REVIEW 2 cited by
Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shift
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We might hope that when faced with unexpected inputs, well-designed software systems would fire off warnings. Machine learning (ML) systems, however, which depend strongly on properties of their inputs (e.g. the i.i.d. assumption), tend to fail silently. This paper explores the problem of building ML systems that fail loudly, investigating methods for detecting dataset shift, identifying exemplars that most typify the shift, and quantifying shift malignancy. We focus on several datasets and various perturbations to both covariates and label distributions with varying magnitudes and fractions of data affected. Interestingly, we show that across the dataset shifts that we explore, a two-sample-testing-based approach, using pre-trained classifiers for dimensionality reduction, performs best. Moreover, we demonstrate that domain-discriminating approaches tend to be helpful for characterizing shifts qualitatively and determining if they are harmful.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Recursive Governance: A Graph-Theoretic Framework for Risk Propagation and Drift Detection in Agentic AI Systems
An Inventory-as-Code governance loop propagates validation failures through a directed graph of AI agents and detects reasoning drift with a matched-bootstrap-calibrated Golden Path monitor.
-
Robust Taxi Fare Prediction Under Noisy Conditions: A Comparative Study of GAT, TimesNet, and XGBoost
On 55 million NYC taxi trips, XGBoost outperforms GAT and TimesNet on clean and noisy fare prediction, but the comparison is weakened by missing error bars and contradictory claims.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.