Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Autonomous workflows should be built to state their own rationale, says this paper.

desk verdict A well-structured agenda paper that gives BPM explainability a useful vocabulary, provided the authors soften the causal claims about trust and compliance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23269 v1 pith:ANRVOHDX submitted 2025-07-31 cs.SE cs.AIcs.MA

Peter Fettke , Fabiana Fournier , Lior Limonad , Andreas Metzger , Stefanie Rinderle-Ma , Barbara Weber This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.MA
keywords BusinessProcessManagementAutonomousProcessesExplainabilityAgenticBPMExplainableAIMiningAccountabilityXABP
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes that autonomous business processes (ABPs), self-executing workflows that use AI and machine learning with minimal human oversight, should be designed so that they can articulate the rationale behind their own actions. It argues that this capability, called eXplainable ABPs (XABPs), would address five named concerns: eroding stakeholder trust, difficult debugging, hindered accountability, hidden bias, and regulatory compliance. The paper contributes a conceptual framework that fixes the central terms of an explanation—who explains, to whom, about what, and with what content—and it identifies four kinds of explanation subjects plus a roadmap of fourteen research challenges. If the framework is adopted, explainability becomes a first-class design property of agentic business process management rather than a post-hoc add-on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the explanandum, organized into four understanding subjects: process instance, process model, AI component, and framed autonomy constraints (the rules that define what autonomy the system is allowed to exercise, such as delegation rules and escalation thresholds). Around this, the framework specifies the explainer (system or human that generates the explanation), the explainee (human or system that receives it), and the explanans (the explanation itself, characterized by mechanism, generation time, interaction mode, presentation format, and quality). Together these carve every 'why' question in an autonomous process into a defined slot, which is what turns explainability from an aspiration into a design problem with named research tasks.

What would settle it

A concrete check: deploy an agentic vendor-onboarding system of the kind the paper illustrates, then have auditors and applicants work only from the system's generated explanations. If auditors cannot determine why a vendor was rejected, whether escalation thresholds were respected, or whether a GDPR-related exception was legal, and if applicants' trust or behavior does not improve relative to receiving no explanation, the paper's promise is undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that ABP opacity is the shared root of the five concerns, and that building ABPs as XABPs—systems that can state why a process instance followed a path, why a process model is structured as it is, why an AI component recommended or decided something, and why the system is permitted to behave as it does—will alleviate them. The paper does not prove this empirically; it establishes the conceptual apparatus needed to ask and answer such questions systematically. It structures explainability along four axes—explanandum, explainer, explainee, and explanans—and derives fourteen challenges that would have to be solved for XABPs to be realized.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that opacity is the root cause of the trust, debugging, accountability, bias, and compliance problems in autonomous business processes, and that making a system articulate its rationale will materially reduce those problems; if explanation does not change behavior or satisfy legal transparency requirements, the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If XABPs are realized, stakeholders can ask standard questions of a running process—why this path, why this decision, why this resource assignment, why this outcome—and receive answers tied to the specific process instance.
  • Explainability shifts from an optional XAI wrapper to a first-class design property of Agentic BPM systems, shaping how agents justify behavior to humans and to other agents.
  • The four explanation subjects give BPM researchers a target list: process-instance, process-model, AI-component, and framed-autonomy explanations each need dedicated techniques.
  • The fourteen challenges define a concrete research agenda, spanning preference specification, causal explanation, timing and preservation of explanations, adaptation to explainee, and benchmarking.
  • Quality assessment of explanations becomes a dual problem of technical fidelity and user-centric usefulness, requiring both objective and subjective measures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This inference goes beyond the paper: if the framework is right, the hardest test case is framed-autonomy explanation, because it requires the system to expose its own governance rules; a concrete experiment would check whether auditors can use such explanations to verify GDPR or AI Act compliance.
  • This inference goes beyond the paper: the taxonomy implies that process-instance explanations are causally loaded—they need counterfactual or causal methods, not just feature attribution—because users ask why something happened rather than which features were influential.
  • This inference goes beyond the paper: the authors' assumption that explanation restores trust is testable; a field study measuring adoption behavior after deployment of XABP-style explanations would settle it, and the paper does not run such a study.
  • This inference goes beyond the paper: the illustrative vendor-evaluation example suggests the framework can double as a specification checklist for building agentic BPM systems today, even before the open challenges are solved.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This position paper introduces eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes (XABPs), a conceptual framework for making the behavior of autonomous business processes (ABPs) explainable. It proposes a generic explainability model with explainer, explainee, explanandum, and explanans, and identifies four explanation subjects: process instance, process model, AI component, and framed autonomy constraints. The paper also presents a small illustrative example of an LLM-based vendor evaluation agent, lists fourteen research challenges organized by these concepts, and positions the work relative to autonomous BPM, XAI, and fairness/accountability/transparency research. The central claim, stated in the Abstract and Section 1, is that XABPs will help address concerns about trust, debugging, accountability, bias, and compliance by enabling systems to articulate their rationale.

