mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Feature Attribution-Based Explainability Analysis of Deep Learning Models in Predictive Process Monitoring

arXiv 2607.17783 ↗First posted 20 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predictive process monitoring supports the optimization and control of operational business processes by forecasting the future state or outcome of ongoing cases. While deep neural networks have achieved strong performance for these tasks by modeling sequential dependencies in event logs, their black-box nature limits trust and practical adoption. Feature attribution methods are often used to address this, but applying them directly poses a dilemma: event-level attributions impose high computational complexity for long traces, while explanations based on aggregated trace representations often fail to capture the underlying control-flow dynamics. To address this issue, we propose a local post-hoc explainability method for deep neural networks in outcome prediction. The method relies on a control-flow-aware segmentation algorithm that partitions a trace into meaningful segments and supports the computation of segment-level SHAP explanations. This makes it possible to identify which parts of a trace influence a prediction and which change points steer the case toward the predicted outcome. We assess the proposed segmentation method on a synthetic dataset with known process logic, where meaningful change points can be explicitly verified, and we demonstrate its usefulness on real-world event logs from a loan application process and an administrative process of a Dutch municipality.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

Builds on

20 of 32 references.

References · 20

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 344
  3. 2019Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley valuescited by 208
  4. 2016Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networkscited by 104
  5. 2020TimeSHAP: Explaining Recurrent Models through Sequence Perturbationscited by 74
  6. 2021Explaining Time Series Predictions with Dynamic Maskscited by 73
  7. 2022Evaluation of post-hoc interpretability methods in time-series classificationcited by 53
  8. 2021TS-MULE: Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations for Time Series Forecast Modelscited by 28
  9. 2020Explainable Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 27
  10. 2022WindowSHAP: An Efficient Framework for Explaining Time-series Classifiers based on Shapley Valuescited by 24
  11. 2024Explaining Time Series via Contrastive and Locally Sparse Perturbationscited by 22
  12. 2021Process Outcome Prediction: CNN vs. LSTM (with Attention)cited by 12
8 more
  1. 2022Automatic Change-Point Detection in Time Series via Deep Learningcited by 12
  2. 2020An Entropic Relevance Measure for Stochastic Conformance Checking in Process Miningcited by 6
  3. 2022Class-Specific Explainability for Deep Time Series Classifierscited by 6
  4. 2025Class-Dependent Perturbation Effects in Evaluating Time Series Attributionscited by 5
  5. 2024Generating Feasible and Plausible Counterfactual Explanations for Outcome Prediction of Business Processescited by 4
  6. 2025SimBank: from Simulation to Solution in Prescriptive Process Monitoringcited by 4
  7. 2024Guiding the generation of counterfactual explanations through temporal background knowledge for Predictive Process Monitoringcited by 3
  8. 2025Model-driven Stochastic Trace Clusteringcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.