Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Evaluation for Regression Analyses on Evolving Data Streams

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces a CTGAN-based drift simulator that converts real regression datasets into streams with abrupt, gradual, or incremental concept drift, and a standardized evaluation protocol for them.

desk verdict Novel GAN-based drift simulator for streaming regression, useful but under-validated: the incremental drift claims rest on an assumption that is never tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07213 v2 pith:LC4BN7FO submitted 2025-02-11 cs.LG cs.AI

Yibin Sun , Heitor Murilo Gomes , Bernhard Pfahringer , Albert Bifet This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords datastreamsstreamingregressionconceptdriftincrementalsimulationpredictionintervalssyntheticevaluationmetrics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Streaming regression has lagged behind streaming classification, in part because there are few dedicated benchmarks and no established way to simulate incremental drift. This paper proposes a standardized evaluation protocol for streaming regression and prediction intervals, together with a drift-simulation strategy that augments real datasets using a conditional tabular generative adversarial network to synthesize abrupt, gradual, and incremental concept drift. If the strategy works as claimed, researchers can generate reproducible regression streams with controlled drift, evaluate them with consistent metrics, and compare algorithms and prediction-interval methods on equal footing.

What carries the argument

The central object is the chunk-wise CTGAN: the real dataset is sorted by the most target-correlated numeric feature, split into chunks, and each chunk trains its own conditional tabular generative adversarial network, so each chunk defines a concept. The load-bearing step for incremental drift is sorting the transition segment by the drifting feature, then deleting that feature from the stream; this creates a smooth, hard-to-detect transition without letting the model see the feature that orders it.

What would settle it

On a generated incremental stream, estimate the conditional distribution of the target given the remaining features on the first stable segment and on the second stable segment; if the two conditional distributions are statistically indistinguishable, the simulated 'concept drift' is only covariate shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that concept drift in regression streams can be synthesized from real data by selecting the numeric feature most correlated with the target, sorting the data by that feature, splitting it into chunks, and training a separate generative model on each chunk so the chunks act as distinct concepts. Abrupt drift is produced by concatenating concept chunks in random order; gradual drift by interleaving the tail of one concept with the head of the next; incremental drift by sorting the transition segment by the drifting feature and then discarding that feature to avoid leakage. The paper further claims that the resulting incremental streams are genuinely harder, since state-of-the-art regressors show lower adjusted R-squared and more turbulent prequential error than on the original data, and that the proposed evaluation protocol reveals how adaptive prediction intervals recover coverage after drift.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation assumes that sorting real data by the most target-correlated feature and training a separate generative model on each chunk produces genuinely different feature–target relationships, but since the drifting feature is later discarded, the observed change may only be a shift in the distribution of an unobserved input.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can generate regression streams with abrupt, gradual, or incremental drift of specified length from public real datasets, with all code and scripts released.
  • The proposed evaluation stack—cumulative and prequential versions of RMSE, adjusted R-squared, coverage, and NMPIW—gives a common yardstick for comparing streaming regressors and prediction-interval methods.
  • On the synthesized streams, all tested algorithms perform worse than on the original data, and incremental-drift streams produce the most unstable prequential errors, indicating the simulator creates genuinely harder problems.
  • Adaptive prediction intervals (AdaPI) recover target coverage faster after drift than static mean-and-variance intervals, at the cost of wider intervals.
  • SOKNL and ARF-Reg outperform FIMT-DD and KNN on these streams, suggesting ensemble methods are better suited to drifting regression data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: because the drifting feature is discarded, the incremental streams may be better described as covariate shift on a hidden driver; the procedure's claim to produce concept drift could be tested by checking whether the conditional target distribution changes across segments.
  • Editorial extension: the same chunk-and-CTGAN recipe could be reused to simulate recurrent or mixed drift by cycling or randomly permuting concept order, which would make the benchmark more general.
  • Editorial extension: the per-chunk generative modeling step means the fidelity of the simulated drift depends on how well the GAN captures joint feature dependencies; a failure there would weaken the realism of the drift regardless of the sorting procedure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses stream regression evaluation, proposing a standardized protocol (cumulative and prequential metrics, including RMSE, adjusted R2, coverage, and NMPIW) and a drift simulation strategy based on CTGAN. Real datasets are sorted by a target-correlated feature, split into chunks, and a separate CTGAN is trained on each chunk; concepts are then concatenated (abrupt), interleaved (gradual), or sorted across a transition (incremental) to produce 18 synthetic streams. Four streaming regressors and two prediction-interval methods are evaluated on these streams. The central claim is that the simulator produces genuine concept drifts, especially incremental drift, and that the proposed evaluation process is a useful standard for the community.

Significance. If the drift simulation is valid, the paper offers a practical and much-needed resource: it augments real regression datasets to stream lengths, generates three drift types including incremental drift, and provides open-source code, which promotes reproducibility in a field that lacks dedicated regression stream benchmarks. The evaluation protocol itself is not conceptually new (it combines existing streaming metrics), but the drift simulator is the main contribution. However, the load-bearing claim that the simulated streams contain concept drift is not substantiated; the paper does not verify that P(Y|X) changes across the synthesized concepts, and it does not compare against existing simulators. If the required verification were added, the paper could serve as a useful benchmarking contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2.3] For incremental drift, the drifting feature is discarded from the generated data to avoid information leakage, so the visible stream has no dimension along which the transition is ordered. The statement in §5.2.3, "This ensures that the simulated concept drift indeed exists," is therefore unsupported: the paper provides no measurement of a change in P(Y|X) across the transition; it verifies only a change in the marginal distribution of a feature that is then removed. Without direct evidence (e.g., comparing conditional distributions on held-out instances from adjacent concepts, or applying a drift detector to model residuals), the incremental streams may constitute covariate shift on an unobserved driver rather than concept drift, which is exactly the central claim of the paper.
  2. [5.2, Tables 3 and 4] The comparison between the original datasets (Table 4) and the synthesized datasets (Table 3) shows that all algorithms perform worse on the latter, but this is not evidence that the difference is caused by concept drift. The comparison confounds drift simulation with CTGAN artifacts and with the removal of the drifting feature. The paper does not include a control stream (e.g., a random-order concatenation of chunks from different concepts without a transition, or a stream where the concept order is shuffled) that would isolate the effect of the drift itself. Additionally, no comparison against existing incremental drift simulators (e.g., Hyperplane or RBF) is reported, so the novelty and effectiveness of the GAN-based approach relative to the state of the art are not demonstrated.
  3. [6.2, Figure 4c] The prequential RMSE plot for the incremental Abalone dataset shows more "turbulence" than the abrupt and gradual cases, and the text interprets this as affirming the effectiveness of the incremental simulation. This inference is not valid: turbulence can result from the independent CTGANs generating incompatible random noise, from a shift in the target marginal distribution, or from covariate shift. The paper does not check whether the performance drops coincide with the known drift boundaries (around 20k and 80k instances), nor whether the change corresponds to a change in the conditional distribution of the target given the observed features. Without such analysis, the visual evidence does not establish that the intended drift type was generated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title "Evaluation for Regressive Analyses on Evolving Data Streams" appears to contain a grammatical error; "Regressive Analyses" should likely be "Regression Analyses".
  2. [3.2.1, Equation (3)] The typeset of Equation (3) is broken: the square root symbol is rendered as "vt" in the provided text, obscuring the RMSE formula.
  3. [5.1] The CTGAN hyperparameters (epochs, batch size, learning rate) are stated, but no sensitivity analysis is provided; since CTGAN is the backbone of the simulator, the robustness of the drift simulation to these choices is unknown.
  4. [Table 4] The "Overflowed" entries for FIMT-DD on several original datasets prevent a complete comparison between the original and synthetic results for those datasets; the paper should either report alternative robust metrics (e.g., median absolute error) or explicitly state the limitation.
  5. [Figure 1] The caption "Simple Showcase of Feature and Target Values with Simulated Incremental Drifts" is vague; it does not state which feature is plotted, how the target is displayed, or how the figure relates to the simulation procedure described in §5.2.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the drift simulation and evaluation framework are self-contained; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is: select a target-correlated feature, sort and split real data into chunks, train a CTGAN per chunk, concatenate generated streams to form drift types, and evaluate streaming regression and prediction-interval algorithms with standard metrics (RMSE, Adjusted R2, Coverage, NMPIW). No step defines an output in terms of the claim being validated. The drift simulation is an input to the experiments, not a fitted quantity, and the metrics are external to the simulation. The authors evaluate their own previously proposed algorithms, SOKNL and AdaPI, but the benchmark results are not used to derive the simulation method; the central contribution does not depend on those algorithms being state of the art. The potential limitation that discarding the drifting feature in incremental streams may yield only a shift in an unobserved variable's marginal distribution is a validity concern, not a circularity: the paper asserts drift exists without verifying P(Y|X) changes, but that assertion is not made true by definition or by fitting. No self-citation is load-bearing for the main claim, and no equation reduces to its own inputs. Thus the derivation is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that CTGAN-generated chunks represent distinct concepts, that the constructed streams behave like real drifting data, and that the evaluation metrics transfer. The paper does not provide independent evidence for these assumptions beyond the observed performance changes in the prequential plots.

free parameters (3)
  • CTGAN training hyperparameters = epochs=300, batch_size=500, lr=0.001
    Chosen by hand in Section 5.1. These settings control the fidelity of the synthetic data that every experiment relies on, but they are not fitted to any target and the paper does not justify them.
  • Drift transition length = 10,000 instances for gradual drifts; 20,000 instances for incremental drifts
    Chosen in Section 5.3. The length determines how quickly concepts change and directly influences the difficulty of the resulting streams.
  • Number of concepts per stream = 4 for abrupt/gradual (3 drifts); 3 stable + 2 drift segments for incremental (2 drifts)
    Chosen in Section 5.3. This fixes the number of drift events and the stream length, which affects all reported metrics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CTGAN-generated synthetic data preserves the feature-target relationships of the original real datasets.
    Invoked throughout Section 5.1 and used to build all concept streams. The paper provides no fidelity check; the 'Overflowed' results in Table 4 vs. Table 3 suggest the synthetic data does not reproduce the extreme values of real data.
  • domain assumption Sorting real data on the most target-correlated feature and splitting it into chunks yields meaningful, distinct concepts suitable for drift simulation.
    Introduced in Section 5.2. The paper does not test whether the chunks differ in the feature-target mapping or merely in the marginal distribution of the chosen feature.
  • ad hoc to paper A stream generated by concatenating CTGAN samples from different chunks, possibly with a sorted transition segment, is a faithful analog of a naturally evolving data stream with concept drift.
    Used to justify the experimental evaluation in Section 6. The temporal order is synthetic and driven by feature values, not by a natural time process, and this difference is not discussed.
  • domain assumption Pearson correlation is a sufficient criterion for selecting the drifting feature.
    Stated in Section 5.2: 'we apply a pair-wise correlation test... Only numeric features can be candidates.' Other feature-selection methods are mentioned but not compared, and the choice of Pearson is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluation for Regression Analyses on Evolving Data Streams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LC4BN7FO

@misc{pith2026250207213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluation for Regression Analyses on Evolving Data Streams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LC4BN7FO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07213}
}
read the original abstract

The paper explores the challenges of regression analysis in evolving data streams, an area that remains relatively underexplored compared to classification. We propose a standardized evaluation process for regression and prediction interval tasks in streaming contexts. Additionally, we introduce an innovative drift simulation strategy capable of synthesizing various drift types, including the less-studied incremental drift. Comprehensive experiments with state-of-the-art methods, conducted under the proposed process, validate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simple Showcase of Feature and Target Values with Simulated Incremental Drifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of Different Concept Drift Rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Adjusted R-squared (R 2 𝑎𝑑 𝑗) Results for Four Algorithms on 18 Datasets 6 Experiments and Discussion This section introduces the conducted experiments, exhibits the results, and facilitates associated discussions. 6.1 Algorithms and Parametrization The following configurations are provided to ensure and repro￾ducibility: (1) Sliding Window KNN: 𝑘 = 10, window size = 1000. (2) FIMT-DD: Grace period = 200, split conf… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prequential RMSE (𝜎𝑒 ) Results for Abalone Dataset Group 0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000 175000 200000 # Instances 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2 adj Prequential Adjusted R-squared Results on NZEP with 3 Abrupt Drifts FIMTDD kNNRegressor AdaptiveRandomForestRegressor S…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prequential Adjusted R-squared (R 2 𝑎𝑑 𝑗) Results for NZEP Dataset Group ABA3a ABA3g ABA2i BIK3a BIK3g BIK2i H8L3a H8L3g H8L2i SUP3a SUP3g SUP2i NZEP3a NZEP3g AKL HAM WEL DUN Datasets 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Coverage Coverage ( ) for Two Prediction Interval Algorithms …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Coverage (C) for Two Prediction Interval Algorithms with Two Base Regressors on 18 Datasets. The red dashed line highlights the confidence level, which the PI methods aim to be closer to in terms of narrower prediction intervals (W𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚) while maintain￾ing competitive c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NMPIW (W𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚) for Two Prediction Interval Algorithms with Two Base Regressors on 18 Datasets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A Clip of the Prediction Interval from MVE and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: illustrates the prequential Coverage and NMPIW se￾quences for MVE and AdaPI (with KNN as the base regressor) on the House8L Abrupt (H8L3𝑎) dataset. Three drifts are clearly iden￾tifiable, with the second drift causing the most significant impact. Using this as an examp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albert Bifet, Geoff Holmes, Bernhard Pfahringer, Philipp Kranen, Hardy Kremer, Timm Jansen, and Thomas Seidl. 2010. Moa: Massive online analysis, a framework for stream classification and clustering. In Proceedings of the first workshop on applications of pattern analysis . PMLR, 44–50

    2010

  2. [2]

    Albert Bifet, Jesse Read, Indr˙e Žliobait˙e, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Geoff Holmes

    work page

  3. [3]

    Davide Chicco, Matthijs J Warrens, and Giuseppe Jurman. 2021. The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. Peerj computer science 7 (2021), e623

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Ajay Choudhary, Preeti Jha, Aruna Tiwari, and Neha Bharill. 2021. A brief survey on concept drifted data stream regression. Soft Computing for Problem Solving: Proceedings of SocProS 2020, Volume 2 (2021), 733–744

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Pedro Domingos and Geoff Hulten. 2000. Mining high-speed data streams. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 71–80

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Hadi Fanaee-T and Joao Gama. 2014. Event labeling combining ensemble de- tectors and background knowledge. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 2 (2014), 113–127

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Joao Gama. 2012. A survey on learning from data streams: current and future trends. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 1 (2012), 45–55

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    João Gama, Indr˙e Žliobait˙e, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. 2014. A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 46, 4 (2014), 1–37

    2014

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Jean Paul Barddal, Luis Eduardo Boiko Ferreira, and Albert Bifet. 2018. Adaptive random forests for data stream regression.. In ESANN

    2018

  2. [10]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes and Albert Bifet. 2024. Practical machine learning for streaming data. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 6418–6419

    2024

  3. [11]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Maciej Grzenda, Rodrigo Mello, Jesse Read, Minh Huong Le Nguyen, and Albert Bifet. 2022. A survey on semi-supervised learning for delayed partially labelled data streams. Comput. Surveys 55, 4 (2022), 1–42

    2022

  4. [12]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Anton Lee, Nuwan Gunasekara, Yibin Sun, Guil- herme Weigert Cassales, Justin Liu, Marco Heyden, Vitor Cerqueira, Maroua Bahri, Yun Sing Koh, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Albert Bifet. 2025. CapyMOA: Efficient Machine Learning for Data Streams in Python. arXiv:...

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Jesse Read, and Albert Bifet. 2019. Streaming random patches for evolving data stream classification. In 2019 IEEE international confer- ence on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 240–249

    2019

  6. [14]

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Nuwan Gunasekara, Bernhard Pfahringer, Heitor Gomes, and Albert Bifet. 2024. Gradient boosted trees for evolving data streams. Machine Learning 113, 5 (2024), 3325–3352

    2024

  8. [16]

    Nuwan Gunasekara, Bernhard Pfahringer, Heitor Murilo Gomes, and Albert Bifet

  9. [17]

    Nuwan Gunasekara, Bernhard Pfahringer, Heitor Murilo Gomes, Albert Bifet, and Yun Sing. 2024. Recurrent concept drifts on data streams. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 . 8029–8037

    2024

  10. [18]

    Nuwan Amila Gunasekara. 2023. Advanced Adaptive Classifier Methods for Data Streams. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Waikato

    2023

  11. [19]

    Myrianthi Hadjicharalambous, Marios M Polycarpou, and Christos G Panayiotou

  12. [20]

    Kam Hamidieh. 2018. A data-driven statistical model for predicting the critical temperature of a superconductor. Computational Materials Science 154 (2018), 346–354

    2018

  13. [21]

    Rolland L Hardy. 1971. Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. Journal of geophysical research 76, 8 (1971), 1905–1915

    1971

  14. [22]

    Geoff Hulten, Laurie Spencer, and Pedro Domingos. 2001. Mining time-changing data streams. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 97–106

    2001

  15. [23]

    Elena Ikonomovska, Joao Gama, and Sašo Džeroski. 2011. Learning model trees from evolving data streams. Data mining and knowledge discovery 23 (2011), 128–168

    2011

  16. [24]

    Jonathan Jakob, André Artelt, Martina Hasenjäger, and Barbara Hammer. 2022. SAM-kNN regressor for online learning in water distribution networks. In Inter- national Conference on Artificial Neural Networks . Springer, 752–762

    2022

  17. [25]

    Michał Koziarski, Bartosz Krawczyk, and Michał Woźniak. 2017. Radial-based approach to imbalanced data oversampling. In Hybrid Artificial Intelligent Sys- tems: 12th International Conference, HAIS 2017, La Rioja, Spain, June 21-23, 2017, Proceedings 12. Springer, 318–327

    2017

  18. [26]

    Shanmugavelayutham Muthukrishnan et al. 2005. Data streams: Algorithms and applications. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science 1, 2 (2005), 117–236

    2005

  19. [27]

    Warwick Nash, Tracy Sellers, Simon Talbot, Andrew Cawthorn, and Wes Ford. 1995. Abalone. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C55C7W

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    Burcu Ozek, Zhenyuan Lu, Srinivasan Radhakrishnan, and Sagar Kamarthi. 2024. Uncertainty quantification in neural-network based pain intensity estimation. PLoS One 19, 8 (2024), e0307970

    2024

  21. [29]

    Jingyue Pang, Datong Liu, Yu Peng, and Xiyuan Peng. 2018. Optimize the coverage probability of prediction interval for anomaly detection of sensor-based monitoring series. Sensors 18, 4 (2018), 967

    2018

  22. [30]

    Neha Patki, Roy Wedge, and Kalyan Veeramachaneni. 2016. The Synthetic data vault. In IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA). 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2016.49

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Karl Pearson. 1896. VII. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolu- tion.—III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical character 187 (1896), 253–318

  24. [32]

    Jesse Read and Indre Zliobaite. 2023. Learning from data streams: An overview and update. A vailable at SSRN 4326595 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. 2008. A Tutorial on Conformal Prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 3 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Vinicius MA Souza, Denis M dos Reis, Andre G Maletzke, and Gustavo EAPA Batista. 2020. Challenges in benchmarking stream learning algorithms with real-world data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 34, 6 (2020), 1805–1858

    2020

  27. [35]

    Charles Spearman. 1961. The proof and measurement of association between two things. (1961)

    1961

  28. [36]

    Yibin Sun, Heitor Murilo Gomes, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Albert Bifet. 2024. Real-Time Energy Pricing in New Zealand: An Evolving Stream Analysis. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 91–97

    2024

  29. [37]

    Yibin Sun, Bernhard Pfahringer, Heitor Murilo Gomes, and Albert Bifet. 2022. SOKNL: A novel way of integrating K-nearest neighbours with adaptive random forest regression for data streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 36, 5 (2022), 2006–2032

    2022

  30. [38]

    Yibin Sun, Bernhard Pfahringer, Heitor Murilo Gomes, and Albert Bifet. 2024. Adaptive Prediction Interval for Data Stream Regression. In Pacific-Asia Confer- ence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . Springer, 130–141

    2024

  31. [39]

    Luis Torgo. 1990. House8L Dataset. Derived from the U.S. Census, 1990. Available at https://www.dcc.fc.up.pt/~ltorgo/Regression/census.html

    1990

  32. [40]

    Scott Wares, John Isaacs, and Eyad Elyan. 2019. Data stream mining: methods and challenges for handling concept drift. SN Applied Sciences 1 (2019), 1–19

    2019

  33. [41]

    Maksymilian Wojtas and Ke Chen. 2020. Feature importance ranking for deep learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 5105–5114

    2020

  34. [42]

    Lei Xu, Maria Skoularidou, Alfredo Cuesta-Infante, and Kalyan Veeramachaneni

  35. [43]

    Overflowed

    Hua Zhong and Li Xu. 2021. An all-batch loss for constructing prediction intervals. Applied Sciences 11, 4 (2021), 1728. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Sun et al. A Appendix We provide supplementary information to the main contents of the paper. A.1 Re...

    2021

  36. [2013]

    In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2013, Prague, Czech Republic, September 23-27, 2013, Proceedings, Part I 13

    Pitfalls in benchmarking data stream classification and how to avoid them. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2013, Prague, Czech Republic, September 23-27, 2013, Proceedings, Part I 13. Springer, 465–479

    2013

  37. [2019]

    Modeling tabular data using conditional gan.Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  38. [2020]

    Neural Computing and Applications 32, 11 (2020), 6715–6733

    Neural network-based construction of online prediction intervals. Neural Computing and Applications 32, 11 (2020), 6715–6733

    2020

  39. [2023]

    In IJCAI

    Survey on Online Streaming Continual Learning.. In IJCAI. 6628–6637

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.