Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research identifies a fundamental flaw in standard time-series explainability methods like SHAP, demonstrating they conflate direct temporal dependencies with mediated ones due to autocorrelation. The authors propose "DAG-faithfulness" as a rigorous criterion for explanations that accurately reflect the model's implicit causal structure rather than producing misleading flat scores. This work is critical for researchers developing trustworthy global time series models where understanding feature interactions over time is paramount.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Failures of Marginal Influence-Based Attribution Methods for Global Time Series Explanations

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2607.16236v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Explainability methods for time series models predominantly produce flat attribution scores: they quantify the direct influence of a feature at a timestamp by a scalar. We prove that the dominant failure mode of such methods is not the scalar format itself but a fundamental computational mismatch: existing methods compute scores via marginal conditioning or off-manifold gradients, both of which conflate direct temporal dependencies with mediated ones under autocorrelation. We also define DAG-faithfulness: an explanation is DAG-faithful if the temporal dependency graph it encodes is Markov-equivalent to the temporal directed acyclic graph (DAG) implicitly learned by the model. Particularly, we observe that standard attribution methods, specifically SHAP, are not DAG-faithful in general, and that recent time-series-aware extensions inherit the same computational limitation.

Abstract:Explainability methods for time series models predominantly produce flat attribution scores: they quantify the direct influence of a feature at a timestamp by a scalar. We prove that the dominant failure mode of such methods is not the scalar format itself but a fundamental computational mismatch: existing methods compute scores via marginal conditioning or off-manifold gradients, both of which conflate direct temporal dependencies with mediated ones under autocorrelation. We also define DAG-faithfulness: an explanation is DAG-faithful if the temporal dependency graph it encodes is Markov-equivalent to the temporal directed acyclic graph (DAG) implicitly learned by the model. Particularly, we observe that standard attribution methods, specifically SHAP, are not DAG-faithful in general, and that recent time-series-aware extensions inherit the same computational limitation.

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2607.16236 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2607.16236v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.16236 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 216 words

Related coverage