mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Counterfactual Explanations for Predictive Business Process Monitoring

arXiv 2202.12018 ↗First posted 24 Feb 2022cs.AI cs.LGcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predictive business process monitoring increasingly leverages sophisticated prediction models. Although sophisticated models achieve consistently higher prediction accuracy than simple models, one major drawback is their lack of interpretability, which limits their adoption in practice. We thus see growing interest in explainable predictive business process monitoring, which aims to increase the interpretability of prediction models. Existing solutions focus on giving factual explanations.While factual explanations can be helpful, humans typically do not ask why a particular prediction was made, but rather why it was made instead of another prediction, i.e., humans are interested in counterfactual explanations. While research in explainable AI produced several promising techniques to generate counterfactual explanations, directly applying them to predictive process monitoring may deliver unrealistic explanations, because they ignore the underlying process constraints. We propose LORELEY, a counterfactual explanation technique for predictive process monitoring, which extends LORE, a recent explainable AI technique. We impose control flow constraints to the explanation generation process to ensure realistic counterfactual explanations. Moreover, we extend LORE to enable explaining multi-class classification models. Experimental results using a real, public dataset indicate that LORELEY can approximate the prediction models with an average fidelity of 97.69% and generate realistic counterfactual explanations.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2022.

Builds on

16 of 35 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  3. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  4. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 970
  5. 2016Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 219
  6. 2016Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networkscited by 103
  7. 2016Predicting Process Behaviour using Deep Learningcited by 59
  8. 2018Survey and cross-benchmark comparison of remaining time prediction methods in business process monitoringcited by 43
  9. 2013Predictive Monitoring of Business Processescited by 37
  10. 2017Outcome-Oriented Predictive Process Monitoring: Review and Benchmarkcited by 37
  11. 2018Predictive Process Monitoring Methods: Which One Suits Me Best?cited by 27
  12. 2020Explainable Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 27
4 more
  1. 2015Clustering-Based Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 24
  2. 2018An Interdisciplinary Comparison of Sequence Modeling Methods for Next-Element Predictioncited by 14
  3. 2020XNAP: Making LSTM-based Next Activity Predictions Explainable by Using LRPcited by 12
  4. 2020AI Trust in business processes: The need for process-aware explanationscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

12 papers.