Compliance-Aware Predictive Process Monitoring: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach
Authors: Fabrizio De Santis, Gyunam Park, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, Francesco Zanichelli
Organizations: University of Parma, Parma, Italy · Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands · RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Existing approaches for predictive process monitoring are sub-symbolic, meaning that they learn correlations between descriptive features and a target feature fully based on data, e.g., predicting the surgical needs of a patient based on historical events and biometrics. However, such approaches fail to incorporate domain-specific process constraints (knowledge), e.g., surgery can only be planned if the patient was released more than a week ago, limiting the adherence to compliance and providing less accurate predictions. In this paper, we present a neuro-symbolic approach for predictive process monitoring, leveraging Logic Tensor Networks (LTNs) to inject process knowledge into predictive models. The proposed approach follows a structured pipeline consisting of four key stages: 1) feature extraction; 2) rule extraction; 3) knowledge base creation; and 4) knowledge injection. Our evaluation shows that, in addition to learning the process constraints, the neuro-symbolic model also achieves better performance, demonstrating higher compliance and improved accuracy compared to baseline approaches across all compliance-aware experiments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Binary classification backbone implemented as an LTN computational graph [ 2 ] .
Figure 2: The pipeline followed in the approach, which consists of feature extraction, rule extraction, knowledge base creation and injection, and then the creation of the neuro-symbolic model leveraging the LTN framework.
Figure 3: The three ways of injecting knowledge: (A) feature expansion for class-dependent, non-outcome-oriented knowledge, (B) output refinement for class-dependent, outcome-oriented knowledge, and (C) parallel constraints for class-independent knowledge. Each injection pathway addresses a different failure mode of purely data-driven predictors: feature expansion propagates declarative facts such as “elderly diabetic patients require special monitoring” into the feature space, output refinement operationalizes outcome rules like “timely antibiotics lower complication risk” directly on the predicate outputs, and parallel constraints regularize the shared representation by penalizing process executions structural rules such as “medical history review must precede physical examination.”
Model
Sepsis
BPIC2012
BPIC2017
Traffic fines
Accuracy
F1
Accuracy
F1
Accuracy
F1
Accuracy
F1
LSTM
81,86 ± 1,57
71.61 ± 4.70
53.19 ± 2.45
52.49 ± 1.99
64.62 ± 0.76
64.04 ± 1.15
77.34 ± 1.54
77.27 ± 1.65
TRF
81,53 ± 2,31
73.66 ± 2.78
58.80 ± 1.21
56.15 ± 1.09
69.22 ± 3.11
68.93 ± 3.53
78.26 ± 1.51
78.23 ± 1.52
LSTM-FE
81,71 ± 1.60
70.49 ± 3.87
51.89 ± 0.97
51.80 ± 1.03
63.35 ± 0.54
62.20 ± 0.49
77.15 ± 0.61
77.05 ± 0.69
TRF-FE
78.61 ± 3.34
67.01 ± 4.09
62.29 ± 2.49
58.83 ± 2.16
66.41 ± 1.64
65.77 ± 1.97
75.18 ± 0.81
74.90 ± 0.92
LSTM-SL
79.90 ± 2.72
69.70 ± 4.59
53.70 ± 1.94
53.08 ± 1.52
64.98 ± 0.59
64.34 ± 0.63
77.54 ± 1.42
77.46 ± 1.52
Table 1: Performance on compliance-aware test set comparing purely data-driven baselines (LSTM, TFR, LTSM-FE, TFR-FE) with knowledge-enhanced variants. Results show mean and standard deviation over 5 seeds.
Figure 4: Ablation study for LTN-T of the different injection methods with 5 different seeds. Injection techniques were first evaluated individually (i.e., feature expansion LTN_A and output refinement LTN_B), followed by an evaluation of their possible combinations, where the LTN_ABC is the main configuration. The letters used to denote the configurations correspond to the injection methods in Fig. 3 .
Figure 5: Compliance scores obtained with 5 different seeds comparing purely data-driven baselines with knowledge-enhanced variants.
Predictive modeling on sequential event data is critical for fraud detection and healthcare monitoring. Existing data-driven approaches learn correlations from historical data but fail to incorporate domain-specific sequential constraints and logical rules governing event relationships, limiting accuracy and regulatory compliance. For example, healthcare procedures must follow specific sequences, and financial transactions must adhere to compliance rules. We present a neuro-symbolic approach integrating domain knowledge as differentiable logical constraints using Logic Networks (LTNs). We formalize control-flow, temporal, and payload knowledge using Linear Temporal Logic and first-order logic. Our key contribution is a two-stage optimization strategy addressing LTNs' tendency to satisfy logical formulas at the expense of predictive accuracy. The approach uses weighted axiom loss during pretraining to prioritize data learning, followed by rule pruning that retains only consistent, contributive axioms based on satisfaction dynamics. Evaluation on four real-world event logs shows that domain knowledge injection significantly improves predictive performance, with the two-stage optimization proving essential knowledge (without it, knowledge can severely degrade performance). The approach excels particularly in compliance-constrained scenarios with limited compliant training examples, achieving superior performance compared to purely data-driven baselines while ensuring adherence to domain constraints.
Fabrizio De Santis, Gyunam Park, Francesco Zanichelli
University of Parma, Parma, Italy · Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
Process anomaly detection is an important application of process mining for identifying deviations from the normal behavior of a process. Neural network-based methods have recently been applied to this task, learning directly from event logs without requiring a predefined process model. However, since anomaly detection is a purely statistical task, these models fail to incorporate human domain knowledge. As a result, rare but conformant traces are often misclassified as anomalies due to their low frequency, which limits the effectiveness of the detection process. Recent developments in the field of neuro-symbolic AI have introduced Logic Tensor Networks (LTN) as a means to integrate symbolic knowledge into neural networks using real-valued logic. In this work, we propose a neuro-symbolic approach that integrates domain knowledge into neural anomaly detection using LTN and Declare constraints. Using autoencoder models as a foundation, we encode Declare constraints as soft logical guiderails within the learning process to distinguish between anomalous and rare but conformant behavior. Evaluations on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach improves F1 scores even when as few as 10 conformant traces exist, and that the choice of Declare constraint and by extension human domain knowledge significantly influences performance gains.
Devashish Gaikwad, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, Gyunam Park
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany · Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
LLM-based agents are entering regulated industries where they automate judgment intensive quality management processes. We argue that symbolic structures already embedded in these domains, including regulations, typed process models, and compliance constraints, should be treated not merely as external monitoring mechanisms but as core architectural components that shape the agent's decision-making and behavior. We propose compliance-by-construction as a complementary paradigm to guardrail-based monitoring: a structural foundation that prevents control-flow violations, while guardrails remain essential for catching semantic errors. We identify a structured set of neuro-symbolic research challenges on foundational and capability level and show that addressing them jointly enables compliance-by-construction. We call on the neuro-symbolic community to engage with regulated process automation as a high impact research domain.
Alexander Rombach, Chantale Lauer, Nijat Mehdiyev
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Campus D3 2, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany · Saarland University, Campus D3 2, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany