Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction
Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches b...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Business & Information Systems Engineering 2021-06, Vol.63 (3), p.261-276 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 276 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 261 |
container_title | Business & Information Systems Engineering |
container_volume | 63 |
creator | Kratsch, Wolfgang Manderscheid, Jonas Röglinger, Maximilian Seyfried, Johannes |
description | Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches build on classical machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly when it comes to outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring. This circumstance reflects a lack of understanding about which event log properties facilitate the use of DL techniques. To address this gap, the authors compared the performance of DL (i.e., simple feedforward deep neural networks and long short term memory networks) and ML techniques (i.e., random forests and support vector machines) based on five publicly available event logs. It could be observed that DL generally outperforms classical ML techniques. Moreover, three specific propositions could be inferred from further observations: First, the outperformance of DL techniques is particularly strong for logs with a high variant-to-instance ratio (i.e., many non-standard cases). Second, DL techniques perform more stably in case of imbalanced target variables, especially for logs with a high event-to-activity ratio (i.e., many loops in the control flow). Third, logs with a high activity-to-instance payload ratio (i.e., input data is predominantly generated at runtime) call for the application of long short term memory networks. Due to the purposive sampling of event logs and techniques, these findings also hold for logs outside this study. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2538883839</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A717947746</galeid><sourcerecordid>A717947746</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-4e78f4fac957ddf67010d102c447872ff057f2fb324a7c10055911ade907e7df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UU1v1DAQjRBIVKV_AAnJEueUseNkbG7L8lVpq_bQni3jjIurXTvY2QPn_nEcgrRwwT7M6Hnem_G8pnnN4ZID4LvCRa91CwJagEH2LTxrzrgacIHE87_yl81FKY9Qj9BaI541T9fWfQ-R2I5sjiE-sBDZh2OpUCnsNie3xOsUw5xyfX7PNmybDpPNoaTIkmcfiaYT28aRbfe2lODsnm2mKafagAq7LzQynzK7Oc4uHahq0xjcHFJ81bzwdl_o4k88b-4_f7rbfm13N1-utptd66TicysJlZfeOt3jOPoBgcPIQTgpUaHwHnr0wn_rhLTo6mb6XnNuR9KAhKPvzpu3q24d6seRymwe0zHH2tKIvlNKdarTtepyrXqwezIh-jRn6-od6RBciuRDxTfIUUtEOVSCWAkup1IyeTPlcLD5p-FgFoPMapCpDpjfBhmoJLaSqEqGcqLgAD0MSiy63VpSpmXzlE_j_lf4zT_CSyjVOyOUwvrFXy6Gp3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2538883839</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction</title><source>Digital Commons Online Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Kratsch, Wolfgang ; Manderscheid, Jonas ; Röglinger, Maximilian ; Seyfried, Johannes</creator><creatorcontrib>Kratsch, Wolfgang ; Manderscheid, Jonas ; Röglinger, Maximilian ; Seyfried, Johannes</creatorcontrib><description>Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches build on classical machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly when it comes to outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring. This circumstance reflects a lack of understanding about which event log properties facilitate the use of DL techniques. To address this gap, the authors compared the performance of DL (i.e., simple feedforward deep neural networks and long short term memory networks) and ML techniques (i.e., random forests and support vector machines) based on five publicly available event logs. It could be observed that DL generally outperforms classical ML techniques. Moreover, three specific propositions could be inferred from further observations: First, the outperformance of DL techniques is particularly strong for logs with a high variant-to-instance ratio (i.e., many non-standard cases). Second, DL techniques perform more stably in case of imbalanced target variables, especially for logs with a high event-to-activity ratio (i.e., many loops in the control flow). Third, logs with a high activity-to-instance payload ratio (i.e., input data is predominantly generated at runtime) call for the application of long short term memory networks. Due to the purposive sampling of event logs and techniques, these findings also hold for logs outside this study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1867-0202</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2363-7005</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1867-0202</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Artificial neural networks ; Business and Management ; Business machines ; Business process management ; Computational linguistics ; Deep learning ; IT in Business ; Language processing ; Machine learning ; Methods ; Monitoring ; Natural language interfaces ; Neural networks ; Outcome prediction ; Predictions ; Predictive process monitoring ; Research Paper ; Short term ; Support vector machines</subject><ispartof>Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2021-06, Vol.63 (3), p.261-276</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-4e78f4fac957ddf67010d102c447872ff057f2fb324a7c10055911ade907e7df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-4e78f4fac957ddf67010d102c447872ff057f2fb324a7c10055911ade907e7df3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kratsch, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manderscheid, Jonas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Röglinger, Maximilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seyfried, Johannes</creatorcontrib><title>Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction</title><title>Business & Information Systems Engineering</title><addtitle>Bus Inf Syst Eng</addtitle><description>Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches build on classical machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly when it comes to outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring. This circumstance reflects a lack of understanding about which event log properties facilitate the use of DL techniques. To address this gap, the authors compared the performance of DL (i.e., simple feedforward deep neural networks and long short term memory networks) and ML techniques (i.e., random forests and support vector machines) based on five publicly available event logs. It could be observed that DL generally outperforms classical ML techniques. Moreover, three specific propositions could be inferred from further observations: First, the outperformance of DL techniques is particularly strong for logs with a high variant-to-instance ratio (i.e., many non-standard cases). Second, DL techniques perform more stably in case of imbalanced target variables, especially for logs with a high event-to-activity ratio (i.e., many loops in the control flow). Third, logs with a high activity-to-instance payload ratio (i.e., input data is predominantly generated at runtime) call for the application of long short term memory networks. Due to the purposive sampling of event logs and techniques, these findings also hold for logs outside this study.