Lite-RVFL: A Lightweight Random Vector Functional-Link Neural Network for Learning Under Concept Drift

Songqiao Hu; Xiao He; Zeyi Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Lite-RVFL: A Lightweight Random Vector Functional-Link Neural Network for Learning Under Concept Drift

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lightweight random vector functional-link network, Lite-RVFL, adapts to concept drift by exponentially weighting newer samples, achieving 98.73% accuracy on a safety-assessment stream without drift detection or retraining.

desk verdict Correct incremental RVFL update with exponential forgetting; useful engineering result, but the drift-adaptation theory is a weight-concentration fact, not an error bound, and the empirical support is one dataset. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08063 v1 pith:VIJACJRH submitted 2025-06-09 cs.LG cs.SYeess.SY

Songqiao Hu , Zeyi Liu , Xiao He This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY MSC 68T05

keywords conceptdriftrandomvectorfunctional-linknetworkonlinelearningincrementalexponentialweightingadaptationreal-timesafetyassessmentRVFL

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

Concept-drift adaptation normally forces a choice between retraining (slow) and drift detection (extra machinery, with a trade-off between sensitivity and missed drifts). This paper argues that a single modification to a random vector functional-link network removes that choice: give each new sample exponentially more weight than the previous one, so the objective's effective mass concentrates on the most recent data. The paper proves that under this weighting the newest $L$ samples carry a constant fraction $1-\theta^{-L}$ of the total sample weight, derives a one-step closed-form update for the output weights, and shows on a deep-sea safety-assessment stream that the resulting Lite-RVFL reaches 98.73% accuracy, above the best detector-based RVFL (98.06%), while running in 11.48 seconds, essentially the same as the plain, non-adapting RVFL (11.44 seconds). If correct, this gives a cheap, parameterized forgetting mechanism for online learning that needs no explicit drift signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the diagonal sample-weight matrix $T_n$ in the ridge objective $\min_W \lambda\|W\|^2 + \|T_n(AW-S)\|^2$, with $T_n$ assigning weight $\theta^{t-1}$ to the $t$-th sample. The load-bearing identity is the Woodbury matrix inverse update, which converts the recomputation of $(\lambda I + A^\top T^\top T A)^{-1}$ into a low-rank correction and yields the closed-form recurrence in Theorem 1. The mechanism that makes drift adaptation possible is Theorem 2: the proportion of total weight held by the newest $L$ samples converges to $1-\theta^{-L}$, and for $\theta=(1-\alpha)^{-1/L}$ this proportion is exactly $\alpha$, so the model's effective 'memory' is a sliding window of roughly $L$ samples without any explicit window. RVFL, the base network, is a random-feature model whose hidden-layer weights are fixed randomly and only output weights are learned, which keeps the update cheap.

What would settle it

Run Lite-RVFL with $\theta=1.003$ on a synthetic stream with abrupt drifts whose true change points are known and spaced more than 500 samples apart, and compare its post-drift windowed accuracy against an oracle that retrains on the last 200 samples exactly at each change point; if Lite-RVFL stays well below the oracle for several hundred samples, the claim that it almost fully adapts within 200–500 samples is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Lite-RVFL is an RVFL whose training objective weights the $t$-th sample by $\theta^{t-1}$ with $\theta>1$, so the loss is dominated by the most recent samples. The paper derives a recursive update for the output weights using the Woodbury matrix identity, so each arriving sample costs about the same as a standard incremental ridge update and no drift detector or retraining step is ever invoked. Theorem 2 shows that in the limit the newest $L$ samples account for $1-\theta^{-L}$ of the total sample weight, a constant "attention level" that polynomial weight schedules fail to maintain (Corollary 1). Setting $\theta=(1-\alpha)^{-1/L}$ therefore fixes the contribution of the latest $L$ samples at $\alpha$; for $\alpha=0.8$, $L=500$, $\theta\approx 1.003$, which the authors state lets the classifier almost fully adapt to drift within 200–500 samples. In experiments on the DSMS life-support-system stream, Lite-RVFL reaches 98.73% accuracy versus 98.06% for RVFL-ADWIN, 87.71% for plain RVFL, and 90.18% for the polynomial-weighted alternative, with runtime within 0.04 seconds of plain RVFL.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that making the most recent $L$ samples dominate the loss is enough to track the current concept; Theorem 2 only proves the weight proportion converges to $1-\theta^{-L}$, not that prediction error stays low under drift, and the only empirical support is one dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A model can track concept drift through a single closed-form weight update per sample, eliminating the computational and tuning overhead of drift detectors and periodic retraining.
The relation $\theta=(1-\alpha)^{-1/L}$ provides a direct recipe for setting the forgetting speed: choose the window $L$ and contribution $\alpha$, and adaptation speed follows.
Exponential sample weighting is what sustains a constant attention window; polynomial weighting (Alt-RVFL) lets the newest $L$ samples' influence decay to zero, explaining why that variant performs no better than plain RVFL.
On the reported safety-assessment stream, replacing detector-plus-retrain (RVFL-ADWIN) with structural forgetting improves accuracy from 98.06% to 98.73% while cutting runtime from 15.15 seconds to 11.48 seconds.

