Cited by 78Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Business Process Modeling and AnalysisSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Process Mining: A General Overview and Application of a Novel Local Explanation Approach for Predictive Process Monitoring

Open access
Mehdiyev, Nijat, Fettke, Peter·2021·Studies in Computational Intelligence

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-64949-4_1

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [1]1. Fettke, P., Mayer, L., Mehdiyev, N.: Big-Prozess-Analytik für Fertigungsmanagementsysteme (MES). In: Steven, M. and Klünder, T. (eds.) Big Data: Anwendung und Nutzungspotenziale in der Produktion. pp. 215-239. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart (2020).
  2. [44]44. Adebayo, J., Gilmer, J., Goodfellow, I., Kim, B.: Local explanation methods for deep neural networks lack sensitivity to parameter values. In: International Conference on Learning Representations Workshop (ICLR. (2018).
  3. [48]48. Selvaraju, R.R., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Cogswell, M., Parikh, D., Batra, D.: GradCAM: Why did you say that? arXiv Prepr. arXiv1611.07450. (2016).
  4. [50]50. Petsiuk, V., Das, A., Saenko, K.: Rise: Randomized input sampling for explanation of black-box models. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1806.07421. (2018).
  5. [74]74. Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.-I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 4765-4774 (2017).
  6. [78]78. Alvarez-Melis, D., Jaakkola, T.S.: On the robustness of interpretability methods. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1806.08049. (2018).
  7. [82]82. Hall, P., Gill, N., Kurka, M., Phan, W., Bartz, A.: Machine Learning Interpretability with H2O Driverless AI: First Edition Machine Learning Interpretability with H2O Driverless AI. (2017).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehdiyev, N., & Fettke, P.
Affiliations
German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DE)
Corresponding author
Mehdiyev, Nijat
Venue
Studies in Computational Intelligence
Published
2021
Pages
1-28
ISSN
  • 1860-949X (ISSN-L)
  • 1860-9503
OpenAlex
W3083527131
Cited by
78
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5
FWCI
22.22
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies in computational intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Business Process Modeling and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
explainable AI, process mining, predictive process monitoring, local explanations, post-hoc explanation, deep learning classifier, latent representations, incident management, process-aware information systems, perturbation-based explanation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review