Abstract
Predictive business process monitoring (PBPM) is a class of techniques designed to predict behaviour, such as next activities, in running traces. PBPM techniques aim to improve process performance by providing predictions to process analysts, supporting them in their decision making. However, the PBPM techniques’ limited predictive quality was considered as the essential obstacle for establishing such techniques in practice. With the use of deep neural networks (DNNs), the techniques’ predictive quality could be improved for tasks like the next activity prediction. While DNNs achieve a promising predictive quality, they still lack comprehensibility due to their hierarchical approach of learning representations. Nevertheless, process analysts need to comprehend the cause of a prediction to identify intervention mechanisms that might affect the decision making to secure process performance. In this paper, we propose XNAP, the first explainable, DNN-based PBPM technique for the next activity prediction. XNAP integrates a layer-wise relevance propagation method from the field of explainable artificial intelligence to make predictions of a long short-term memory DNN explainable by providing relevance values for activities. We show the benefit of our approach through two real-life event logs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Note definitions are inspired by the work of Taymouri et al. [23].
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
References
Arras, L., et al.: Explaining and interpreting LSTMs. In: Samek, W., Montavon, G., Vedaldi, A., Hansen, L.K., Müller, K.-R. (eds.) Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11700, pp. 211–238. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_11
Arras, L., Montavon, G., Müller, K.R., Samek, W.: Explaining recurrent neural network predictions in sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pp. 159–168. ACL (2017)
Bach, S., Binder, A., Montavon, G., Klauschen, F., Müller, K.R., Samek, W.: On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation. PLoS ONE 10(7), e0130140 (2015)
Barredo Arrieta, A., et al.: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf. Fusion 58, 82–115 (2020)
Breuker, D., Matzner, M., Delfmann, P., Becker, J.: Comprehensible predictive models for business processes. MIS Q. 40(4), 1009–1034 (2016)
Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Maggi, F.M., Milani, F.: Predictive process monitoring methods: which one suits me best? In: Weske, M., Montali, M., Weber, I., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) BPM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11080, pp. 462–479. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98648-7_27
Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Maggi, F.M., Petrucci, G., Yeshchenko, A.: An eye into the future: leveraging a-priori knowledge in predictive business process monitoring. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10445, pp. 252–268. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_15
Du, M., Liu, N., Hu, X.: Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Commun. ACM 63(1), 68–77 (2019)
Evermann, J., Rehse, J.R., Fettke, P.: Predicting process behaviour using deep learning. Decis. Support Syst. 100, 129–140 (2017)
Gunning, D.: Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Defense Adv. Res. Projects Agency 2, 1–18 (2017)
Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9(8), 1735–1780 (1997)
Keskar, N.S., Mudigere, D., Nocedal, J., Smelyanskiy, M., Tang, P.T.P.: On large-batch training for deep learning: generalization gap and sharp minima. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, pp. 1–16 (2017) openreview.net
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521(7553), 436 (2015)
Maggi, F.M., Di Francescomarino, C., Dumas, M., Ghidini, C.: Predictive monitoring of business processes. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 457–472. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_31
Márquez-Chamorro, A., Resinas, M., Ruiz-Cortás, A.: Predictive monitoring of business processes: a survey. Trans. Serv. Comput. 11, 1–18 (2017)
Mehdiyev, N., Fettke, P.: Prescriptive process analytics with deep learning and explainable artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems, AISeL (2020)
Nunes, I., Jannach, D.: A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 27(3–5), 393–444 (2017)
Rehse, J.R., Mehdiyev, N., Fettke, P.: Towards explainable process predictions for industry 4.0 in the DFKI-smart-lego-factory. Künstliche Intelligenz 33(2), 181–187 (2019)
Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., Guestrin, C.: “Why should I trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1135–1144 (2016)
Schwegmann, B., Matzner, M., Janiesch, C.: preCEP: facilitating predictive event-driven process analytics. In: vom Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 448–455. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_36
Senderovich, A., Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Jorbina, K., Maggi, F.M.: Intra and inter-case features in predictive process monitoring: a tale of two dimensions. In: Carmona, J., Engels, G., Kumar, A. (eds.) BPM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10445, pp. 306–323. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65000-5_18
Sindhgatta, R., Ouyang, C., Moreira, C., Liao, Y.: Interpreting predictive process monitoring benchmarks. arXiv:1912.10558 (2019)
Taymouri, F., La Rosa, M., Erfani, S., Bozorgi, Z.D., Verenich, I.: Predictive business process monitoring via generative adversarial nets: the case of next event prediction. arXiv:2003.11268 (2020)
Verenich, I., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Nguyen, H.: Predicting process performance: a white-box approach based on process models. J. Softw. Evol. Process 31(6), e2170 (2019)
Weinzierl, S., et al.: An empirical comparison of deep-neural-network architectures for next activity prediction using context-enriched process event logs. arXiv:2005.01194 (2020)
Weinzierl, S., Revoredo, K.C., Matzner, M.: Predictive business process monitoring with context information from documents. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10. AISeL (2019)
Acknowledgments
This project is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework programme Software Campus under the number 01IS17045. The fourth author received a grand from Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Weinzierl, S., Zilker, S., Brunk, J., Revoredo, K., Matzner, M., Becker, J. (2020). XNAP: Making LSTM-Based Next Activity Predictions Explainable by Using LRP. In: Del Río Ortega, A., Leopold, H., Santoro, F.M. (eds) Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2020. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 397. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66498-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66498-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66497-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66498-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)