IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process mining with real world financial loan applications: Improving inference on incomplete event logs

Author

Listed:
  • Catarina Moreira
  • Emmanuel Haven
  • Sandro Sozzo
  • Andreas Wichert

Abstract

In this work, we analyse and model a real life financial loan application belonging to a sample bank in the Netherlands. The event log is robust in terms of data, containing a total of 262 200 event logs, belonging to 13 087 different credit applications. The goal is to work out a decision model, which represents the underlying tasks that make up the loan application service. To this end we study the impact of incomplete event logs (for instance workers forget to register their tasks). The absence of data is translated into a drastic decrease of precision and compromises the decision models, leading to biased and unrepresentative results. We use non-classical probability to show we can better reduce the error percentage of inferences as opposed to classical probability.

Suggested Citation

  • Catarina Moreira & Emmanuel Haven & Sandro Sozzo & Andreas Wichert, 2018. "Process mining with real world financial loan applications: Improving inference on incomplete event logs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207806
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207806
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207806&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207806?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hasbrouck, Joel, 2004. "Liquidity in the Futures Pits: Inferring Market Dynamics from Incomplete Data," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 305-326, June.
    2. Dai, Zhifeng & Wen, Fenghua, 2018. "Some improved sparse and stable portfolio optimization problems," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 46-52.
    3. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    4. Alexis Diamond & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2013. "Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 932-945, July.
    5. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    6. M Berkan Sesen & Ann E Nicholson & Rene Banares-Alcantara & Timor Kadir & Michael Brady, 2013. "Bayesian Networks for Clinical Decision Support in Lung Cancer Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    2. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    3. Boyer-Kassem, Thomas & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric, 2016. "Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    5. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    6. Bodo Herzog, 2015. "Anchoring of expectations: The role of credible targets in a game experiment," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 3(6), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Borgsen, Sina & Weber, Martin, 2007. "False consensus and the role of ambiguity in predictions of others risky preferences," Papers 07-46, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    8. Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Micromotives in Global Environmental Policy," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 47-61, October.
    9. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    10. Mark D. Packard & Brent B. Clark & Peter G. Klein, 2017. "Uncertainty Types and Transitions in the Entrepreneurial Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 840-856, October.
    11. Daniele SCHILIRÒ, 2013. "Bounded Rationality: Psychology, Economics And The Financial Crises," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 4(1), pages 97-108.
    12. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2018. "Decision theory with a state of mind represented by an element of a Hilbert space: The Ellsberg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 131-141.
    13. Wang, Zuo-Jun & Li, Shu & Jiang, Cheng-Ming, 2012. "Emotional response in a disjunction condition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 71-78.
    14. Philippe, Fabrice, 2000. "Cumulative prospect theory and imprecise risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 237-263, November.
    15. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
    16. Mario GRAZIANO & Daniele SCHILIRÒ, 2011. "Rationality And Choices In Economics: Behavioral And Evolutionary Approaches," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 182-195.
    17. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    18. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    19. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2019. "Minimal Frames and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4318-4335, September.
    20. Daniele Schilirò, 2012. "Bounded Rationality And Perfect Rationality: Psychology Into Economics," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 99-108.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.