Reading between the lines

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

The derivation only uses the weighted ridge form, so the same exponential-weighting trick should transplant to any linear-in-parameters learner (kernel ridge, random Fourier features), not just RVFL; a testable extension is to measure whether the constant-attention property $1-\theta^{-L}$ holds there too.
Theorem 2 bounds loss-mass concentration, not prediction error; a natural strengthening would be a regret bound against the best dynamic hypothesis under a piecewise-stationary drift model, using the constant attention window as the effective horizon.
The single-dataset validation leaves open how $\theta$ should adapt when the drift rate varies; an adaptive schedule that shrinks $L$ when recent windowed accuracy drops could be tested against fixed $\theta=1.003$ on streams with mixed abrupt and gradual drift.
The paper's own discussion flags that the regularization term $\lambda\|W\|^2$ is progressively diluted by the growing sample weights, so overfitting on low-dimensional data is a plausible failure mode; a direct test would compare low- and high-dimensional synthetic streams to see whether accuracy degrades as dimensionality drops.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this as a modest but sound engineering contribution. The Woodbury-based incremental update in Theorem 1 is correct and useful: it updates the closed-form RVFL solution per sample without matrix inversion, so the method is genuinely lightweight. Theorem 2 is a geometric-series fact, correctly stated. The experiments on the DSMS safety dataset show a real accuracy gain over plain RVFL and competitive accuracy against RVFL-ADWIN at lower cost. The authors are also honest in the Discussion about overfitting risk and possible fixes.

The main overstatement is the interpretation of Theorem 2. That theorem only shows the weight proportion on the most recent L samples approaches a constant; it says nothing about prediction error or tracking error. The numbers are also slightly off: with theta=1.003 and L=500, the asymptotic proportion is about 77.6%, not 80%, and for L=200 it is about 45%, not 50%. That does not sink the method, but the text 'almost fully adapt within 200 to 500 samples' is too strong. Second, exponential forgetting is a classical idea in online learning and adaptive filtering; the paper presents it as novel and does not cite that literature, which will rightly irritate informed readers. Third, the empirical section is a single real-world dataset, five runs, no significance test, and no comparison against simple passive baselines such as an RVFL with a fixed-size sliding window or online logistic regression with a comparable forgetting factor. Those baselines would tell you whether the closed-form update matters or whether the gain mostly comes from exponential weighting alone.

Who is this for? Someone working on RVFL-based online learning or real-time safety assessment. It is a legitimate submission after revision. I would send it to review, but I would ask the authors to soften the theoretical claims, add passive baselines and statistical tests, and acknowledge the forgetting-factor lineage.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Lite-RVFL, a random vector functional-link network for online learning under concept drift. The method assigns exponentially increasing weights to recent samples in a regularized least-squares objective, derives a closed-form incremental update via the Woodbury identity, and analyzes the asymptotic fraction of the total sample weight held by the most recent L samples. The authors contrast this weighting with an 'Alt-RVFL' whose polynomial weights cause the recent-window weight fraction to vanish, and they report experiments on a real-world deep-sea manned submersible safety dataset, claiming higher accuracy than RVFL combined with drift detectors while retaining runtime close to plain RVFL.

