no clear overview of how the di erent
techniques compare to each other methodologically and experimentally.
Training predictive models on only structured data Existing approaches assume
that the event records carry only structured data payload, i.e. the attributes are
assumed to be either of numeric or categorical type. In practice, not all data
generated during the execution of a process is structured. For instance, in an
order-to-cash process the customer may include a free-text description of special
requests. Later, a customer service representative may attach to the case the
text of an email exchanged with the customer regarding delivery details, or add
a comment to the purchase order following a conversation with the customer.
Comments like these ones are even more common in application-to-approval,
issue-to-resolution, and claim-to-settlement processes, where the execution of
the process involves many unstructured interactions with the customer.
Evaluating the predictive models in terms of accuracy and earliness
Traditionally, methods for outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring aim to make
predictions as accurately and as early (i.e. given only a few event records) as
possible. Oftentimes, accuracy is evaluated separately for pre xes of di erent
lengths, allowing one to estimate the expected accuracy of a given prediction,
knowing the number of events observed so far. Based on this information, the
process worker could decide whether to make a decision now or to postpone until
observing another event in the hope of getting a more accurate prediction.
However, this evaluation scheme exploits only a limited amount of information that
is available at a given time. In particular, at each evaluation point the process
worker is expected to decide based on only the latest prediction available for a
given case, neglecting the sequential nature of predictive monitoring. Namely, in
a setting where the predictive model is applied to a running case successively
(after each observed event), a sequence of predictions is produced. Therefore,
the process worker could make a more informed decision by using not only the
latest prediction, but also the predictions made at earlier stages of the given
case. In this context, it becomes relevant to evaluate also the stability of the
predictions, in order to give the process workers some estimation of how reliable
a given prediction is.</p>
      <p>Generating predictions without advice on using them While existing techniques
aim to predict, after each event of a case, the probability that the case will end
up in an undesired outcome, they do not suggest nor prescribe when and how
process workers should intervene in order to decrease the probability of undesired
outcomes. Indeed, existing proposals implicitly assume that the users (analysts,
managers, or process workers) are able to manually choose the most suitable
accuracy or con dence threshold for their scenario and act upon predictions
that reach this threshold. In practice, the optimal threshold depends on many
factors, such as the di erent costs involved in the execution of the process, as
well as the scale of the probability scores that the predictive model produces,
making it di cult to manually come up with a suitable threshold.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Contributions</title>
      <p>In order to address the four problems outlined in the previous section, the
thesis makes four contributions to the eld of predictive and prescriptive process
monitoring. The contributions are further described below.</p>
      <p>Contribution 1: Comparing and evaluating existing predictive process monitoring
methods To compare the techniques conceptually, we propose a taxonomy of
existing methods for training predictive models in the context of outcome-oriented
predictive process monitoring. Speci cally, we nd that existing proposals di er
in two main aspects: 1) how the pre xes are divided into buckets (trace
bucketing) and 2) how the data related to events in a pre x are transformed into
xed-length feature vectors (sequence encoding).</p>
      <p>Based on these observations, we identify 11 representative methods in the
eld. We then design a benchmark to empirically compare these techniques in a
common setting. The benchmark is performed on the 11 identi ed techniques,
executed using a uni ed experimental set-up and 24 predictive monitoring tasks
constructed from 9 real-life event logs. To ensure a fair evaluation, all the selected
techniques were implemented as a publicly available consolidated framework,
which is designed to incorporate additional datasets and methods. The results
of the benchmark show that the most reliable and accurate results (in terms of
AUC) are obtained using a lossy (aggregation) encoding of the sequence, e.g. the
frequencies of performed activites rather than the ordered activities. One of the
main bene ts of this encoding is that it enables to represent all pre x traces,
regardless of their length, in the same number of features. This way, a single
classi er can be trained over all of the pre x traces, allowing the classi er to
derive meaningful patterns by itself. These results put into question a previous
hypothesis that training separate classi ers for each pre x length using a lossless
feature encoding of a trace is superior to training a single classi er with a lossy
encoding.</p>
      <p>Contribution 2: Training predictive models with structured and unstructured data
We propose a framework that combines text mining techniques to extract
features from textual payload, with existing predictive process monitoring
techniques for structured data. We perform an experimental evaluation over di
erent combinations of text mining, trace bucketing, sequence encoding, and
classi cation techniques on three real-life datasets containing both structured and
unstructured data. The evaluation con rms the importance of including textual
data when training predictive models and shows that a simple bag-of-ngrams
encoding often outperforms other text modeling techniques.</p>
      <p>Contribution 3: Evaluating the temporal stability of predictive models We
introduce the notion of temporal stability of predictions and propose a metric for
measuring it. Temporal stability characterizes how much the prediction scores
obtained for successive pre xes of the same trace di er from each other. For a
temporally stable classi er, such successive prediction scores are similar to each
other, resulting in a smooth time series, while in case of an unstable classi er,
the resulting time series is volatile. We evaluate the temporal stability of seven
existing predictive process monitoring methods. The experiments conducted on
27 datasets show that the highest temporal stability is achieved by LSTM neural
networks, followed by a single classi er approach with XGBoost. Furthermore,
we apply a sequential smoothing technique to the series of predictions made for
a given case, in order to decrease the volatility of the predictions and produce
more stable estimates as compared to using only the latest available predictions.
The results indicate that smoothing is an e ective approach to adjusting the
predictions in situations where temporal stability is important at the expense
of achieving slightly smaller accuracy. In some cases, smoothing even increases
both the temporal stability and the accuracy at the same time.</p>
      <p>Contribution 4: Using predictions for prescriptive process monitoring We
propose a framework that extends predictive process monitoring techniques with
an alarm-generating mechanism that advises the process workers if it is time to
act upon the prediction. The proposed framework is armed with a
parameterized cost model that captures, among others, the tradeo between the cost of
an intervention and the cost of an undesired outcome. Based on this cost model
and the prediction produced by a predictive model, the alarming mechanism
decides whether to raise an alarm or not. If an alarm is raised, a process worker
is expected to intervene in the running case with the goal of mitigating (or
altogether preventing) an undesired outcome. We propose and empirically evaluate
an approach to tune the generation of alarms to minimize the expected cost for
a given dataset and set of parameters. An empirical evaluation on 28 real-life
logs shows the bene ts of applying this optimization versus a baseline where a
xed (manually set) prediction score threshold is used to generate alarms, as
considered in previous work in the eld.</p>
      <p>
        The above contributions have been previously documented in publications [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2 ref3 ref4">1,
3, 2, 4</xref>
        ]. Figure 1 illustrates the mapping of the contributions, the chapters of the
thesis, and the publications to the steps involved in predictive and prescriptive
monitoring, i.e. training, evaluating, and using of the predictive models. In order
to support the reproducibility of the research results, the implementations of all
the experiments performed in this thesis are made available in code repositories.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teinemaa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>La</given-names>
            <surname>Rosa</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>F.M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring: Review and benchmark</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 13(2)</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teinemaa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leontjeva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Temporal stability in predictive process monitoring</article-title>
          .
          <source>Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery</source>
          <volume>32</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ),
          <volume>1306</volume>
          {
          <fpage>1338</fpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teinemaa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Di</given-names>
            <surname>Francescomarino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Predictive business process monitoring with structured and unstructured data</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: International Conference on Business Process Management</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>401</volume>
          {
          <fpage>417</fpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Teinemaa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tax</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>de Leoni</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Alarm-based prescriptive process monitoring</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: International Conference on Business Process Management</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>91</volume>
          {
          <fpage>107</fpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>