Significance. If the framework is adopted, it could provide a useful shared vocabulary for explainability research in agentic BPM and help structure future work on autonomous processes. The paper's main strengths are its clear conceptual decomposition, the novel identification of 'framed autonomy constraints' as an explanation subject, the integration of prior BPM and XAI work into a single framework, and a concrete, if small, illustration of explainability-by-design in an agentic system. The list of challenges is broad and actionable. However, the paper is a position paper: the benefit claims are hypotheses rather than established results, and the illustrative example is not evaluated. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, reproducible experiments, or parameter-free derivations of the kind that would independently verify the central claim; for this genre, that is not a fatal defect, but it does mean the claims must be framed as a research agenda rather than as demonstrated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The central claim that XABPs 'will help address' decreased trust, debugging difficulties, accountability gaps, hidden bias, and compliance issues is stated without qualification or an evaluation methodology. Since the paper is conceptual, this is acceptable as a research agenda only if the claims are explicitly reframed as expectations or hypotheses. Please (a) replace 'will help address' with 'are expected to help address' or similar, and (b) add a subsection or paragraph identifying the empirical questions that would test each benefit, e.g., whether explanations actually increase stakeholder trust, whether explainees understand and act on them, and whether explanations satisfy legal obligations. As written, the claim is load-bearing but unsupported, and Section 4.5, Challenge 14, itself concedes that explanations can reveal privacy-sensitive information or ease attacks, so the unconditional wording is too strong.
  2. [Section 3, Figures 7 and 8] The illustrative vendor-evaluation example is presented as the only concrete realization of the XABP framework, but the generated JSON explanation is not evaluated in any way. The paper does not verify that the explanation faithfully reflects the actual decision process of the Vendor Evaluator agent, nor does it test whether the intended explainee (the vendor) understands, trusts, or acts on the explanation. If this example is meant only to illustrate the conceptual vocabulary, please state that explicitly. If it is meant to support the feasibility of the approach, report at least a basic fidelity check and a user study, or indicate that such validation is future work.
  3. [Section 1, compliance bullet] The compliance claim is asserted as a need for 'an increasing level of transparency' (Section 1), but the paper does not engage with the specifics of GDPR Article 22(3) (meaningful information about the logic involved) or the AI Act's transparency obligations, nor does it explain how an articulated rationale would satisfy those legal requirements. Transparency may be necessary for compliance, but the jump from 'transparency' to 'compliance' is not demonstrated. Please either narrow the claim to state that explanations are a likely necessary component of compliance, or add a brief legal-analysis subsection that connects the XABP explanation elements to concrete legal obligations.
  4. [Section 4.5, Challenge 14] Challenge 14 explicitly concedes that explanations can reveal privacy-sensitive data, expose business-critical IPR, or make it easier to undermine system security. This is a direct qualification of the paper's central benefit claim and should be incorporated into Section 1 rather than relegated to a later challenge. The paper should discuss how XABPs would handle these risks, for example through selective disclosure, redaction, access control, or differential privacy, and should acknowledge that in some settings explanations may do more harm than good. Without this, the paper's framing suggests that explainability is unconditionally beneficial, which its own content contradicts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'after a series of stimulating taks by experts' contains a typo: 'taks' should be 'talks'.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] There are several typographical errors in the tables: 'formalazing' in Table 1 should be 'formalizing'; 'resoning' in Table 2 should be 'reasoning'; and Section 2.4 contains a doubled comma in 'the explainee, , elaborated below'.
  3. [Challenge 9] The phrase 'explainable ABPMN' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'explainable ABPM' or 'explainable ABPs'.
  4. [Section 2.2] The new explanation subject 'Framed Autonomy Constraints' is introduced in Figure 2 but never given a formal definition in the text. A short paragraph distinguishing it from the process model and AI component explananda would improve clarity, especially since it is one of the paper's claimed novel contributions.
  5. [Throughout] The terms 'explanans' and 'explanantia' are used inconsistently; for example, Section 2.1 says 'the explanantia produced by the explainer should provide information' where a singular 'explanans' or a rephrased plural construction would be clearer. Please standardize the terminology.
  6. [Section 1] The paper mentions the 2025 AutoBiz Dagstuhl seminar as the origin of the ABP notion but does not include a formal reference for the seminar output. Adding a citation or a more detailed footnote would help readers trace the provenance of the concept.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: XABP is a position framework with no fitted inputs or derived predictions; self-citations are supportive literature, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual/position paper. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, or numeric predictions, so its central claim that XABPs 'will help address' trust, debugging, accountability, bias, and compliance is an argument grounded in a proposed definition, not a result derived by construction from its inputs. The definition of XABP as an ABP that can articulate its rationale does not by definition entail those benefits; the benefits are asserted as a design goal (Section 1), making the claim testable but not circular. The self-citations used to motivate XAI limitations (refs [4]-[7], [13], [26], [29], [33]) are external published works that support the motivation; even if one disagreed with them, the XABP framework itself would stand independently. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; Section 3's illustrative example is explicitly illustrative. Section 4.5 Challenge 14 even concedes that explanations can leak private data or ease attacks, which weakens the benefit claim as a correctness matter but does not make the derivation circular. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with paper quotes.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. Its conceptual claims rest on domain assumptions about the benefits and risks of ABPs and about the insufficiency of existing XAI for BPM. The two invented entities are conceptual framing devices rather than empirical postulates.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Autonomous business processes (ABPs) are the next generation of AI-augmented BPM systems and will bring efficiency, error reduction, and cost benefits.
    Section 1 introduction states this as the motivating premise; no empirical demonstration is provided in the paper.
  • domain assumption ABPs introduce trust, debugging, accountability, bias, and compliance concerns that stem from opacity.
    Section 1 bullet list asserts these concerns and links them to 'unable to understand the rationale'; this link is not experimentally validated.
  • domain assumption State-of-the-art XAI techniques cannot express business process model constraints, contextual situations, causal execution dependencies, or interpretable explanations for business processes.
    Section 1 lists four limitations with citations [4]-[7]; the paper treats these as sufficient motivation for new techniques, but most cited works are by the same authors.
invented entities (2)
  • eXplainable Autonomous Business Process (XABP)
    purpose: Frames explainability as a first-class property of autonomous business processes, providing the paper's central conceptual contribution.
    A proposed research concept, not an observable entity; it carries no falsifiable prediction on its own, only a research program.
  • Framed Autonomy Constraints as an explanation subject
    purpose: Adds a new category of what can be explained in a process, namely why the system is allowed to act in certain ways (design autonomy, delegation rules, escalation thresholds).
    A conceptual category introduced in Section 2.2; the paper does not provide independent empirical support for its usefulness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANRVOHDX

@misc{pith2026250723269,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XABPs: Towards eXplainable Autonomous Business Processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANRVOHDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23269}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous business processes (ABPs), i.e., self-executing workflows leveraging AI/ML, have the potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce errors, lower costs, improve response times, and free human workers for more strategic and creative work. However, ABPs may raise specific concerns including decreased stakeholder trust, difficulties in debugging, hindered accountability, risk of bias, and issues with regulatory compliance. We argue for eXplainable ABPs (XABPs) to address these concerns by enabling systems to articulate their rationale. The paper outlines a systematic approach to XABPs, characterizing their forms, structuring explainability, and identifying key BPM research challenges towards XABPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23269 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Explainability Concepts In its simplest form, the explanantia produced by the explainer should provide information about the causes of the explained phenomenon (explanandum) [8]. The content of the explanation must align with both the nature of the explanandum and the needs of the explainee. XABPs involve a range of human and system actors that either generate or consume explanations. Some actors – especially autono… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the key types of aspects of an explanandum that may be explained, as elaborated below. Process Instance Explanation: "Why did this specific process execution take the path and produce the result it did?" • Process Flow - Why a specific sequence of activities, decisions, and events was followed in the business process. Example: “Why did the invoice approval was issued only after the invoice has already been sen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Actors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Aspects of an Explanans • Ex-ante Explanations (Before Execution): Provided before the system executes or makes a decision to validate models or justify decisions before deployment. • Run-time Explanations (During Execution): Delivered while the process is running to s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vendor evaluation in the procurement agentic BPM system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Vendor Evaluator agent realized via the CrewAI framework extended with explainability capabilities 2 https://www.crewai.com/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of a Vendor Application [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A JSON explanation example as generated by the Vendor Evaluator Agent 4. Challenges for Explainable ABPs We structure the challenges along the four main explainability concepts as well as along overarching concerns. 4.1. Challenges Related to Explainee Challenge 1: How…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On the Hybrid Nature of ABPMS Process Frames and its Implications on Automated Process Discovery

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A process frame for AI-augmented BPM can be formalized as a set of overlapping procedural/declarative specifications, and 14 of 16 common procedural behaviors can be rediscovered as Declare constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dumas, F

    M. Dumas, F. Fournier, L. Limonad, A. Marrella, M. Montali, J. Rehse, R. Accorsi, D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Fahland, A. Gal, M. L. Rosa, H. Völzer, I. Weber, AI-augmented business process management systems: A research manifesto, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 14 (2023) 11:1–11:19. doi:10.1145/3576047

    doi:10.1145/3576047 2023

  2. [2]

    Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning Methods for Predictive Process Monitoring: A Systematic Literature Review

    N. Mehdiyev, M. Majlatow, P. Fettke, Interpretable and explainable machine learning methods for predictive process monitoring: A systematic literature review, 2023.arXiv:2312.17584

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Adadi, M

    A. Adadi, M. Berrada, Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (xai), IEEE Access 6 (2018). doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    G. Amit, F. Fournier, S. Gur, L. Limonad, Model-informed lime extension for business process explainability, in: PMAI@IJCAI’22, CEUR, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [6]

    Fournier, L

    F. Fournier, L. Limonad, I. Skarbovsky, Y. David, The why in business processes: Discovery of causal execution dependencies, Künstliche Intelligenz (2025). doi:10.1007/s13218-024-00883-4

    doi:10.1007/s13218-024-00883-4 2025

  6. [7]

    Fahland, F

    D. Fahland, F. Fournier, L. Limonad, I. Skarbovsky, A. J. E. Swevels, How well can large language models explain business processes as perceived by users?, Data & Knowledge Engineering 157 (2025) 102416. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2025.102416

    arXiv 2025

  7. [8]

    Lipton, Causation and Explanation, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp

    P. Lipton, Causation and Explanation, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 619–631. doi:10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199279739.003.0030

    arXiv 2010

  8. [9]

    Metzger, T

    A. Metzger, T. Kley, A. Rothweiler, K. Pohl, Automatically reconciling the trade-off between prediction accuracy and earliness in prescriptive business process monitoring, Inf. Syst. 118 (2023) 102254. doi:10.1016/J.IS.2023.102254

    work page arXiv 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [10]

    Huang, A

    T. Huang, A. Metzger, K. Pohl, Counterfactual explanations for predictive business process monitoring, in: M. Themistocleous, M. Papadaki (Eds.), EMCIS 2021, volume 437 ofLNBIP, Springer, 2021, pp. 399–413. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95947-0\_28

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    Malandri, F

    L. Malandri, F. Mercorio, M. Mezzanzanica, N. Nobani, Convxai: a system for multimodal interaction with any black-box explainer, Cogn. Comput. 15 (2023) 613–644. doi: 10.1007/ S12559-022-10067-7

    2023

  3. [12]

    Metzger, J

    A. Metzger, J. Bartel, J. Laufer, An AI chatbot for explaining deep reinforcement learning decisions of service-oriented systems, in: ICSOC 2023, volume 14419 ofLNCS, Springer, 2023, pp. 323–338. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48421-6\_22

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    Mehdiyev, P

    N. Mehdiyev, P. Fettke, Explainable artificial intelligence for process mining: A general overview and application of a novel local explanation approach for predictive process monitoring, in: Interpretable AI: A Perspective of Granular Computing, Springer, 2021, pp. 1–18

    2021

  5. [14]

    Metzger, J

    A. Metzger, J. Laufer, F. Feit, K. Pohl, A user study on explainable online reinforcement learning for adaptive systems, ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 19 (2024) 15:1–15:44. doi:10.1145/3666005

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    Mendling, G

    J. Mendling, G. Decker, R. Hull, H. A. Reijers, I. Weber, How do machine learning, robotic process automation, and blockchains affect the human factor in business process management?, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 43 (2018) 19. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol43/iss1/19

    2018

  7. [16]

    Czarnecki, P

    C. Czarnecki, P. Fettke (Eds.), Robotic Process Automation: Management, Technology, Applications, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2021

    2021

  8. [17]

    Kourani, S

    H. Kourani, S. J. van Zelst, D. Schuster, W. M. P. van der Aalst, Discovering partially ordered workflow models, Inf. Syst. 128 (2025) 102493. doi:10.1016/J.IS.2024.102493

    2025

  9. [18]

    Fettke, W

    P. Fettke, W. Reisig, Discrete models of continuous behavior of collective adaptive systems, in: Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation. Adaptation and Learning - 11th Int. Symp., ISoLA 2022, Proceedings, Part III, LNCS, Springer, 2022, pp. 65–81

    2022

  10. [19]

    Ruben, Explaining Explanation, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2012

    D.-H. Ruben, Explaining Explanation, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2012

    2012

  11. [20]

    Confalonieri, L

    R. Confalonieri, L. Coba, B. Wagner, T. R. Besold, A historical perspective of explainable artificial intelligence, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov. 11 (2021). doi:10.1002/WIDM.1391

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    D. A. Neu, J. Lahann, P. Fettke, A systematic literature review on state-of-the-art deep learning methods for process prediction, AI. Rev. 55 (2022) 801–827. doi:10.1007/S10462-021-09960-8

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Weinzierl, S

    S. Weinzierl, S. Zilker, S. Dunzer, M. Matzner, Machine learning in business process management: A systematic literature review, Expert Systems with Applications 253 (2024) 124181. doi:10.1016/ J.ESWA.2024.124181

    2024

  14. [23]

    Stierle, J

    M. Stierle, J. Brunk, S. Weinzierl, S. Zilker, M. Matzner, J. Becker, Bringing light into the darkness - A systematic literature review on explainable predictive business process monitoring techniques, in: ECIS 2021, 2021. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rip/8

    2021

  15. [24]

    Stevens, J

    A. Stevens, J. D. Smedt, Explainability in process outcome prediction: Guidelines to obtain interpretable and faithful models, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 317 (2024). doi:10.1016/J.EJOR.2023.09. 010

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    M. Harl, S. Weinzierl, M. Stierle, M. Matzner, Explainable predictive business process monitoring using gated graph neural networks, J. Decis. Syst. 29 (2020). doi: 10.1080/12460125.2020. 1780780

    2020

  17. [26]

    Mehdiyev, M

    N. Mehdiyev, M. Majlatow, P. Fettke, Augmenting post-hoc explanations for predictive process monitoring with uncertainty quantification via conformalized monte carlo dropout, Data Knowl. Eng. 156 (2025) 102402. doi:10.1016/J.DATAK.2024.102402

    2025

  18. [27]

    Narendra, P

    T. Narendra, P. Agarwal, M. Gupta, S. Dechu, Counterfactual reasoning for process optimiza- tion using structural causal models, in: LNBIP, volume 360, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-26643-1_6

    2019

  19. [28]

    A. J. Alaee, M. Weidlich, A. Senderovich, Data-driven decision support for business processes: Causal reasoning and discovery, in: BPM Forum, Springer, 2024, pp. 90–106. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-70418-5_6

    2024

  20. [29]

    Fournier, L

    F. Fournier, L. Limonad, I. Skarbovsky, Towards a benchmark for causal business process reasoning with LLMs, in: BPM-W, Springer, 2025, pp. 233–246. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78666-2_18

    2025 doi

  21. [30]

    Buliga, M

    A. Buliga, M. Vazifehdoostirani, L. Genga, X. Lu, R. M. Dijkman, C. D. Francescomarino, C. Ghidini, H. A. Reijers, Uncovering patterns for local explanations in outcome-based predictive process monitoring, in: BPM 2024, volume 14940 ofLNCS, Springer, 2024, pp. 363–380. doi: 10...

    2024

  22. [31]

    A. Füßl, V. Nissen, S. H. Heringklee, An explanation user interface for a knowledge graph-based XAI approach to process analysis, in: CAiSE-W 2024, volume 521 ofLNBIP, Springer, 2024, pp. 72–84. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61003-5\_7

    2024 doi

  23. [32]

    Goossens, U

    A. Goossens, U. Maes, Y. Timmermans, J. Vanthienen, Automated intelligent assistance with explainable decision models in knowledge-intensive processes, in: BPM-W 2022, Münster, volume 460 ofLNBIP, Springer, 2022, pp. 25–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25383-6\_3

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Limonad, F

    L. Limonad, F. Fournier, H. Mulian, G. Manias, S. Borotis, D. Kyrkou, Selecting the right LLM for eGov explanations, 2025.arXiv:2504.21032

    2025 arXiv

  25. [34]

    T. Speith, A review of taxonomies of explainable artificial intelligence (xai) methods, in: Pro- ceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, p. 2239–2250. doi:10.1145/3531146.3534639

    2022

  26. [35]

    who", “what

    B. Kuehnert, R. Kim, J. Forlizzi, H. Heidari, The “who", “what", and “how" of responsible AI gover- nance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of (actor, stage)-specific tools, in: Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ACM, 202...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.