mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DiCE4EL: Interpreting Process Predictions using a Milestone-Aware Counterfactual Approach

arXiv 2107.08697 ↗First posted 19 Jul 2021cs.LG cs.AIcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predictive process analytics often apply machine learning to predict the future states of a running business~process. However, the internal mechanisms of many existing predictive algorithms are opaque and a human decision-maker is unable to understand why a certain activity was predicted. Recently, counterfactuals have been proposed in the literature to derive human-understandable explanations from predictive models. Current counterfactual approaches consist of finding the minimum feature change that can make a certain prediction flip its outcome. Although many algorithms have been proposed, their application to multi-dimensional sequence data like event logs has not been explored in the literature. In this paper, we explore the use of a recent, popular model-agnostic counterfactual algorithm, DiCE, in the context of predictive process analytics. The analysis reveals that DiCE is unable to derive explanations for process predictions, due to (1) process domain knowledge not being taken into account, (2) long traces of process execution that often tend to be less understandable, and (3) difficulties in optimising the counterfactual search with categorical variables. We design an extension of DiCE, namely DiCE4EL (DiCE for Event Logs), that can generate counterfactual explanations for process prediction, and propose an approach that supports deriving milestone-aware counterfactual explanations at key intermediate stages along process execution to promote interpretability. We apply our approach to a publicly available real-life event log and the analysis results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2021.

Builds on

16 of 31 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  4. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  5. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
  6. 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
  7. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  8. 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 343
  9. 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 232
  10. 2020Good Counterfactuals and Where to Find Them: A Case-Based Technique for Generating Counterfactuals for Explainable AI (XAI)cited by 79
  11. 2017What Does Explainable AI Really Mean? A New Conceptualization of Perspectivescited by 72
  12. 2016Predicting Process Behaviour using Deep Learningcited by 59
4 more
  1. 2021Counterfactuals and Causability in Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Theory, Algorithms, and Applicationscited by 59
  2. 2018Survey and cross-benchmark comparison of remaining time prediction methods in business process monitoringcited by 43
  3. 2021A systematic literature review on state-of-the-art deep learning methods for process predictioncited by 32
  4. 2020An Interpretable Probabilistic Approach for Demystifying Black-box Predictive Modelscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 2.

13 papers.

Sort: