The early detection of delayed cases in business processes is a critical capability for organizations. Predictive process monitoring (PPM) supports this task by using historical event logs to predict the remaining time of ongoing cases, enabling timely interventions to avoid missed deadlines and service level violations. Although remaining time prediction has advanced considerably through sophisticated deep learning architectures, little is known about the intrinsic difficulty of delay detection itself. Since performance is typically assessed using aggregate metrics, prior work provides limited insight into how models perform across the target distribution, especially on the operationally most critical cases with large delays. In this paper, we address this gap by analyzing the difficulty of delay detection. Across 14 event logs, we show that remaining times are typically strongly right-skewed, with only a small fraction of cases exhibiting large delays. Existing models capture the mode of this distribution well but perform poorly on high-delay cases. We further uncover pronounced heteroscedasticity, showing that predictive uncertainty increases with delay magnitude. Based on these findings, we evaluate approaches to mitigate the imbalance problem, but find only limited benefits, suggesting that the key underlying problem may not be imbalance but higher uncertainty associated with delayed cases. We show that this correlation can be exploited to substantially improve the identification of delayed cases. Overall, our work provides new insights into the sources of difficulty in delay detection and identifies uncertainty-aware modeling as a promising direction for future PPM research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: BPIC20PTC distribution of ground-truth and predicted remaining times (in days), with average error and heteroscedastic uncertainty per target range.
Case duration
Case duration
Event log
Cases
Events
Avg.
Max
γ
Event log
Cases
Events
Avg.
Max
γ
P2P
608
9119
21.5
109.4
2.8
Helpdesk
4580
21348
40.9
60.0
-0.1
BPIC17W
30276
240854
12.7
288.9
4.2
Sepsis
1050
15214
28.5
422.3
3.0
BPIC15-1
1199
52217
95.9
1486.0
5.2
BPIC20ID
6449
72151
86.5
742.0
3.5
BPIC15-2
832
44354
160.3
1326.0
3.2
BPIC20DD
10500
56437
11.5
469.2
11.5
BPIC15-3
1409
59681
62.2
1512.0
10.0
BPIC20PTC
2099
18246
36.8
328.2
4.0
Table 1: Characteristics of the 14 event logs used for evaluation. Case duration is in days. γ denotes the skewness of the remaining-time distribution.
Dataset
ρ(y,∣e∣)
ρ(y,PISurv)
Dataset
ρ(y,∣e∣)
ρ(y,PISurv)
P2P
0.89
0.46
Helpdesk
−0.41
−0.53
BPIC17W
0.38
−0.43
Sepsis
0.51
0.39
BPIC15-1
0.30
0.55
BPIC20ID
0.64
0.80
BPIC15-2
−0.20
−0.22
BPIC20DD
0.47
0.21
BPIC15-3
0.68
0.64
BPIC20PTC
0.56
0.67
BPIC15-4
−0.69
0.09
BPIC20TPD
0.61
0.68
Table 2: Spearman correlation between ground-truth remaining time y and (i) absolute prediction error ∣e∣ and (ii) prediction interval (PI) width produced by the survival model (Surv).
Figure 2: BPIC20PTC target distribution for various configurations of SMOGN.
Mode
Average Ranks (lower is better)
Significant Performance Differences (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p−values )
Many
Vanilla (1.64), CSW (2.14), EAL (2.36), BMSE (3.86), SERA (5.00)
Vanilla > SERA (0.001); CSW > SERA (0.006); EAL > SERA (0.015)
Medium
CSW (2.21), BMSE (2.36), EAL (2.64), Vanilla (2.86), SERA (4.93)
CSW > SERA (0.012); BMSE > SERA (0.020)
Few
SERA (1.00), BMSE (2.14), CSW (3.57), EAL (3.79), Vanilla (4.50)
Vanilla vs BMSE (0.042); SERA > Vanilla (0.000); SERA > CSW (0.020); SERA > EAL (0.009)
All
EAL (1.93), CSW (2.00), Vanilla (2.36), BMSE (3.71), SERA (5.00)
Vanilla > SERA (0.015); CSW > SERA (0.004); EAL > SERA (0.003)
Table 3: Comparison of algorithm-level approaches using average ranks (lower is better) and significant pairwise differences identified by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results are reported for nMAE across target regions.
Figure 3: Distribution of nMAE across datasets for algorithm-level imbalanced regression approaches, analyzed across different target-frequency regions.
Figure 4: Uncertainty-aware delay detection pipeline using survival-based predictions and a tabular classifier.
Baseline Classifier
Uncertainty-Aware Model
Dataset
Recall
Precision
F1-Score
PRAUC
Recall
Precision
F1-Score
PRAUC
P2P
0.11
0.99
0.20
0.74
0.83
0.95
0.89
0.91
BPIC17W
0.34
0.48
0.40
0.38
0.59
0.77
0.67
0.59
BPIC15-1
0.49
0.34
0.39
0.23
0.66
0.40
0.49
0.30
BPIC15-2
0.38
0.11
0.17
0.07
0.75
0.12
0.21
0.10
BPIC15-3
0.31
0.39
0.34
0.23
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.48
Table 4: Delay detection performance (threshold q=0.8 ). Average Recall, Precision, F1-score, and PR-AUC over five random seeds for baseline and uncertainty-aware models.
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands · Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Wuppertal, Germany
NSF Artificial Intelligence Institute for Advances in Optimization, H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA · Kinaxis