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Artificial neural networks</subject><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Business machines</subject><subject>Business process management</subject><subject>Computational linguistics</subject><subject>Deep learning</subject><subject>IT in Business</subject><subject>Language processing</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Natural language interfaces</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Outcome prediction</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Predictive process monitoring</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><subject>Short term</subject><subject>Support vector machines</subject><issn>1867-0202</issn><issn>2363-7005</issn><issn>1867-0202</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UU1v1DAQjRBIVKV_AAnJEueUseNkbG7L8lVpq_bQni3jjIurXTvY2QPn_nEcgrRwwT7M6Hnem_G8pnnN4ZID4LvCRa91CwJagEH2LTxrzrgacIHE87_yl81FKY9Qj9BaI541T9fWfQ-R2I5sjiE-sBDZh2OpUCnsNie3xOsUw5xyfX7PNmybDpPNoaTIkmcfiaYT28aRbfe2lODsnm2mKafagAq7LzQynzK7Oc4uHahq0xjcHFJ81bzwdl_o4k88b-4_f7rbfm13N1-utptd66TicysJlZfeOt3jOPoBgcPIQTgpUaHwHnr0wn_rhLTo6mb6XnNuR9KAhKPvzpu3q24d6seRymwe0zHH2tKIvlNKdarTtepyrXqwezIh-jRn6-od6RBciuRDxTfIUUtEOVSCWAkup1IyeTPlcLD5p-FgFoPMapCpDpjfBhmoJLaSqEqGcqLgAD0MSiy63VpSpmXzlE_j_lf4zT_CSyjVOyOUwvrFXy6Gp3g</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Kratsch, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Manderscheid, Jonas</creator><creator>Röglinger, Maximilian</creator><creator>Seyfried, Johannes</creator><general>Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>OT2</scope><scope>C6C</scope><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction</title><author>Kratsch, Wolfgang ; Manderscheid, Jonas ; Röglinger, Maximilian ; Seyfried, Johannes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-4e78f4fac957ddf67010d102c447872ff057f2fb324a7c10055911ade907e7df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Artificial neural networks</topic><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Business machines</topic><topic>Business process management</topic><topic>Computational linguistics</topic><topic>Deep learning</topic><topic>IT in Business</topic><topic>Language processing</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Natural language interfaces</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Outcome prediction</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Predictive process monitoring</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><topic>Short term</topic><topic>Support vector machines</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kratsch, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manderscheid, Jonas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Röglinger, Maximilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seyfried, Johannes</creatorcontrib><collection>EconStor</collection><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Business & Information Systems Engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kratsch, Wolfgang</au><au>Manderscheid, Jonas</au><au>Röglinger, Maximilian</au><au>Seyfried, Johannes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction</atitle><jtitle>Business & Information Systems Engineering</jtitle><stitle>Bus Inf Syst Eng</stitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>261-276</pages><issn>1867-0202</issn><issn>2363-7005</issn><eissn>1867-0202</eissn><abstract>Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches build on classical machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly when it comes to outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring. This circumstance reflects a lack of understanding about which event log properties facilitate the use of DL techniques. To address this gap, the authors compared the performance of DL (i.e., simple feedforward deep neural networks and long short term memory networks) and ML techniques (i.e., random forests and support vector machines) based on five publicly available event logs. It could be observed that DL generally outperforms classical ML techniques. Moreover, three specific propositions could be inferred from further observations: First, the outperformance of DL techniques is particularly strong for logs with a high variant-to-instance ratio (i.e., many non-standard cases). Second, DL techniques perform more stably in case of imbalanced target variables, especially for logs with a high event-to-activity ratio (i.e., many loops in the control flow). Third, logs with a high activity-to-instance payload ratio (i.e., input data is predominantly generated at runtime) call for the application of long short term memory networks. Due to the purposive sampling of event logs and techniques, these findings also hold for logs outside this study.</abstract><cop>Wiesbaden</cop><pub>Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden</pub><doi>10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1867-0202 |
ispartof | Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2021-06, Vol.63 (3), p.261-276 |
issn | 1867-0202 2363-7005 1867-0202 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2538883839 |
source | Digital Commons Online Journals; SpringerLink Journals |
subjects | Analysis Artificial neural networks Business and Management Business machines Business process management Computational linguistics Deep learning IT in Business Language processing Machine learning Methods Monitoring Natural language interfaces Neural networks Outcome prediction Predictions Predictive process monitoring Research Paper Short term Support vector machines |
title | Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T09%3A19%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Machine%20Learning%20in%20Business%20Process%20Monitoring:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Deep%20Learning%20and%20Classical%20Approaches%20Used%20for%20Outcome%20Prediction&rft.jtitle=Business%20&%20Information%20Systems%20Engineering&rft.au=Kratsch,%20Wolfgang&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=261-276&rft.issn=1867-0202&rft.eissn=1867-0202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA717947746%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2538883839&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A717947746&rfr_iscdi=true |