Standard explainability tools mislead on economic time series unless redesigned for temporal structure: the paper maps a taxonomy of XAI methods, offers time-series-specific variants (Vector/Window SHAP, interventional Shapley, attention-based interpretable models) and practical guidance for nowcasting, stress tests and regime monitoring.

Main Finding

This paper surveys and organizes Explainable AI (XAI) techniques tailored for economic time series, arguing that standard XAI methods often fail when applied naively to temporally dependent, non‑stationary, seasonal, mixed‑frequency, or regime‑shifting economic data. It proposes a systematic taxonomy (by explanation mechanism and time‑series compatibility), reviews time‑series‑specific adaptations (e.g., Vector SHAP, WindowSHAP, TS‑MULE), connects XAI to causal inference (Causal Shapley values, interventional attributions), and provides guidance for decision‑grade applications (nowcasting, stress testing, regime monitoring), emphasizing preservation of temporal structure and the explicit accounting of attribution uncertainty and explanation dynamics.

Key Points

• Motivation

  • Econometrics historically favours transparent linear models; ML/DL improve accuracy but are often black boxes. XAI is essential for auditability, policy use, and regulatory compliance (GDPR, banking regulation).
  • Economic time series have properties (autocorrelation, trends, seasonality, regime shifts, mixed frequencies) that break common XAI assumptions (e.g., feature independence).

• Taxonomy (two primary axes)

• Explanation mechanism - Propagation-based (white‑box): Integrated Gradients, Layer‑Wise Relevance Propagation (LRP). - Perturbation / game‑theoretic attribution (black‑box): permutation importance, LIME, SHAP (KernelSHAP, TreeSHAP). - Function‑based global tools: Accumulated Local Effects (ALE), partial dependence alternatives.

• Time‑series compatibility - Preservation of temporal dependence, stability over time, respect for data‑generating constraints (causal direction, non‑anticipativity).

• Important methods and properties

  • Integrated Gradients: completeness axiom (sum of attributions equals model minus baseline).
  • LRP: layer‑wise conservation, useful for decomposing contributions in neural networks.
  • SHAP: game‑theoretic axioms—local accuracy (efficiency), consistency, missingness—provides local and global attributions; TreeSHAP and KernelSHAP variants for different model families.
  • LIME: local surrogate explanations; instability in time series because defining a meaningful temporal neighborhood is hard.
  • ALE: accumulates local effects within intervals to handle correlated inputs, avoids unrealistic marginal extrapolation inherent in PDPs.

• Time‑series adaptations

  • Vector SHAP: treat each variable’s lag vector as a single “player” (reduces dimensionality, preserves economic interpretability).
  • WindowSHAP / Dynamic WindowSHAP: treat contiguous time windows as features to detect temporal regimes and reduce fragmentation.
  • TS‑MULE and other LIME variants: perturb on meaningful windows/frequency components to preserve temporal structure.

• Causality and counterfactuals

  • Standard XAI explains associations used by the model; causal inference requires interventional expectations (Causal Shapley values using do‑calculus).
  • Causal SHAP can decompose direct and indirect (mediated) effects—important for policy attribution.
  • Counterfactuals from ML must be constrained (impulse‑constrained/manifold‑constrained) to avoid economically implausible scenarios; compare/align with SVAR impulse‑response logic for structural guarantees.

• Empirical/illustrative findings cited

  • LRP on deep factor networks reveals regime‑dependent factor exposures (Nakagawa et al., 2019).
  • Comparative studies show integrated gradients excel at temporal localization, permutation techniques at identifying which variables matter (Cascarino et al., 2022).
  • Vector SHAP improved computational efficiency and consistent importance rankings in realized volatility prediction (KOSPI example).
  • SHAP analyses in asset prediction highlight price‑related variables dominating over volume, with temporal decay of importance.

