Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Confidence-based Estimators for Predictive Performance in Model Monitoring

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

arxiv 2407.08649 v2 pith:2XLIWS3Z submitted 2024-07-11 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords modelgroundmanymethodperformancepredictivetruthbeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

After a machine learning model has been deployed into production, its predictive performance needs to be monitored. Ideally, such monitoring can be carried out by comparing the model's predictions against ground truth labels. For this to be possible, the ground truth labels must be available relatively soon after inference. However, there are many use cases where ground truth labels are available only after a significant delay, or in the worst case, not at all. In such cases, directly monitoring the model's predictive performance is impossible. Recently, novel methods for estimating the predictive performance of a model when ground truth is unavailable have been developed. Many of these methods leverage model confidence or other uncertainty estimates and are experimentally compared against a naive baseline method, namely Average Confidence (AC), which estimates model accuracy as the average of confidence scores for a given set of predictions. However, until now the theoretical properties of the AC method have not been properly explored. In this paper, we try to fill this gap by reviewing the AC method and show that under certain general assumptions, it is an unbiased and consistent estimator of model accuracy with many desirable properties. We also compare this baseline estimator against some more complex estimators empirically and show that in many cases the AC method is able to beat the others, although the comparative quality of the different estimators is heavily case-dependent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Suitability Filter: A Statistical Framework for Classifier Evaluation in Real-World Deployment Settings

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A statistical non-inferiority test on estimated per-sample correctness probabilities flags when a classifier's accuracy on unlabeled user data drops by more than a chosen margin relative to its test set.

Pith tools