mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models

arXiv 2203.16073 ↗First posted 30 Mar 2022cs.LG cs.AI cs.SEcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Although a recent shift has been made in the field of predictive process monitoring to use models from the explainable artificial intelligence field, the evaluation still occurs mainly through performance-based metrics, thus not accounting for the actionability and implications of the explanations. In this paper, we define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. The introduced properties are analysed along the event, case, and control flow perspective which are typical for a process-based analysis. This allows comparing inherently created explanations with post-hoc explanations. We benchmark seven classifiers on thirteen real-life events logs, and these cover a range of transparent and non-transparent machine learning and deep learning models, further complemented with explainability techniques. Next, this paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications, by providing insight into how the varying preprocessing, model complexity and explainability techniques typical in process outcome prediction influence the explainability of the model.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2022.

Builds on

25 of 52 references.

References · 25

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  3. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  4. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  5. 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
  6. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  7. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  8. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  9. 2016Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networkscited by 103
  10. 2020The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategiescited by 91
  11. 2020On quantitative aspects of model interpretabilitycited by 71
  12. 2016Predicting Process Behaviour using Deep Learningcited by 59
13 more
  1. 2017Interpretable & Explorable Approximations of Black Box Modelscited by 54
  2. 2020A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systemscited by 45
  3. 2013Predictive Monitoring of Business Processescited by 37
  4. 2017Outcome-Oriented Predictive Process Monitoring: Review and Benchmarkcited by 37
  5. 2015ABCNN: Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Network for Modeling Sentence Pairscited by 35
  6. 2019Generalized Linear Rule Modelscited by 34
  7. 2020Explainable Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 27
  8. 2015Clustering-Based Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 24
  9. 2019Quantifying Model Complexity via Functional Decomposition for Better Post-Hoc Interpretabilitycited by 22
  10. 2020Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Process Mining: A General Overview and Application of a Novel Local Explanation Approach for Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 20
  11. 2020Predictive and Causal Implications of using Shapley Value for Model Interpretationcited by 16
  12. 2019Towards Quantification of Explainability in Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methodscited by 15
  13. 2021Process Outcome Prediction: CNN vs. LSTM (with Attention)cited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

5 papers.