Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Self-Explaining Neural Networks for Business Process Monitoring

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.18067 v1 pith:HFBE3ZSW submitted 2025-03-23 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords businessmodelprocessmonitoringpost-hocpredictionsapproachesdecisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Tasks in Predictive Business Process Monitoring (PBPM), such as Next Activity Prediction, focus on generating useful business predictions from historical case logs. Recently, Deep Learning methods, particularly sequence-to-sequence models like Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), have become a dominant approach for tackling these tasks. However, to enhance model transparency, build trust in the predictions, and gain a deeper understanding of business processes, it is crucial to explain the decisions made by these models. Existing explainability methods for PBPM decisions are typically *post-hoc*, meaning they provide explanations only after the model has been trained. Unfortunately, these post-hoc approaches have shown to face various challenges, including lack of faithfulness, high computational costs and a significant sensitivity to out-of-distribution samples. In this work, we introduce, to the best of our knowledge, the first *self-explaining neural network* architecture for predictive process monitoring. Our framework trains an LSTM model that not only provides predictions but also outputs a concise explanation for each prediction, while adapting the optimization objective to improve the reliability of the explanation. We first demonstrate that incorporating explainability into the training process does not hurt model performance, and in some cases, actually improves it. Additionally, we show that our method outperforms post-hoc approaches in terms of both the faithfulness of the generated explanations and substantial improvements in efficiency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What makes an Ensemble (Un) Interpretable?

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A complexity-theoretic analysis showing that the number, size, and type of base models determine whether ensemble explanations are tractable, with linear-model ensembles intractable even for two models.

  2. Explaining, Fast and Slow: Abstraction and Refinement of Provable Explanations

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Abstraction-refinement over neuron merging computes provably sufficient and minimal explanations of neural network predictions substantially faster than verifying on the full network.

Pith tools