Significance. The incremental update rule (Theorem 1) is algebraically correct and the code is publicly available, which makes the method easy to adopt. The negative result for Alt-RVFL (Corollary 1) usefully shows that not every recency weighting concentrates weight on a recent window. The empirical result on a real safety-assessment stream is suggestive. However, the paper's central theoretical claim—that the weighting 'confirms' drift adaptation—is not established: Theorem 2 is a statement about weight proportions, not about prediction or tracking error, and the paper's parameter-setting equation is inconsistent with the actual squared objective. The empirical support is a single dataset with five runs and no significance tests. The contribution is therefore a useful lightweight algorithm with a correct update rule, but the drift-adaptation guarantee is currently overstated.

major comments (3)

[Section II-A, Eqs. (4)-(5); Section II-B, Eqs. (14)-(18)] The objective in Eq. (4) is ||T_N(AW-S)||_2^2 with T_N=diag(1,θ,...,θ^{N-1}). Because the norm is squared, the actual weight of sample i in the loss is (θ^{i-1})^2, and the normal equations contain A^T T_N^T T_N A. Theorem 2's proof, however, sums θ^{i-1}, so the claimed limit 1-θ^{-L} is the proportion of the entries of T_N, not the proportion of the weights that enter the loss. The correct limit is 1-θ^{-2L}, and Eq. (18) should be θ=(1-α)^(-1/(2L)). With the stated θ=1.003, the most recent 500 samples contribute about 95% (not 80%) of the loss weight and the most recent 200 about 70% (not 50%), so the numerical example and the '200-500 samples' statement after Eq. (18) need to be reworked.
[Section II-B, Theorem 2 and Abstract] Theorem 2 only proves that the fraction of total weight on the most recent L samples converges to a constant 1-θ^{-L}; it does not bound prediction error, misclassification risk, or the distance between the learned model and the current concept. The Abstract's claim that 'theoretical analysis confirms the feasibility of this objective function for drift adaptation' and the text's assertion that θ=1.003 'enables the classifier to almost fully adapt to concept drift within 200 to 500 samples' therefore go beyond what the theory shows. The limit is a constant less than 1 (about 0.776 for θ=1.003 and L=500 under the paper's own unsquared computation), so a non-negligible fraction of weight remains on pre-drift samples and the effect of that residual old-concept influence is not analyzed. To support the central claim, the paper should either provide a risk/tracking-error bound under a drift model or replace the 'theoretical confirmation' wording with the weaker statement that the weighting has a recency-concentration property.
[Section III, Table I and Figs. 2-4] The empirical validation uses one real-world dataset (DSMS) with five runs and no statistical significance test. The reported accuracy advantage over RVFL-ADWIN (98.73% vs 98.06%) is promising, but a single dataset is thin evidence for a general claim of drift-adaptation effectiveness, particularly since the theoretical result does not by itself guarantee adaptation. I recommend adding standard concept-drift benchmarks with abrupt and gradual drift (for example, SEA or rotating hyperplane generators) and reporting paired significance tests or confidence intervals. The runtime comparison (11.48s vs 11.44s) would also benefit from a significance statement, although the similarity to plain RVFL is already apparent.

minor comments (6)

[Section II-A, Eq. (1)] The stated dimension \tilde{x}\in R^{(m+N1N2)\times 1} seems to use m both for the number of classes and for the input dimension; please clarify the notation for the input dimensionality and for the enhancement-node arrangement.
[Section III-C, Eq. (22)] The text says 'modifying Eq. (19)' but Eq. (19) is the Alt-RVFL weight matrix; the proposed modification applies to Eq. (5) (or Eq. (9)).
[Section III-B] The sentence attributing an overall accuracy of 90.18% to RVFL-PageHinkley conflicts with Table I, where RVFL-PageHinkley has 90.15% and Alt-RVFL has 90.18%; please correct the attribution or the number.
[Conclusion] Typo: 'exponentially inceasing weightes' should be 'exponentially increasing weights'.
[Theorem 2, proof paragraph] The sentence 'as N becomes large' uses N but the proof uses n; please make the notation consistent and clarify that the L-sample window is the most recent L samples at time n.
[Table I] The 'Rank' row is not legible in the current formatting (the numbers appear concatenated); please format the ranks as a clear sequence with separators.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 2's 'theoretical confirmation' reduces to the definition of θ in Eq. (18); the adaptation claim is an unsupported leap, but the update rule and experiments are independent.

