<!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>Explainable Predictive Monitoring of Temporal Measures of Business Processes</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Ilya Verenich</string-name>
          <email>ilya.verenich@unimelb.edu.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Queensland University of Technology</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Brisbane</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AU">Australia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>University of Melbourne</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Melbourne</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AU">Australia</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Business Process Mining Explainable Arti cial Intelligence Predictive Monitoring Transparent Models Machine Learning Deep Learning Flow Analysis</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Introduction
Business process monitoring is concerned with the analysis of events produced
during the execution of a business process in order to assess the ful llment
of compliance requirements and performance objectives [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Process monitoring
can take place o ine, on a tactical level via periodically generated reports,
or online, on an operational level via dashboards displaying the performance
of ongoing process instances (cases) in terms of performance indicators such
as cycle time, resource utilization, and defect rate. These traditional process
monitoring techniques allow analysts and managers to identify deviating patterns
in the performance of a process. However, these techniques are in fact reactive,
in the sense that they detect process issues only once they have happened, and
hence they do not allow users to act in a preventive manner.
      </p>
      <p>Advances in machine learning combined with the availability of process
execution data have led to the emergence of predictive process monitoring
techniques. Predictive business process monitoring refers to a family of online process
monitoring techniques that seek to predict the future state or properties of
ongoing (incomplete) cases, stored in an event stream. These predictions are based
on models extracted from historical (complete) cases recorded in event logs.</p>
      <p>
        In the past years, numerous approaches have been proposed to address
typical prediction targets, such as compliance violations [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref8">5,8</xref>
        ], the next activity or
the remaining sequence of activities of a case [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11 ref3">3,11</xref>
        ], or quantitative process
performance indicators such as the remaining cycle time of a case [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref9">1,9</xref>
        ]. These
predictions can be used to alert process workers to problematic cases or to
support resource allocation decisions. For example, if the cycle time of a case is
expected to exceed a given threshold stipulated by a service-level agreement
(e.g., 10 working days), this prediction can be used to inform the customer of
the expected delay in advance or to allocate a dedicated resource to this case in
order to put it back on track towards timely completion.
As mentioned earlier, a wide range of predictive process monitoring approaches
have been proposed in related work. However, there is no uni ed approach to
evaluate existing business process monitoring methods, as di erent authors have
used di erent datasets, experimental settings, evaluation measures, and baselines
to assess their proposed methods. As such, there is a wide range of disparate
methods that have not been compared to each other in a uniform setting.
      </p>
      <p>
        To address this gap, this thesis starts with a systematic literature review of
methods for predictive monitoring of temporal measures of business processes.
The review was conducted using a range of search keywords and exclusion
criteria, and retrieved 25 relevant studies containing unique contribution [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. These
studies were surveyed along several classi cation dimensions, such as the type
of input data, awareness of the underlying business process, family of the
algorithm employed, evaluation scenario and availability of the implementation. As
a result, a taxonomy of predictive monitoring methods was proposed based on
three main aspects: (i) the type of input data required; (ii) the process-awareness
of the methods; (iii) and the algorithms employed to derive a predictive model
from the data. It was found that most studies employ discriminative machine
learning algorithms to train predictive models, apply them at runtime.
      </p>
      <p>
        A key gap in the existing body of methods, identi ed through the literature
review, is the lack of support for explainability in existing approaches. Indeed,
a major drawback of black-box prediction methods in practical deployments is
that users have di culties trusting the prediction when the reasoning behind the
prediction is unclear [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. In real-life applications, users do not only need to get
predictions, but they also need to be able to act upon these predictions. In turn,
to do so, they need to understand the rationale for these predictions. The decision
on how to respond to a prediction is largely driven by the user's interpretation of
the predictive model's decision logic. If this interpretation matches the intuition
of a human decision maker, it might enhance trust in the model [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        A recent survey by Guidotti et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] provides a comprehensive review of
methods for explaining black box models, as well as presents a taxonomy of
explainability methods according to the type of problem faced.
