Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a novel method for generating local explanations of predictions made by Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) models using a causal framework that captures temporal dependencies among events. By defining a tailored causal model, the authors quantify the influence of individual events on predicted outcomes, enabling clearer insights into the decision-making processes of these AI models. Evaluations on extensive real-life datasets reveal that this approach yields more stable and concise explanations compared to existing state-of-the-art methods, while also maintaining competitive efficiency.
Local explanations of PPM predictions can now be derived from a causal framework, offering clarity in understanding AI decision-making in process monitoring.
Process mining is widely used to diagnose processes and identify performance and compliance issues. Specifically, Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) techniques use AI models to predict outcomes of ongoing process instances. While these models can achieve high predictive performance, their black-box nature makes it difficult to understand the underlying reasons behind their output predictions. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for generating local (case-level) explanations of process monitor predictions based on the framework of actual causality. We define a causal model tailored to processes that captures temporal dependencies between events in a trace, thus allowing us to reason about causal influence of events on the predicted outcome. Our method uses this model implicitly to compute causes and quantify the importance of different events with respect to the predicted outcome. We present a practical, model-agnostic algorithm that approximates event responsibility given the process structure reflected in the causal model. We evaluate our approach on a range of datasets derived from real-life event logs from a standard PPM benchmark. Each dataset contains up to 130,000 traces, with trace lengths of up to 1,800 events and up to 400 distinct event types. We compare our approach with state-of-the-art local explanation methods. The results demonstrate that our approach produces more stable and concise explanations while maintaining competitive efficiency.