• Challenges and limitations

  • Naive perturbations can destroy autocorrelation and produce unrealistic counterfactuals.
  • Exponential complexity when treating lags individually; fragmentation of economic meaning when attributions split across many lags.
  • Causal XAI needs a causal graph (DAG); when unknown, causal discovery or expert priors are required; methods like Asymmetric Shapley Values relax assumptions but trade off axiomatic guarantees.
  • Attribution uncertainty and temporal instability must be quantified and monitored—explanation dynamics can be indicators of structural breaks.

Data & Methods

• Type of study: comprehensive literature review and methodological synthesis (survey paper) with a proposed systematic taxonomy.
• Review scope: XAI methods from ML and DL literature, their theoretical properties, and adaptations/empirical uses in economic and financial time series (propagation, perturbation, function‑based, causal, counterfactual, intrinsic interpretable architectures).
• Methods discussed (not an empirical experiment per se, but summarizing methods and examples):
  • Propagation: Integrated Gradients, LRP — uses model gradients/structure to decompose predictions.
  • Perturbation and game‑theoretic: permutation importance, LIME, SHAP (KernelSHAP, TreeSHAP), Vector SHAP, WindowSHAP.
  • Function‑based: ALE plots for global, distribution‑aware effect estimation.
  • Causal adaptations: Causal Shapley (interventional expectations, do‑operator), Asymmetric Shapley Values when partial causal ordering is known.
  • Counterfactual approaches: manifold/impulse‑constrained counterfactual generation; connections/comparisons with SVAR impulse‑response analysis.
  • Intrinsic interpretable architectures: discussion of attention‑based transformers and other architectures designed for transparency.
• Empirical vignettes: cited empirical studies (e.g., deep factor LRP, volatility prediction with Vector SHAP, crypto/market studies using SHAP) to illustrate technique application and issues.
• Evaluation criteria recommended: preservation of temporal dependence, stability of explanations over time, computational tractability, economic plausibility of counterfactuals, and causal validity where policy inference is required.

Implications for AI Economics

• For modelers and practitioners

  • Do not apply tabular XAI methods naively to time series. Preserve temporal dependence (use vector/window groupings) and respect non‑anticipativity when constructing perturbations or counterfactuals.
  • Use Vector SHAP or WindowSHAP to avoid lag fragmentation and explosive computational costs; complement local attributions (SHAP) with function‑based global summaries (ALE) for robust diagnostics.
  • Quantify attribution uncertainty and monitor explanation dynamics — sudden changes in attributions can be an early warning of structural breaks or regime shifts.

• For policy and auditing

  • Causal explainability is necessary for policy interventions. Prefer interventional attributions (Causal SHAP) and constrained counterfactuals when making causal claims or simulating regulatory scenarios.
  • When causal graphs are uncertain, incorporate expert priors or use relaxations (ASV) but transparently report limitations; regulators should demand stated assumptions behind causal attributions.

• For research & method development

  • Further work needed on scalable, time‑aware XAI that maintains axiomatic properties while handling autocorrelation and mixed frequencies.
  • Integration of structural economic models (SVAR, DSGE) with ML explainability tools to combine theoretical guarantees with predictive flexibility.
  • Develop standard benchmarks and simulations for evaluating XAI in time‑series contexts (including measures of temporal stability, plausibility of counterfactuals, computational cost).

• For decision‑grade applications (nowcasting, stress testing, regime monitoring)

  • Combine local (instance) explanations with aggregated dynamics: e.g., use SHAP for case‑level reasoning and ALE/Vector SHAP aggregates to inform policy dashboards.
  • Use explanation trajectories (time series of attribution scores) as part of monitoring systems for structural change, and embed explanation uncertainty in downstream risk assessments.
  • Constrain ML counterfactuals via economic manifold/structural constraints when used for stress‑testing to avoid implausible scenarios.

Overall, the paper provides a practical and conceptual roadmap: adapt XAI methods to the temporal and causal structure of economic data, prefer grouped lag/vector attributions and function‑aware global tools, explicitly handle causal questions with interventional approaches, and treat explanation dynamics and uncertainty as valuable diagnostic signals for economic inference and policy.