DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts

Andr\'es L. Su\'arez-Cetrulo; Miguel Aspis; Ricardo Sim\'on Carbajo; Sebasti\'an A. Cajas Ord\'onez

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twelve Hoeffding trees with a neural router match 100-tree drift ensembles.

desk verdict A genuinely new router training signal for online MoE, but the empirical claims are overstated and the key mechanism is unanalyzed; worth a serious referee, not a pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18464 v1 pith:XFUSY2GD submitted 2025-07-24 stat.ML cs.LG

Miguel Aspis , Sebastián A. Cajas Ordónez , Andrés L. Suárez-Cetrulo , Ricardo Simón Carbajo This is my paper

classification stat.MLcs.LG MSC 68T0568W27

keywords conceptdriftdatastreamsmixtureofexpertsonlinelearningHoeffdingtreeneuralrouteradaptiveensemblesstreamingclassification

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

DriftMoE is a streaming mixture-of-experts model that combines a small neural router with twelve Hoeffding-tree experts to keep predictions accurate as data concepts shift. The paper's central claim is that a symbiotic online training loop—the router picks the best expert per instance, the experts update on the true label, and the router learns from a multi-hot correctness mask that rewards every expert that predicted correctly—creates expert specialization that rivals much larger adaptive ensembles. The authors evaluate two configurations, multiclass experts (MoE-Data) and one-vs-rest task experts (MoE-Task), on nine synthetic and real-world drift benchmarks with abrupt, gradual, and natural drifts. They report accuracy competitive with state-of-the-art ensembles such as Adaptive Random Forest while using an order of magnitude fewer learners, although both variants lose ground on class-imbalanced streams.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the multi-hot correctness mask $\mathbf{m}_t$: for each expert $E_i$, $\hat{y}_{t,i}$ is the expert's own predicted class, and $m_{t,i} = 1$ if $\hat{y}_{t,i} = y_t$ and $0$ otherwise (with $m_{t,y_t}$ forced to 1 if no expert is correct, to keep at least one positive target). The router's logits are trained against this mask with binary cross-entropy, so the gradient rewards every accurate expert rather than only the selected one. This mask is the training signal in a hybrid online loop: experts update instance-by-instance on the instances routed to them, while the router updates in mini-batches with Adam, and this loop is what the paper claims accelerates expert specialization.

What would settle it

Run DriftMoE on a long stream with several abrupt drifts and log the router's selection entropy and per-expert accuracy over time; if the cooperative mask is doing the work, selection should stay diverse and hand off cleanly at each drift. Then ablate the mask by training a second router with only the selected expert's correctness as the target (a one-hot signal); if the multi-hot variant does not outperform that one-hot router by a clear margin on the same benchmarks, the paper's central mechanism is not the cause of the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that expert specialization can be induced fully online, without drift detectors or majority voting, through a cooperative router-training signal. After the true label for an instance is revealed, every expert that classified it correctly is marked with a 1 in a multi-hot vector; the router is trained with binary cross-entropy to predict that vector from its logits. Because all correct experts are reinforced—not just the one the router selected—the router learns which experts are reliable on which inputs, and the experts, by being updated only on the instances the router channels to them, drift toward specialization. On LED, SEA, and RBF streams with abrupt and gradual drift, and on the Airlines, Electricity, and CoverType real-world streams, the multiclass variant stays consistently near the top of the leaderboard while the task variant is the most reactive on fast, balanced drifts; the authors conclude that DriftMoE matches or outperforms established ensembles with far fewer resources, while flagging class-imbalanced data as its current weakness.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the multi-hot correctness mask gives the router a stable and informative learning signal in a changing stream; if it instead pushes the router to collapse onto one dominant expert or to chase recent noise, the reported accuracy would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

DriftMoE offers concept-drift adaptation without explicit drift detectors, removing the false-positive and delayed-detection failure modes of ADWIN-style triggers.
With only 12 Hoeffding trees instead of 100, the model can run on edge and IoT devices with a fraction of the memory and compute while keeping near-ARF accuracy.
The task-based variant shows that one-vs-rest expert specialization reacts quickly to fast, balanced drifts, suggesting a cheaper configuration when per-class concepts are stable within drift regimes.
Both variants' weakness on class-imbalanced streams gives a concrete target—cost-sensitive router losses or adaptive sampling—that the paper itself identifies as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the multi-hot mask reinforces experts regardless of whether the router selected them, the router learns from counterfactual expert successes; this suggests the same co-training loop could transfer to other base learners, such as online random forests or incremental neural networks, and to regression by replacing the mask with a continuous reward.
If the specialization story is correct, the architecture should recover instantly when an old concept reoccurs: the router should re-select the same expert without retraining, and a recurring-drift benchmark would isolate this effect more cleanly than the gradual LED stream.
A testable diagnostic: tracking per-expert accuracy and router weights during a drift should reveal a clear handoff, with the router weight shifting from the old expert to the new one within a few hundred instances; that handoff pattern would confirm the claimed acceleration of specialization and could itself serve as an early drift indicator.

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

Quick take: this is a legitimate attempt to bring MoE to streaming drift, with one genuinely new piece — a router trained on a multi-hot correctness mask — and public code. But the paper's own numbers don't back the abstract's 'competitive' claim as cleanly as the discussion suggests, and the discussion contains at least one flat factual error. I'd send it to review, but it needs substantial revision.

The novel bit is the symbiotic loop: a small MLP router selects top-k Hoeffding tree experts per instance, experts update online, and the router is trained in batches on a mask that reinforces every expert that got the label right. That specific combination is not in the cited literature, and the authors do cite MEDA, the closest existing domain-specific MoE-for-drift method, and differentiate themselves from it properly. The paper also ships a GitHub repo with code and reproducibility scripts, which is real evidence and should count in its favor.

The empirical case is weaker than the text claims. Table 2 shows MoE-Data is last on RBFf and RBFm, not just on CoverType as the text says, and is far behind on Electricity (83.76 vs ARF's 90.08). The discussion's sentence 'stays within 2 pp of the leader on both RBF streams' is just wrong for either variant. MoE-Task, not MoE-Data, does best on the RBF streams (though still ~3–11 pp behind ARF). So the overstatement isn't a nitpick; it changes the message.

The deeper weakness is that the multi-hot mask training signal is never analyzed. Since the mask reinforces every correct expert, including ones the router didn't pick, the feedback could in principle collapse or chase recent noise, especially under class imbalance — and the results on Electricity and CoverType are consistent with that. The paper offers no diagnostic (e.g., router entropy, per-expert specialization over time) to show the loop is doing what the narrative says. There are also no paired significance tests; given the tiny reported standard deviations for ARF (0.02) vs large ones for RBF (1.30), 'competitive' is asserted, not established.

Finally, hyperparameters for the router (learning rate, batch size, hidden width) aren't given in the paper, so the public code is necessary but not sufficient for reproduction.

Who benefits: someone looking for a starting point on MoE-based drift adaptation. As is, I'd cite it as a promising direction, not as evidence that the approach works. It deserves peer review — the idea is coherent and the issues are fixable.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DriftMoE, a streaming mixture-of-experts classifier in which a small MLP router selects among K Hoeffding tree experts. The router is trained online with a binary cross-entropy loss on a multi-hot correctness mask, while experts update incrementally (top-k in the MoE-Data variant, all experts in the MoE-Task one-vs-rest variant). The authors compare both variants with six adaptive ensembles on six synthetic and three real-world streams, reporting accuracy, Kappa-M, and Kappa-Temporal, and claim competitive performance with far fewer learners. Code and reproducibility scripts are provided.

