A doubly robust approach for impact evaluation of interventions for business process improvement based on event logs

Kreuzer, 2020, Customer-centric prioritization of process improvement projects, Decis. Support Syst., 133, 10.1016/j.dss.2020.113286 Gross, 2021, The Business Process Design Space for exploring process redesign alternatives, Bus. Process Manag. J., 27, 25, 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2020-0116 Delias, 2021, Prototyping a business process improvement plan. An evidence-based approach, Inf. Syst., 101, 10.1016/j.is.2021.101812 van der Aalst, 2016 Abadie, 2006, Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects, Econometrica, 74, 235, 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x Rosenbaum, 1983, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70, 41, 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 Greenland, 1986, Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding, Int. J. Epidemiol., 15, 413, 10.1093/ije/15.3.413 van der Laan, 2011, Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data, 10.1007/978-1-4419-9782-1 Nogueira, 2021, Causal discovery in machine learning: Theories and applications, J. Dyn. Games, 8, 203, 10.3934/jdg.2021008 Zanga, 2022, A survey on causal discovery: Theory and practice, Internat. J. Approx. Reason., 151, 101, 10.1016/j.ijar.2022.09.004 Moraffah, 2020, Causal interpretability for machine learning - problems, methods and evaluation, ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 22, 18, 10.1145/3400051.3400058 Moraffah, 2021, Causal inference for time series analysis: problems, methods and evaluation, Knowl. Inf. Syst., 63, 3041, 10.1007/s10115-021-01621-0 Yao, 2021, A survey on causal inference, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 15, 1, 10.1145/3444944 Guo, 2021, A survey of learning causality with data: Problems and methods, ACM Comput. Surv., 53, 1, 10.1145/3393880 Nogueira, 2022, Methods and tools for causal discovery and causal inference, WIREs Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 12 Polyvyanyy, 2019, A systematic approach for discovering causal dependencies between observations and incidents in the health and safety domain, Saf. Sci., 118, 345, 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.045 Brunk, 2021, Cause vs. effect in context-sensitive prediction of business process instances, Inf. Syst., 95, 10.1016/j.is.2020.101635 Narendra, 2019, Counterfactual reasoning for process optimization using structural causal models, 91 Qafari, 2022, Feature recommendation for structural equation model discovery in process mining, Prog. Artif. Intell., 10.1007/s13748-022-00282-6 Hompes, 2017, Discovering causal factors explaining business process performance variation, 177 Bozorgi, 2020, Process mining meets causal machine learning: Discovering causal rules from event logs, 129 Bozorgi, 2023, Prescriptive process monitoring based on causal effect estimation, Inf. Syst. Bozorgi, 2023, Learning when to treat business processes: Prescriptive process monitoring with causal inference and reinforcement learning, 364 Qafari, 2021, Case level counterfactual reasoning in process mining, 55 Verboven, 2022, Combining the clinical and operational perspectives in heterogeneous treatment effect inference in healthcare processes, 327 Shoush, 2022, Prescriptive process monitoring under resource constraints: A causal inference approach, 180 Leemans, 2022, Statistical tests and association measures for business processes, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 1, 10.1109/TKDE.2022.3197840 Hernan, 2023 Wager, 2021, Experimenting in equilibrium, Manage. Sci., 67, 6694, 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3844 Dumas, 2018 Delias, 2023 Rubin, 2005, Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 100, 322, 10.1198/016214504000001880 Manski, 2007 Benkeser, 2023, Doubly-robust inference in R using drtmle, Obs. Stud., 9, 43, 10.1353/obs.2023.0017 Neugebauer, 2005, Why prefer double robust estimators in causal inference?, J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 129, 405, 10.1016/j.jspi.2004.06.060 Chatton, 2020, G-computation, propensity score-based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study, Sci. Rep., 10, 9219, 10.1038/s41598-020-65917-x Gruber, 2023, Targeted learning: Toward a future informed by real-world evidence, Stat. Biopharm. Res., 1, 10.1080/19466315.2023.2182356 Lee, 2022, Review and comparison of treatment effect estimators using propensity and prognostic scores, Int. J. Biostat., 18, 357, 10.1515/ijb-2021-0005 Imbens, 2009, Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation, J. Econ. Lit., 47, 5, 10.1257/jel.47.1.5 Gruber, 2010, A targeted maximum likelihood estimator of a causal effect on a bounded continuous outcome, Int. J. Biostat., 6 van der Laan, 2007, Super learner, Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol., 6, 10.2202/1544-6115.1309 Dudoit, 2005, Asymptotics of cross-validated risk estimation in estimator selection and performance assessment, Stat. Methodol., 2, 131, 10.1016/j.stamet.2005.02.003 Vaart, 2006, Oracle inequalities for multi-fold cross validation, Statist. Decisions, 24, 351, 10.1524/stnd.2006.24.3.351 Moore, 2009, Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: Targeted maximum likelihood estimation, Stat. Med., 28, 39, 10.1002/sim.3445 Gruber, 2009 Luque-Fernandez, 2018, Targeted maximum likelihood estimation for a binary treatment: A tutorial, Stat. Med., 37, 2530, 10.1002/sim.7628 Boos, 2013, vol. 120