arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2202.08041cs.AIcs.LG

Explainability of Predictive Process Monitoring Results: Can You See My Data Issues?

Ulm University(乌尔姆大学);Mansoura University(曼苏拉大学);German University in Cairo(开罗德国大学)

Ghada Elkhawaga, Mervat Abuelkheir, Manfred Reichert

英文摘要:

Predictive business process monitoring (PPM) has been around for several years as a use case of process mining. PPM enables foreseeing the future of a business process through predicting relevant information about how a running process instance might end, related performance indicators, and other predictable aspects. A big share of PPM approaches adopts a Machine Learning (ML) technique to address a prediction task, especially non-process-aware PPM approaches. Consequently, PPM inherits the challenges faced by ML approaches. One of these challenges concerns the need to gain user trust in the predictions generated. The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) addresses this issue. However, the choices made, and the techniques employed in a PPM task, in addition to ML model characteristics, influence resulting explanations. A comparison of the influence of different settings on the generated explanations is missing. To address this gap, we investigate the effect of different PPM settings on resulting data fed into an ML model and consequently to a XAI method. We study how differences in resulting explanations may indicate several issues in underlying data. We construct a framework for our experiments including different settings at each stage of PPM with XAI integrated as a fundamental part. Our experiments reveal several inconsistencies, as well as agreements, between data characteristics (and hence expectations about these data), important data used by the ML model as a result of querying it, and explanations of predictions of the investigated ML model.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