      </p>
      <p>
        The rst group of research proposals focus on explaining how the model
makes certain predictions. To this end, reverse engineering is typically exploited
to understand the black box model. These approaches are also known as
posthoc explainability, and they provide interpretations based on natural language
explanations, visualizations or by examples. Thus, we can separate two processes
{ decision making (prediction) and decision explaining. Post-hoc interpretations
are also most suitable to provide intuition for complex non-transparent models,
such as deep neural networks [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ]. For example, Evermann et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] made an
investigation into understanding the behavior of deep neural networks, using
network hallucinations and steady-state analysis.
      </p>
      <p>
        Rather than providing post-hoc explanations for a black-box classi er, the
second group of proposals focus on directly designing a transparent classi er
that solves the same classi cation problem. This principle, known as
\Transparent Box Design", is used in this thesis. Speci cally, our approach is grounded
in the eld of transparent box design for local interpretability, i.e. we provide
explanations for individual predictions, rather than globally for all predictions.
To this end, we apply the idea of decompositional explanation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6 ref7">6,7</xref>
        ] to enhance
understanding of a prediction by decomposing it into its elementary components.
      </p>
      <p>In one embodiment of this general idea, we used deep learning models, speci
cally RNNs and LSTMs, that had been shown to achieve higher levels of accuracy
in predictive monitoring, owing to their ability to learn relevant features from
trace pre xes automatically. In order to make these models explainable, we used
an instance of multi-task learning where several related predictive monitoring
tasks were integrated into a single system which is trained jointly, as a way to
decompose the predictions. Namely, our technique provides a prediction of the
temporal measure in terms of the predicted temporal measures of each of the
activities in the most likely remaining path of the current trace.</p>
      <p>
        In a second embodiment, we propose an explainable predictive process
monitoring method by automatically discovering a BPMN process model from the
event log [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. An ongoing case is then replayed on this process model and for each
activity and each decision gateway reachable from the current execution state,
we estimate their performance measure and branching probabilities respectively,
using pre-trained regressors and classi ers. These estimations are then
aggregated at the level of a process instance via ow analysis techniques, to produce
a nal prediction.
      </p>
      <p>We conducted a comparative evaluation of two proposed explainable
approaches with each other and with various state-of-the-art baselines, using a
uni ed experimental set-up and 17 real-life event logs originating from di erent
business domains. The results of the evaluation highlighted the trade-o between
the prediction accuracy and explainability of predictions in the context of
predictive monitoring of temporal measures. The most accurate predictions were
typically obtained via black-box models. Speci cally, in 13 out of 17 datasets,
LSTM-based models trained in a single-task learning setting achieve the best
accuracy. At the same time, explainable models are generally less accurate. This
trade-o should be considered by business process analysts when choosing a
suitable prediction method. Another observation yielded by our evaluation is the
correlation between structural characteristics of event logs and the performance
of various pre x bucketing and encoding combinations. As such, the former is
also an important factor when selecting a prediction method.</p>
      <p>The research contributions of the thesis have been consolidated into an
opensource toolset for predictive business process monitoring, namely Nirdizati1. It
is a Web-based predictive business process monitoring engine that can be used
to train predictive models using the methods described in this thesis, as well
as third-party methods, and then to make predictions at runtime, for ongoing
process instances. Currently, the tool is able to predict remaining time of process
instances, their binary outcome, the next activity to be executed as well as
various static case attributes. Predictions can be presented visually in a dashboard
or exported for periodic reporting.</p>
      <p>Nirdizati has been validated in collaboration with industry partners,
providing important feedback as to how this technology is likely to be used in an
enterprise setting. One important observation noted in our validation is that
the designed predictive monitoring platform shall be used in conjunction with
other business intelligence (BI) or monitoring systems. To this end, the platform
should o er an API to allow integration with other tools. This task is beyond the
scope of the thesis; however, we provide functionality to export the predictions
in a CSV le, for importing into third-party BI tools. In this way, analysts will
be able to build customized dashboards to highlight the required measures.</p>
      <p>Another important lesson learned by testing Nirdizati is that there exist
several use cases for predictive process monitoring in practice. One of them is
the real-time dashboard use case where users can see the current predictions
updated continuously. This is especially relevant for very dynamic processes
with high throughput. For slower processes, the regular reports use case may be
su cient where a user wants to get reports on a regular basis with the current set
of predictions. These predictions are possibly ltered so that the report focuses
1 http://nirdizati.org
on the cases that are most likely to become deviant and therefore need attention.
