TimeSliver : Symbolic-Linear Decomposition for Explainable Time Series Classification
Akash Pandey, Payal Mohapatra, Wei Chen, Qi Zhu, Sinan Keten

TL;DR
TimeSliver is a novel explainability framework for time series classification that combines raw data and symbolic abstraction to produce interpretable importance scores for each temporal segment, outperforming existing methods.
Contribution
It introduces a new symbolic-linear decomposition approach that enhances interpretability and maintains temporal structure, improving attribution accuracy and predictive performance.
Findings
Outperforms other attribution methods by 11% on 7 datasets.
Achieves within 2% of state-of-the-art accuracy on 26 datasets.
Provides meaningful importance scores for temporal segments.
Abstract
Identifying the extent to which every temporal segment influences a model's predictions is essential for explaining model decisions and increasing transparency. While post-hoc explainable methods based on gradients and feature-based attributions have been popular, they suffer from reference state sensitivity and struggle to generalize across time-series datasets, as they treat time points independently and ignore sequential dependencies. Another perspective on explainable time-series classification is through interpretable components of the model, for instance, leveraging self-attention mechanisms to estimate temporal attribution; however, recent findings indicate that these attention weights often fail to provide faithful measures of temporal importance. In this work, we advance this perspective and present a novel explainability-driven deep learning framework, TimeSliver, which…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. Novel architectural design: The combination of symbolic abstraction with raw time series through linear composition ($P = Z^T Q$) is creative and well-motivated. The structural analogy to STFT provides good intuition. 2. Strong experimental validation: The paper demonstrates 11-18% improvement over baselines on synthetic datasets and maintains competitive performance on 26 UEA benchmark datasets while providing explainability. 2. Scale-invariance property: The theoretical justification for w
1. baseline comparisons: Using computer vision methods (Grad-CAM, DeepLIFT) directly on time series without proper adaptation may disadvantage these baselines. Limited baseline coverage: No comparison with recent time series-specific XAI methods like LIME-TS or kernel-based approaches. 2. Missing Theoretical Guarantees : No completeness axiom (unlike Integrated Gradients), No efficiency property (unlike SHAP). More importantly, no monotonicity - Higher attribution ≠ more important. why and how
- The writing of the paper is clear for some sections (Section 2.2.1 to 2.2.3) - The methods are intuitive and understandable (Section 2.2.1 to 2.2.3) - The evaluation methods of the results are pretty sound.
- There are some notations and logic disconnect in the method section (Section 2.2.3 to 2.2.4). Notations such as $f_{cls}$ and $f_{att}$ should be used in section 2.2.4 but they are not. - Justifications and explanations of the formulae for the attributions are missing. The author instead only focuses on the justification of the scaling aspect on the formula. - The definition of positive and negative contributions are not there. In the formula it seems to suggest one thing but in the evaluation
The paper's primary strength lies in its ability to achieve consistently better performance than existing methodologies in most tested cases. It is impressive that this strong performance is achieved using a methodology that is relatively simple and computationally efficient. This simplicity is a significant advantage, as the model is designed with a highly intuitive intention, ensuring that the authors' original goal is well-aligned with the final model architecture and its effective results.
The authors provide compelling evidence that the symbolic component (Module 2) is essential for the model's explainability goal; replacing the symbolic matrix $Z$ with a non-symbolic projection $X_{proj}$ significantly degrades explainability metrics (AUPRC), as shown in Figure 3 and Table 9 . Given that the paper's main objective is not necessarily maximizing predictive performance, it would nonetheless be beneficial to understand the full impact of this substitution. The paper does not appear
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTime Series Analysis and Forecasting · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Machine Learning in Healthcare
