mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Human-In-The-Loop Approach for Improving Fairness in Predictive Business Process Monitoring

arXiv 2508.17477 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2025cs.LG cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predictive process monitoring enables organizations to proactively react and intervene in running instances of a business process. Given an incomplete process instance, predictions about the outcome, next activity, or remaining time are created. This is done by powerful machine learning models, which have shown impressive predictive performance. However, the data-driven nature of these models makes them susceptible to finding unfair, biased, or unethical patterns in the data. Such patterns lead to biased predictions based on so-called sensitive attributes, such as the gender or age of process participants. Previous work has identified this problem and offered solutions that mitigate biases by removing sensitive attributes entirely from the process instance. However, sensitive attributes can be used both fairly and unfairly in the same process instance. For example, during a medical process, treatment decisions could be based on gender, while the decision to accept a patient should not be based on gender. This paper proposes a novel, model-agnostic approach for identifying and rectifying biased decisions in predictive business process monitoring models, even when the same sensitive attribute is used both fairly and unfairly. The proposed approach uses a human-in-the-loop approach to differentiate between fair and unfair decisions through simple alterations on a decision tree model distilled from the original prediction model. Our results show that the proposed approach achieves a promising tradeoff between fairness and accuracy in the presence of biased data. All source code and data are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15387576.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2025.

Builds on

16 of 35 references.

References · 16

  1. 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
  2. 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 370
  3. 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 302
  4. 2018Statistical Aspects of Wasserstein Distancescited by 203
  5. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  6. 2021A Clarification of the Nuances in the Fairness Metrics Landscapecited by 98
  7. 2018Survey and cross-benchmark comparison of remaining time prediction methods in business process monitoringcited by 43
  8. 2018Improving the Interpretability of Deep Neural Networks with Knowledge Distillationcited by 38
  9. 2013Predictive Monitoring of Business Processescited by 37
  10. 2019Assessing the Local Interpretability of Machine Learning Modelscited by 23
  11. 2022Algorithmic Fairness in Business Analytics: Directions for Research and Practicecited by 18
  12. 2019Fairness-Aware Process Miningcited by 9
4 more
  1. 2024Machine learning in business process management: A systematic literature reviewcited by 5
  2. 2024Achieving Fairness in Predictive Process Analytics via Adversarial Learning (Extended Version)cited by 5
  3. 2024Achieving Group Fairness through Independence in Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 5
  4. 2024A machine learning framework for interpretable predictions in patient pathways: The case of predicting ICU admission for patients with symptoms of sepsiscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.