Inspired by Pearl's counterfactual notion of necessity, TimePNS assesses whether a temporal factor is necessary by intervening on it and measuring whether the original prediction is disrupted, and consistently improves sufficiency-necessity trade-offs over strong baselines.
Abstract
Faithful explanations of time-series classifiers should identify subsequences that are not only sufficient to preserve a black-box model's prediction, but also necessary for maintaining it. However, existing sufficiency-oriented methods can assign high importance to spurious subsequences that support the prediction without being essential to the model's decision. We introduce \textbf{TimePNS}, a necessity-aware framework for time-series explanation. Inspired by Pearl's counterfactual notion of necessity, TimePNS assesses whether a temporal factor is necessary by intervening on it and measuring whether the original prediction is disrupted. The framework adopts a two-stage design. Stage I learns an identifiable causal generative process together with a sufficiency-oriented explanation mask. Stage II performs counterfactual interventions on temporal factors to derive necessity signals, which supervise a temporal gate that refines the initial explanation by suppressing non-essential components and emphasizing counterfactually necessary ones. Experiments on synthetic and real-world time-series benchmarks show that TimePNS more accurately identifies decision-critical subsequences and consistently improves sufficiency-necessity trade-offs over strong baselines.
Explaining deep learning models operating on time series data is crucial in various applications that require transparent and interpretable insights into model behavior. {Existing explanation methods generally fall into two categories: attribution-based explanations, which identify the temporal regions most responsible...
Xu Zheng, Zichuan Liu, Zhuomin Chen et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to make predictions from numerical time-series histories and textual events. Yet accuracy alone cannot reveal whether correct answers reflect effective integration of the two inputs or instead arise from event polarity, unimodal priors, or superficial cues. Likewise, p...
Jie Gong, Mao-Wei Jiang, Zhiwei Liu et al.· 0 citations
Model explainability is essential for understanding and trusting machine learning models. Existing explainable AI methods often explain predictions through feature importance, counterfactual explanations, or rules. However, a region-level characterization of when and only when a prediction behavior arises remains less...
Xuexin Chen, Peng Liang, Zijian Li et al.· 0 citations
Oscillatory signals, such as vibration, carry class-discriminative information in specific frequency bands; perturbing them in raw feature space for counterfactual analysis easily destroys their temporal structure and produces physically implausible results. In this work, we introduce IMFACT (IMF-based counterfACTuals)...
Udo Schlegel, Julian Rakuschek, Thomas Seidl et al.· 0 citations
Counterfactual explanations have been proposed to provide actionable insights for complex black-box classifiers by suggesting “what-if” explanations that alter undesirable prediction outcomes to desired ones. Recent advances have emphasized desirable properties such as causality, plausibility, and contextual alignment;...
Zhen-Dong Wang, Diego García, J. Enguita et al.· Machine-mediated learning· 0 citations
Causal Discovery (CD) from observational data faces two fundamental challenges. First, purely statistical methods often lack the power to resolve structural ambiguities in low-sample regimes. Second, although LLM-assisted hybrid approaches improve structure recovery through semantic reasoning, the influence of that rea...
A. Thorat, Ravi Kolla, Vishak K Bhat et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.