A Framework for Object-Centric Predictive Monitoring of Collaborative Processes
Authors: Daniel Calegari, Andrea Delgado, Leonel Peña, Martín Rubio
Organizations: Universidad ORT Uruguay, Cuareim 1451, Montevideo, 11100, Montevideo, Uruguay · Instituto de Computación, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de la República, J. Herrera y Reissig 565, Montevideo, 11300, Montevideo, Uruguay
Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) of collaborative, inter-organizational processes requires reasoning over multiple interdependent entities, including participants, messages, local executions, and the global collaboration case. Existing approaches extend traditional event logs with collaboration attributes but retain a single-case perspective, leaving much of this structure implicit. Object-centric process mining (OCPM) provides an alternative by representing these entities as first-class objects with explicit relations and multiple notions of case. This study connects collaborative PPM and OCPM through three contributions: (i) a formal semantic mapping from extended collaborative event logs to an OCED-conformant object-centric representation, serialized in OCEL 2.0; (ii) a reformulation of collaborative prediction tasks as object-centric prediction tasks; and (iii) a reproducible converter and prediction pipeline implementing the proposed mapping. We evaluate the framework on four public collaborative event logs and a fifth derived from the BPI Challenge 2013 incident-management log by executing the fourteen reformulated tasks using five predictive strategies across tabular, sequential, and graph-native encodings. We further discuss the benefits, limitations, and threats to the approach's validity. The representation makes collaboration structure explicit and makes it natural to state prediction targets based on object relations that fall outside the case-centric taxonomy, at the cost of increased relational complexity and dependence on object-centric tooling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A BPMN 2.0 healthcare business process collaboration from [ 7 ]
case
timestamp
activity
elemType
participant
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:07
Communicate disease
SendTask
Patient
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:10
Receive disease info
ReceiveTask
Gynecologist
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:13
Examine patient
task
Gynecologist
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:18
Blood draw
task
Gynecologist
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:21
Send blood sample
SendTask
Gynecologist
case_459
2021-06-17 07:17:25
Receive blood sample
ReceiveTask
Laboratory
Table 1: Relevant data from the collaborative event log in the example case case_459 .
Figure 2: OCED Core Model from [ 11 ]
Category
Type Id
Prediction
Next Event
NE-NEPa
Next event that is likely to occur in a participant.
NE-NEPr
Next event that is likely to occur in the process.
NE-NPaA
Next participant that is likely to act.
NE-NPaM
Next participant that is likely to send/receive a message.
NE-NMPa
Next message that is likely to occur in a participant.
NE-NMPr
Next message that is likely to occur in the process.
Table 2: Prediction types for collaborative processes from [ 10 ] .
Approach
Ref
Encoding
Model
Prediction types
(Adams, 2022)
[ 2 ]
Tabular, sequential, and graph
Regression, LSTM, and GNN
Remaining time
(Gherissi, 2023)
[ 17 ]
Flattening for a selected object type
LSTM (PPM-OC)
Next activity, next event time, remaining time
(Galanti, 2023)
[ 14 ]
Tabular over object interactions
Feature-based predictive models
KPI and outcome
(Adams, 2023)
[ 4 ]
Native graph
GNN, compared against graph embeddings and flattening
Next activity, next timestamp, remaining time
(Galanti, 2024)
[ 15 ]
Tabular, sequential, and graph
CatBoost, LSTM, and GNN; the GNN does not outperform
KPI
(Smit, 2024)
[ 23 ]
Native heterogeneous object-event graph (HOEG)
Heterogeneous GNN
Remaining time
Table 3: Object-centric PPM approaches: encoding, model, and prediction targets
Figure 3: Instance-level representation of the first three events of collaboration case case_459 (Table 1 ). Dashed arrows represent qualified O2O relations, whereas solid arrows represent qualified E2O relations. Some attributes are omitted for readability.
Figure 4: High level pipeline of the framework.
Encoding
Input generation strategy
ML/DL models
Libraries
Tabular
Per-event vector, reading no object attribute: elapsed time; the number of distinct OrchestrationCase and Message objects up to the cut; and one column per activity, counting its occurrences among the cut event’s immediate predecessors.
Random Forest, XGBoost
scikit-learn
Sequential
The same flat feature vectors as the tabular encoding, stacked in prefix order into per-case sequences.
Transformers, LSTMs
PyTorch
Graph
Induced subgraphs of the OCPA event graph: the cut event plus its up to eight closest structural ancestor events, as interconnected nodes.
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)
PyTorch
Table 5: Encoding approaches and compatible prediction models and libraries.
Statistic
Healthcare
Artificial 1
Artificial 5
Real 4
BPIC 2013
Cases
100
100
100
100
7,554
Events
1,450
800
2,360
1,800
69,584
Distinct activities
21
8
28
19
4
Max. events per case
18
8
25
18
135
Avg. events per case
14.5
8.0
23.6
18.0
9.21
Message types
8
2
6
4
1
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of the event logs.
Task
Target anchor
Problem type
NE-NPaA
Participant
Multiclass classification
NE-NMPr
Message
Multiclass classification
NV-PrT
CollaborationCase
Regression (time)
NV-PaT
OrchestrationCase
Regression (time)
NV-NMPr
Message
Count regression
OB-M
Message
Binary classification
Table 7: Representative subset for the end-to-end demonstration (RQ3).
