Papers › Benchmarking Deep Learning Interpretability in Time Series Predictions

Benchmarking Deep Learning Interpretability in Time Series Predictions

26 Oct 2020NeurIPS 2020 12arXiv:2010.13924archive 2025-07-28

Aya Abdelsalam Ismail, Mohamed Gunady, Héctor Corrada Bravo, Soheil Feizi

Saliency methods are used extensively to highlight the importance of input features in model predictions. These methods are mostly used in vision and language tasks, and their applications to time series data is relatively unexplored. In this paper, we set out to extensively compare the performance of various saliency-based interpretability methods across diverse neural architectures, including Recurrent Neural Network, Temporal Convolutional Networks, and Transformers in a new benchmark of synthetic time series data. We propose and report multiple metrics to empirically evaluate the performance of saliency methods for detecting feature importance over time using both precision (i.e., whether identified features contain meaningful signals) and recall (i.e., the number of features with signal identified as important). Through several experiments, we show that (i) in general, network architectures and saliency methods fail to reliably and accurately identify feature importance over time in time series data, (ii) this failure is mainly due to the conflation of time and feature domains, and (iii) the quality of saliency maps can be improved substantially by using our proposed two-step temporal saliency rescaling (TSR) approach that first calculates the importance of each time step before calculating the importance of each feature at a time step.

PaperPDFConference PDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2010.13924")

Code

Syntology Ran 3 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran; 1 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

ayaabdelsalam91/TS-Interpretability-Benchmark officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 3 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · honoured contract
2ran · our draft was wrong
1unverified

Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ayaabdelsalam91/TS-Interpretability-Benchmark. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

attention ayaabdelsalam91/TS-Interpretability-Benchmark/Scripts/Models/Transformer.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · 94be2b4c3aa07cf9 · report
creatMask ayaabdelsalam91/TS-Interpretability-Benchmark/Scripts/Models/Transformer.py official repository ran · honoured contract fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · a3368005f95cadc1 · report
parse_arguments ayaabdelsalam91/TS-Interpretability-Benchmark/Scripts/run_benchmark.py official repository unverified no licence file found · pointer only · 0c32c2b12d8473af · report
get_clones identical code first harvested elsewhere ran · our draft was wrong licence of this copy not recorded · 891b8ebab395921f · report

Tasks

BenchmarkingDeep LearningFeature ImportanceTime SeriesTime Series Analysis

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Interpretability

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections