Interpretability in Deep Time Series Models Demands Semantic Alignment

Deep time series models continue to improve predictive performance, yet their deployment remains limited by their black-box nature. In response, existing interpretability approaches in the field keep focusing on explaining the internal model computations, without addressing whether they align or not with how a human would reason about the studied phenomenon. Instead, we state interpretability in deep time series models should pursue semantic alignment: predictions should be expressed in terms of variables that are meaningful to the end user, mediated by spatial and temporal mechanisms that admit user-dependent constraints. In this paper, we formalize this requirement and require that, once established, semantic alignment must be preserved under temporal evolution: a constraint with no analog in static settings. Provided with this definition, we outline a blueprint for semantically aligned deep time series models, identify properties that support trust, and discuss implications for model design.

Causally Reliable Concept Bottleneck Models

Concept-based models are an emerging paradigm in deep learning that constrains the inference process to operate through human-interpretable concepts, facilitating explainability and human interaction. However, these architectures, on par with popular opaque neural models, fail to account for the true causal mechanisms underlying the target phenomena represented in the data. This hampers their ability to support causal reasoning tasks, limits out-of-distribution generalization, and hinders the implementation of fairness constraints. To overcome these issues, we propose \emph{Causally reliable Concept Bottleneck Models} (C$^2$BMs), a class of concept-based architectures that enforce reasoning through a bottleneck of concepts structured according to a model of the real-world causal mechanisms. We also introduce a pipeline to automatically learn this structure from observational data and \emph{unstructured} background knowledge (e.g., scientific literature). Experimental evidence suggest that C$^2$BM are more interpretable, causally reliable, and improve responsiveness to interventions w.r.t. standard opaque and concept-based models, while maintaining their accuracy.