PredictCollab logs (78,600 fitted prefixes)
BPIC 2013 (653,298 fitted prefixes)
Predictor
Fit (s)
s/1k
Predict (ms)
Peak (MB)
Fit (s)
s/1k
Predict (ms)
Peak (MB)
Random Forest
41
0.10
30.2
899
84
0.03
104.5
6,411
XGBoost
62
0.16
4.4
964
103
0.03
44.6
2,024
Transformer
886
2.25
3.1
1,034
13,513
4.14
282.8
2,192
LSTM
292
0.74
1.2
962
10,753
3.29
26.1
1,997
GNN
5,389
13.71
204.3
1,074
43,994
13.46
6,837.9
2,748
Table 9: RQ3 execution cost over the full 14-task catalog, by predictor and log group.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Parameter
Output / decoder
Accessors used
Lemma
Θτsrc
NE-NEPr
—
Aμ/decA
evtype
(i)
[ 10 ] , Def. 3
NE-NPaA
—
Paμ/decPa
pa
(ii)
[ 10 ] , Def. 4
NE-NEPa †
—
Aμ×Paμ/(decA,decPa)
evtype , pa
(i), (ii)
[ 10 ] , Def. 5
NE-NPaM †
d∈{snd,rcv}
Paμ⊥/decPa⊥
msg , from / to
(iii)
[ 10 ] , Def. 6
NE-NMPr
—
Aμ⊥/decA⊥
isMsg , evtype
(i), (iii)
Table 2 only (above)
NE-NMPa
p∈PL
Aμ⊥/decA⊥
isMsg , oc , evtype
(i)–(iii)
Table 2 only (above)
Appendix
Table 10: Parameters, output typing, accessors, and source-level counterparts of the tasks in Proposition 2 . Types marked † are documented adaptations, not literal restatements, of the cited definition (see "Departures from a literal restatement" below).
Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) forecasts how ongoing organizational processes unfold, enabling information systems to move beyond execution support toward proactive analysis and monitoring. Although deep learning has improved prediction accuracy in PPM, most approaches follow a single-task learning (STL) setup, training a separate model per task. This increases maintenance effort and overlooks potential synergies. Multi-task learning (MTL), which jointly learns multiple prediction targets in one model, offers a promising alternative, yet its effectiveness in PPM remains underexplored. It remains unclear whether and under which settings MTL improves upon STL, which prediction tasks benefit most from joint learning, which task combinations are particularly synergistic, and if and how tasks should be balanced. To fill this gap, we present the first comprehensive empirical study of MTL for PPM, evaluating a variety of task combinations, neural architectures, and optimization methods. Overall, our results position MTL as a strong paradigm for PPM: we see substantial improvements in next-activity prediction and inherent mitigation of class imbalance using MTL, while task balancing is especially critical under low-capacity models.
Lukas Kirchdorfer, Keyvan Amiri Elyasi, Heiner Stuckenschmidt
Predictive Process Monitoring (PPM) aims at predicting at runtime and as early as possible the future states of a process execution. Common tasks include predicting the next event, the time to completion of a trace, and outcomes. Existing approaches typically consider an event from the perspective of the executed activities along with their timestamps and case identifiers. This leads to the disadvantage that in real-life settings, there is much more information recorded in the event log that is not captured or completely ignored when performing prediction tasks. We introduce GNN4PPM, an approach that predicts all next events along with their complete data payload at once. We represent event information in a heterogeneous knowledge graph that captures the event log as an RDF semantics, and train the embeddings with a Relational Graph Convolutional Network (R-GCN). Our approach is promising in comparison to existing solutions, and experiments with state-of-the-art solutions prove the accuracy and applicability of GNN4PPM in complex settings.
Ana Costa, Johannes Mäkelburg, Luise Pufahl
Technical University of Munich, School of Computation, Information and Technology, Heilbronn, Germany
Next activity prediction helps service-oriented processes anticipate upcoming steps before delays, exceptions, or service-level risks occur. Most existing methods assume classical single-case event logs, whereas real service processes often involve events shared by multiple typed business objects. Object-centric event logs (OCELs) capture such interactions, but current predictors remain limited. Flattening-based approaches lose cross-object context, and native OCEL graph-based approaches encode multi-object events through pairwise relations. Existing models also do not jointly capture event-driven object state changes, inter-event timing, and global execution patterns. We propose EHHN, an Event-driven Heterogeneous Hypergraph Network for object-centric next activity prediction. EHHN represents each prediction prefix as a heterogeneous hypergraph, where event--object hyperedges bind retained co-participating objects and a lifecycle hyperedge groups the primary object's observed lifecycle events. Based on this representation, EHHN uses a dual-stream architecture in which a micro-spatial stream models event-driven object-state evolution and a macro-evolution stream captures temporal dynamics using retrieved global prototypes. The two streams are fused to predict the next activity. Experiments on four public OCEL benchmarks against nine baselines show that EHHN achieves the best accuracy and macro F1-score on all datasets, with improvements of up to 8.1 and 12.4 percentage points over the strongest baselines. Compared with the strongest OCEL-native graph baseline, EHHN also reduces peak GPU memory by up to 24 times. Code is available at https://github.com/chenkaitao1112/EHHN.
Jiaxing Wang, Kaitao Chen, Zhubin Han +4
College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, 310023, Hangzhou, China · University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia