mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Creating Unbiased Public Benchmark Datasets with Data Leakage Prevention for Predictive Process Monitoring

arXiv 2107.01905 ↗First posted 5 Jul 2021cs.AIcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Advances in AI, and especially machine learning, are increasingly drawing research interest and efforts towards predictive process monitoring, the subfield of process mining (PM) that concerns predicting next events, process outcomes and remaining execution times. Unfortunately, researchers use a variety of datasets and ways to split them into training and test sets. The documentation of these preprocessing steps is not always complete. Consequently, research results are hard or even impossible to reproduce and to compare between papers. At times, the use of non-public domain knowledge further hampers the fair competition of ideas. Often the training and test sets are not completely separated, a data leakage problem particular to predictive process monitoring. Moreover, test sets usually suffer from bias in terms of both the mix of case durations and the number of running cases. These obstacles pose a challenge to the field's progress. The contribution of this paper is to identify and demonstrate the importance of these obstacles and to propose preprocessing steps to arrive at unbiased benchmark datasets in a principled way, thus creating representative test sets without data leakage with the aim of levelling the playing field, promoting open science and contributing to more rapid progress in predictive process monitoring.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 8 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jul 2021.

Builds on

5 of 8 references.

References · 5

  1. 2016Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networkscited by 103
  2. 2016Predicting Process Behaviour using Deep Learningcited by 59
  3. 2018Survey and cross-benchmark comparison of remaining time prediction methods in business process monitoringcited by 43
  4. 2017Outcome-Oriented Predictive Process Monitoring: Review and Benchmarkcited by 37
  5. 2021A systematic literature review on state-of-the-art deep learning methods for process predictioncited by 32

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 6.

16 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2024PGTNet: A Process Graph Transformer Network for Remaining Time Prediction of Business Process Instancescited by 13
  2. 2021What Averages Do Not Tell -- Predicting Real Life Processes with Sequential Deep Learningcited by 7
  3. 2025Domain Adaptation of LLMs for Process Datacited by 6
  4. 2024Machine learning in business process management: A systematic literature reviewcited by 5
  5. 2024Achieving Group Fairness through Independence in Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 5
  6. 2023A Discussion on Generalization in Next-Activity Predictioncited by 4
  7. 2022Learning Uncertainty with Artificial Neural Networks for Improved Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 3
  8. 2022Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Improved Modeling of Processescited by 2
  9. 2022Nirdizati: an Advanced Predictive Process Monitoring Toolkitcited by 1
  10. 2026DIFF-ERO: A Conformance-Aware Loss for Deep Learning in Process Miningcited by 1
  11. 2023CoSMo: a Framework to Instantiate Conditioned Process Simulation Modelscited by 0
  12. 2026Exploring LLM Features in Predictive Process Monitoring for Small-Scale Event-Logscited by 0
4 more
  1. 2026David vs. Goliath in Next Activity Prediction: Argmax vs. LSTM, Transformer, and LLMcited by 0
  2. 2026Revisiting Predictive Process Monitoring in the Age of Foundation Models: A Comparative Study of Sequence, Tabular, and LLM Approachescited by 0
  3. 2026On the Potential of Multi-Task Learning in Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 0
  4. 2026Probabilistic Forecasting of Business Process Executions with Neural Temporal Point Processescited by 0