Finally, the alarm use case may be helpful, where users only want to know about
a prediction when a case is likely to be deviant.</p>
      <p>
        The last but not least contribution of the thesis is the application of the
proposed explainable predictive monitoring methods to improve the e ciency of
business processes [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. Speci cally, we showed how reordering certain activities
at runtime, based on the predicted branching probabilities and cycle times of
individual activities determined via predictive models, can reduce the unnecessary
process work (overprocessing waste), and therefore, the overall process cost.
      </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>van der Aalst</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.M.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schonenberg</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Song</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Time prediction based on process mining</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems</source>
          <volume>36</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ),
          <volume>450</volume>
          {
          <fpage>475</fpage>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <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>Mendling</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Reijers</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>H.A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Fundamentals of Business Process Management</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Second Edition</source>
          . Springer (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Evermann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rehse</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fettke</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Predicting process behaviour using deep learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Decision Support Systems</source>
          <volume>100</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>129</fpage>
          {
          <fpage>140</fpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guidotti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Monreale</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ruggieri</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Turini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giannotti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pedreschi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A survey of methods for explaining black box models</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Comput. Surv</source>
          .
          <volume>51</volume>
          (
          <issue>5</issue>
          ),
          <volume>93</volume>
          :1{
          <fpage>93</fpage>
          :
          <fpage>42</fpage>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leontjeva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Conforti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Di</given-names>
            <surname>Francescomarino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>F.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Complex symbolic sequence encodings for predictive monitoring of business processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Business Process Management Conference, Proceedings</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>297</volume>
          {
          <issue>313</issue>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Levy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition</article-title>
          . Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lipton</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The mythos of model interpretability</article-title>
          .
          <source>Commun. ACM</source>
          <volume>61</volume>
          (
          <issue>10</issue>
          ),
          <volume>36</volume>
          {
          <fpage>43</fpage>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maggi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Di Francescomarino</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ghidini</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Predictive monitoring of business processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CAiSE 2014. Proceedings</source>
          . pp.
          <volume>457</volume>
          {
          <issue>472</issue>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rogge-Solti</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weske</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Prediction of business process durations using nonmarkovian stochastic petri nets</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information Systems</source>
          <volume>54</volume>
          , 1{
          <fpage>14</fpage>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schneider</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Handali</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , vom Brocke, J.:
          <article-title>Increasing trust in (big) data analytics</article-title>
          . In: CAiSE 2018 International Workshops. pp.
          <volume>70</volume>
          {
          <issue>84</issue>
          (
          <year>2018</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tax</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verenich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>La</given-names>
            <surname>Rosa</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Dumas</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Predictive business process monitoring with LSTM neural networks</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CAiSE</source>
          <year>2017</year>
          , Proceedings. pp.
          <volume>477</volume>
          {
          <issue>492</issue>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verenich</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>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Di Francescomarino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Minimizing overprocessing waste in business processes via predictive activity ordering</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: CAiSE</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          , Proceedings. pp.
          <volume>186</volume>
          {
          <issue>202</issue>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verenich</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>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Teinemaa</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>I.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Survey and crossbenchmark comparison of remaining time prediction methods in business process monitoring</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (ACM TIST)</source>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ), forthcoming
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Verenich</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>Nguyen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <article-title>Predicting process performance: A white-box approach based on process models</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Software: Evolution and Process</source>
          <volume>31</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ),
          <year>e2170</year>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>