self definitional [Section II-B, Eq. (18) and Theorem 2 (also Abstract)]
"To achieve a contribution ratio of α from the latest L samples, θ should be set to θ = (1−α)^{−1/L}. ... This implies that setting θ = 1.003 enables the classifier to almost fully adapt to concept drift within 200 to 500 samples."

Theorem 2 derives lim_{n→∞} p = 1 − θ^{−L}. Eq. (18) defines θ := (1−α)^{−1/L}, so the theorem's asymptotic weight proportion equals the target α by construction. The abstract presents this as 'Theoretical analysis confirms the feasibility of this objective function for drift adaptation,' but the 'confirmation' is just the chosen parameterization restated; it is not an independent derivation of tracking error, accuracy, or adaptation speed. The paper's own numbers also undermine the interpretation: with θ=1.003, the asymptotic share of the latest 500 samples is about 77.6%, not 'almost fully,' so the claimed behavior is not established by the theorem.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular step is the pairing of Eq. (18) with Theorem 2: the theorem proves a weight-proportion limit, and θ is chosen exactly so that this limit equals the target α, making the 'theoretical confirmation' definitional rather than independent. The incremental update rule (Theorem 1) is a standard Woodbury identity application and is self-contained. The Alt-RVFL comparison (Corollary 1) is a genuine mathematical contrast. The experimental evaluation on the DSMS dataset is empirical and not circular, though the dataset originates in the authors' prior work [10]; that self-citation is not load-bearing because the benchmark is external data and the comparison against RVFL-ADWIN and other detectors is concrete. The Discussion's overfitting caveat is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular move. The claim that θ=1.003 enables 'almost fully adapt' within 200-500 samples is an overstatement unsupported by Theorem 2, but overstatement is a correctness concern, not an additional circularity. Overall score 6 because the central theoretical confirmation reduces by construction, while the update rule and experiments retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard matrix algebra and geometric series, plus the untested premise that geometric sample weighting yields drift adaptation. The only hand-set numeric parameters, theta and lambda, are load-bearing.

free parameters (4)

theta (forgetting/emphasis factor) = 1.003
Set via Eq. (18) so the most recent 500 samples contribute 80% of the total weight. This parameter directly controls the claimed adaptation speed and is not swept or tuned with sensitivity analysis.
lambda (regularization coefficient) = 0.1
Set in Eq. (4) without a reported tuning procedure. The Discussion notes that lambda relative to the accumulating sample weights affects overfitting, so this choice is load-bearing.
Number of enhancement nodes (10 groups x 10 nodes) = 100
RVFL architecture capacity chosen without reported tuning; affects accuracy but not the drift-adaptation mechanism.
Activation function type = sigmoid
Standard RVFL choice; not varied in experiments.

assumptions (5)

standard math Woodbury matrix identity for low-rank updates
Used to derive the incremental update in Theorem 1, Eq. (12). Cited as [18].
standard math Geometric series and sums-of-powers formulas
Used in Theorem 2 and Corollary 1 to compute weight proportions, Eqs. (14)-(17) and (20)-(21).
domain assumption RVFL random feature maps with fixed random weights and biases are sufficient for classification
The model inherits the RVFL assumption that random fixed features preserve enough information; cited [15]-[17], not re-derived.
ad hoc to paper Emphasizing recent samples via geometric weights leads to concept drift adaptation
This is the central premise of the method. It is asserted in Section II-A and used to claim adaptation, but no theorem ties weight concentration to prediction error.
domain assumption The DSMS dataset labels and safety levels are reliable
The experimental validation treats the dataset's labels and drift periods as ground truth. Referenced at Section III-A.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lite-RVFL: A Lightweight Random Vector Functional-Link Neural Network for Learning Under Concept Drift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIJACJRH

@misc{pith2026250608063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lite-RVFL: A Lightweight Random Vector Functional-Link Neural Network for Learning Under Concept Drift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIJACJRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08063}
}

read the original abstract

The change in data distribution over time, also known as concept drift, poses a significant challenge to the reliability of online learning methods. Existing methods typically require model retraining or drift detection, both of which demand high computational costs and are often unsuitable for real-time applications. To address these limitations, a lightweight, fast and efficient random vector functional-link network termed Lite-RVFL is proposed, capable of adapting to concept drift without drift detection and retraining. Lite-RVFL introduces a novel objective function that assigns weights exponentially increasing to new samples, thereby emphasizing recent data and enabling timely adaptation. Theoretical analysis confirms the feasibility of this objective function for drift adaptation, and an efficient incremental update rule is derived. Experimental results on a real-world safety assessment task validate the efficiency, effectiveness in adapting to drift, and potential to capture temporal patterns of Lite-RVFL. The source code is available at https://github.com/songqiaohu/Lite-RVFL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08063 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The learning curves of different methods on DSMS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Cumulative and windowed accuracy for different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Online learning: A compre- hensive survey,

S. C. Hoi, D. Sahoo, J. Lu, and P. Zhao, “Online learning: A compre- hensive survey,”Neurocomputing, vol. 459, pp. 249–289, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Learning under concept drift: A review,

J. Lu, A. Liu, F. Dong, F. Gu, J. Gama, and G. Zhang, “Learning under concept drift: A review,”IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2346–2363, 2018

2018
[3]

An online active broad learning approach for real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in nonstationary environments,

Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, Z. Ding, and X. He, “An online active broad learning approach for real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in nonstationary environments,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 6714–6724, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in non-stationary environments: A review of methods and techniques,

Z. Liu, S. Hu, and X. He, “Real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in non-stationary environments: A review of methods and techniques,” in2023 CAA Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

work page 2023
[5]

An overview of concept drift applications,

I. ˇZliobait˙e, M. Pechenizkiy, and J. Gama, “An overview of concept drift applications,”Big data analysis: new algorithms for a new society, pp. 91–114, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

A dynamic anchor- based online semi-supervised learning approach for fault diagnosis under variable operating conditions,

W. Li, Z. Liu, P. Han, X. He, L. Wang, and T. Zhang, “A dynamic anchor- based online semi-supervised learning approach for fault diagnosis under variable operating conditions,”Neurocomputing, p. 130137, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

A survey of active and passive concept drift handling methods,

M. Han, Z. Chen, M. Li, H. Wu, and X. Zhang, “A survey of active and passive concept drift handling methods,”Computational Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1492–1535, 2022

2022
[8]

Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing,

A. Bifet and R. Gavalda, “Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing,” inProceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 2007, pp. 443–448

2007

Show all 21 references

[9]

Online and non- parametric drift detection methods based on hoeffding’s bounds,

I. Frias-Blanco, J. del Campo- ´Avila, G. Ramos-Jimenez, R. Morales- Bueno, A. Ortiz-Diaz, and Y . Caballero-Mota, “Online and non- parametric drift detection methods based on hoeffding’s bounds,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 810–823, 2014

2014
[10]

CADM+: Confusion-based learning framework with drift detection and adaptation for real-time safety assessment,

S. Hu, Z. Liu, M. Li, and X. He, “CADM+: Confusion-based learning framework with drift detection and adaptation for real-time safety assessment,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 2024

2024
[11]

Reinforcement online active learning ensemble for drifting imbalanced data streams,

H. Zhang, W. Liu, and Q. Liu, “Reinforcement online active learning ensemble for drifting imbalanced data streams,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 3971–3983, 2020

2020
[12]

Dynamic ensemble selection for imbalanced data streams with concept drift,

B. Jiao, Y . Guo, D. Gong, and Q. Chen, “Dynamic ensemble selection for imbalanced data streams with concept drift,”IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1278–1291, 2022

2022
[13]

Adaptive chunk-based dynamic weighted majority for imbalanced data streams with concept drift,

Y . Lu, Y .-M. Cheung, and Y . Y . Tang, “Adaptive chunk-based dynamic weighted majority for imbalanced data streams with concept drift,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 2764–2778, 2019

2019
[14]

Performance-bounded online ensemble learning method based on multi-armed bandits and its applications in real-time safety assessment,

S. Hu, Z. Liu, and X. He, “Performance-bounded online ensemble learning method based on multi-armed bandits and its applications in real-time safety assessment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15581, 2025

2025 arXiv
[15]

Learning and generalization characteristics of the random vector functional-link net,

Y .-H. Pao, G.-H. Park, and D. J. Sobajic, “Learning and generalization characteristics of the random vector functional-link net,”Neurocomput- ing, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 163–180, 1994

1994
[16]

Random vector functional link network: Recent developments, appli- cations, and future directions,

A. K. Malik, R. Gao, M. Ganaie, M. Tanveer, and P. N. Suganthan, “Random vector functional link network: Recent developments, appli- cations, and future directions,”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 143, p. 110377, 2023

2023
[17]

A comprehensive evaluation of random vector functional link networks,

L. Zhang and P. N. Suganthan, “A comprehensive evaluation of random vector functional link networks,”Information sciences, vol. 367, pp. 1094–1105, 2016

2016
[18]

Updating the inverse of a matrix,

W. W. Hager, “Updating the inverse of a matrix,”SIAM review, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 221–239, 1989

1989
[19]

Several explicit for- mulae of sums and hyper-sums of powers of integers,

F. Bounebirat, D. Laissaoui, and M. Rahmani, “Several explicit for- mulae of sums and hyper-sums of powers of integers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07208, 2017

2017 arXiv
[20]

The powers sums, bernoulli numbers, bernoulli polynomials rethinked,

D. T. Si, “The powers sums, bernoulli numbers, bernoulli polynomials rethinked,”Applied mathematics, vol. 10, pp. 100–112, 2019

2019
[21]

Continuous inspection schemes,

E. S. Page, “Continuous inspection schemes,”Biometrika, vol. 41, no. 1/2, pp. 100–115, 1954

1954

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Online learning: A compre- hensive survey,

S. C. Hoi, D. Sahoo, J. Lu, and P. Zhao, “Online learning: A compre- hensive survey,”Neurocomputing, vol. 459, pp. 249–289, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Learning under concept drift: A review,

J. Lu, A. Liu, F. Dong, F. Gu, J. Gama, and G. Zhang, “Learning under concept drift: A review,”IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2346–2363, 2018

2018

[3] [3]

An online active broad learning approach for real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in nonstationary environments,

Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, Z. Ding, and X. He, “An online active broad learning approach for real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in nonstationary environments,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 6714–6724, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in non-stationary environments: A review of methods and techniques,

Z. Liu, S. Hu, and X. He, “Real-time safety assessment of dynamic systems in non-stationary environments: A review of methods and techniques,” in2023 CAA Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

work page 2023

[5] [5]

An overview of concept drift applications,

I. ˇZliobait˙e, M. Pechenizkiy, and J. Gama, “An overview of concept drift applications,”Big data analysis: new algorithms for a new society, pp. 91–114, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

A dynamic anchor- based online semi-supervised learning approach for fault diagnosis under variable operating conditions,

W. Li, Z. Liu, P. Han, X. He, L. Wang, and T. Zhang, “A dynamic anchor- based online semi-supervised learning approach for fault diagnosis under variable operating conditions,”Neurocomputing, p. 130137, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

A survey of active and passive concept drift handling methods,

M. Han, Z. Chen, M. Li, H. Wu, and X. Zhang, “A survey of active and passive concept drift handling methods,”Computational Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1492–1535, 2022

2022

[8] [8]

Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing,

A. Bifet and R. Gavalda, “Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing,” inProceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 2007, pp. 443–448

2007