Time to Retrain? Detecting Concept Drifts in Machine Learning Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the boom of machine learning (ML) techniques, software practitioners build ML systems to process the massive volume of streaming data for diverse software engineering tasks such as failure prediction in AIOps. Trained using historical data, such ML models encounter performance degradation caused by concept drift, i.e., data and inter-relationship (concept) changes between training and production. It is essential to use concept rift detection to monitor the deployed ML models and re-train the ML models when needed. In this work, we explore applying state-of-the-art (SOTA) concept drift detection techniques on synthetic and real-world datasets in an industrial setting. Such an industrial setting requires minimal manual effort in labeling and maximal generality in ML model architecture. We find that current SOTA semi-supervised methods not only require significant labeling effort but also only work for certain types of ML models. To overcome such limitations, we propose a novel model-agnostic technique (CDSeer) for detecting concept drift. Our evaluation shows that CDSeer has better precision and recall compared to the state-of-the-art while requiring significantly less manual labeling. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CDSeer at concept drift detection by evaluating it on eight datasets from different domains and use cases. Results from internal deployment of CDSeer on an industrial proprietary dataset show a 57.1% improvement in precision while using 99% fewer labels compared to the SOTA concept drift detection method. The performance is also comparable to the supervised concept drift detection method, which requires 100% of the data to be labeled. The improved performance and ease of adoption of CDSeer are valuable in making ML systems more reliable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".