Automatically Reconciling the Trade-off between Prediction Accuracy and Earliness in Prescriptive Business Process Monitoring
Andreas Metzger, Tristan Kley, Aristide Rothweiler, Klaus Pohl

TL;DR
This paper compares different methods for balancing prediction accuracy and earliness in prescriptive business process monitoring, providing insights into their effectiveness and practical applicability using real-world data.
Contribution
It offers a systematic comparative evaluation of main approaches for reconciling accuracy and earliness, with practical recommendations based on experiments.
Findings
Certain criteria significantly influence approach effectiveness
Some approaches yield higher cost savings in specific scenarios
Recommendations aid practitioners in selecting suitable methods
Abstract
Prescriptive business process monitoring provides decision support to process managers on when and how to adapt an ongoing business process to prevent or mitigate an undesired process outcome. We focus on the problem of automatically reconciling the trade-off between prediction accuracy and prediction earliness in determining when to adapt. Adaptations should happen sufficiently early to provide enough lead time for the adaptation to become effective. However, earlier predictions are typically less accurate than later predictions. This means that acting on less accurate predictions may lead to unnecessary adaptations or missed adaptations. Different approaches were presented in the literature to reconcile the trade-off between prediction accuracy and earliness. So far, these approaches were compared with different baselines, and evaluated using different data sets or even confidential…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsFocus
