GRAIL: From Saliency to Semantics in Time-Series Explanation

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 for a prediction, and counterfactual explanations, which reveal how an input should be modified to alter the model's decision.} {Despite valuable insights, these two fields are largely studied independently. This disconnect leaves attribution methods lacking causal validation, while counterfactual methods suffer from severe instability, producing adversarial-like noise instead of meaningful explanations.} In this work, we revisit time-series explainability from an information-theoretic perspective and show that existing explainers are vulnerable to trivial solutions and distributional shifts. To address these limitations, we propose a unified objective function for explainable time series learning that bridges attribution and counterfactual reasoning within a single framework. Building upon the Information Bottleneck principle, our formulation explicitly prevents trivial explanations and out-of-distribution counterfactuals. {Based on this objective function, we introduce {\modelname}, a novel explanation framework that learns a parametric transformation network to construct explanation-embedded instances, where preserved information yields attribution explanations and controlled information removal produces stable counterfactual explanations.} We evaluate {\modelname} on synthetic and real-world benchmarks against state-of-the-art baselines. Extensive quantitative and qualitative results show that {\modelname} consistently outperforms competing methods, yielding faithful attributions and stable counterfactual explanations.

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 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.

Time series forecasting models are widely used in high-stakes settings, yet their predictions remain difficult to interpret because existing post-hoc methods often ignore temporal dependence and fail to provide horizon-specific explanations. We propose a model-agnostic explainability framework that explains forecasting predictions by attributing each forecast horizon to temporally relevant historical lags. The framework models forecasting as a latent trajectory and introduces semantic flow to quantify how information evolves across time in the model's internal representations. By aggregating semantic flow, it constructs a lag-horizon attribution matrix that captures horizon-resolved temporal influence. To improve explainability, we further generate structure-preserving perturbations and fit sparse local surrogate models, producing human-readable and temporally coherent explanations. We evaluate the method using faithfulness and stability diagnostics across multiple benchmark datasets. Results show that the semantic-flow variant achieves competitive or superior faithfulness compared to standard post-hoc baselines, while being substantially more computationally efficient. Stability analysis further demonstrates that the explanations are robust and identifies regimes where interpretation should be applied with caution.