Cited by 95Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Time Series Analysis and ForecastingData Visualization and Analytics

TSViz: Demystification of Deep Learning Models for Time-Series Analysis

Open access
Siddiqui, Shoaib Ahmed, Mercier, Dominique, Munir, Mohsin, Dengel, Andreas, Ahmed, Sheraz·2019·IEEE Access

Abstract

This paper presents a novel framework for the demystification of convolutional deep learning models for time-series analysis. This is a step toward making informed/explainable decisions in the domain of time series, powered by deep learning. There have been numerous efforts to increase the interpretability of image-centric deep neural network models, where the learned features are more intuitive to visualize. Visualization in the domain of time series is significantly challenging, as there is no direct interpretation of the filters and inputs compared with the imaging modality. In addition, a little or no concentration has been devoted to the development of such tools in the domain of time series in the past. TSViz provides possibilities to explore and analyze the network from different dimensions at different levels of abstraction, which includes the identification of the parts of the input that were responsible for a particular prediction (including per filter saliency), importance of the different filters present in the network, notion of diversity present in the network through filter clustering, understanding of the main sources of variation learned by the network through inverse optimization, and analysis of the network's robustness against adversarial noise. As a sanity check for the computed influence values, we demonstrate our results on pruning of neural networks based on the computed influence information. These representations allow the user to better understand the network so that the acceptability of these deep models for time-series analysis can be enhanced. This is extremely important in domains, such as finance, industry 4.0, self-driving cars, health care, and counter-terrorism, where reasons for reaching a particular prediction are equally important as the prediction itself. We assess the proposed framework for interpretability with a set of desirable properties essential for any method in this direction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2019.2912823

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Various techniques have been proposed to analyze longitudinal data with XAI, but most have not yet been extensively applied to real-world clinical questions.

    “Similarly, various techniques have been proposed to analyze longitudinal data with XAI57,87–90, but most have not yet been extensively applied to real-world clinical questions.”

    From Orchestrating explainable artificial intelligence for multimodal and longitudinal data in medical imaging (2024) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Conclusion proposes TSViz as an interpretability framework for deep-learning time-series models, supporting its citation as an example of an XAI technique. The Classification section uses a dummy anomaly-detection dataset, and the paper does not establish the broader claim that most such techniques have not been extensively applied to real-world clinical questions. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 95

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. D. Alvarez-Melis and T. S. Jaakkola. (2018). ''On the robustness of interpretability methods.'' [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/1806.08049

Authors
Siddiqui, S. A., Mercier, D., Munir, M., Dengel, A., & Ahmed, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Kaiserslautern (DE)
  • German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DE)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2019
Volume
7
Pages
67027-67040
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2785373760
Cited by
95
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01IW17002)
  • Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
time series analysis, convolutional neural networks, explainable deep learning, interpretability, saliency maps, inverse optimization, adversarial robustness, neural network pruning, model visualization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review