Significance. If the symbiotic router-expert loop worked as claimed, DriftMoE would be a valuable contribution: a compact, fully online MoE that matches large adaptive ensembles with a dozen learners would be practically attractive for resource-constrained stream learning. The paper has real strengths: it uses standard drift benchmarks, evaluates with a prequential protocol over ten seeds, compares against six established baselines, and releases code and pipelines. However, the empirical support for the central claim is currently mixed, and the key mechanism is not analyzed; several textual claims misstate the reported numbers. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)

[§4.2, Table 2, and §5] The accuracy summary contradicts Table 2. MoE-Data is last on RBFf (61.90 vs ARF 86.37) and RBFm (79.89 vs ARF 92.04), and second-to-last on Electricity (83.76 vs ARF 90.08 and SRP 89.64), yet §5 states the model 'stays within 2 pp of the leader on both RBF streams' and §4.2 states that MoE-Data 'finishes last only on COVT.' These are not minor wording issues: they directly concern the abstract's 'competitive results' claim. The authors should either correct the description and qualify the claim, or provide additional evidence that the model is competitive where the table shows large gaps.
[§3.2, Router Updates] The multi-hot correctness mask is the core training signal, but its dynamics are never analyzed. Every expert that is correct on the current instance receives positive reinforcement regardless of whether the router selected it, and the sigmoid/BCE loss is not scaled by class frequency. Under class imbalance (Electricity, CoverType) the reported collapses of MoE-Task and the poor MoE-Data accuracy pair with this design, yet no routing entropy, expert-specialization, or router-collapse analysis is reported. Without an ablation that isolates the router's contribution (e.g., a fixed or random router, or training the router only on the selected expert's correctness), the claimed 'symbiotic learning loop' and 'accelerating expert specialization' remain unsupported.
[§4.2, Table 2] The claim of competitiveness is based on point estimates without statistical tests. The table reports means and standard deviations over ten seeds, but no paired significance tests or effect sizes are given; for example, LEDa MoE-Data is 73.77±0.18 vs SRP 73.98±0.08 and ARF 73.96±0.08, and the differences may be statistically distinguishable or not, but the text does not say. Given that several baselines differ by fractions of a percentage point, the paper needs at least a paired test or confidence intervals before asserting that DriftMoE 'matches' ARF/SRP.
[§1, §4.1, and §6] The paper claims efficiency as a central advantage ('efficient approach,' 'far fewer trees'), but it reports no runtime, memory, or throughput measurements anywhere. Using K=12 trees vs ARF's 100 trees does not by itself establish practical efficiency, since the router forward/backward passes, batching, and per-expert updates also consume resources. The efficiency claim should be either backed by direct measurements or removed from the abstract and conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Table 4 and §4.1] Table 4 is captioned 'Kappa M' but reports Kappa-Temporal, while Table 3 reports Kappa-M; the captions/headers should be corrected for consistency with the text.
[§3.1 and §3.3] Section 3.1 says inference may either mix expert outputs via the gating weights or select the top-k experts, but §3.3 says the system prediction is always taken from the single expert with the highest router weight. The experimental protocol should specify which inference mode was used, since this affects the interpretation of all reported accuracies.
[§4.2 and Figure 1] The dataset name is misspelled as 'Electricty' in Table 1 and Figure 1, and 'COVT'/'covt' are used inconsistently for CoverType; the text also says 'MoE-Data performs best on AIRL' where the dataset is called Airlines.
[§4.1] The sentence 'We do not impose an explicit m parameter to limit the number of splits' introduces an undefined symbol m; please define it or remove the phrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the router training signal derives from true labels and expert correctness, not from the model's own predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain in DriftMoE is self-contained. The router is trained with a multi-hot correctness mask computed from each expert's prediction against the true label (mt,i = 1 if the expert predicted correctly), which is an external signal, not the router's own output. Expert updates use the true label through Hoeffding tree rules. The reported prequential accuracy is obtained by comparing the top-router expert's prediction with the true label. The only mild methodological concern is that the hyperparameters K=12 and k=3 are selected using the LED stream and then LED is also reported as a benchmark; however, this is a standard model-selection practice, the sweep shows a broad plateau, and the central competitive claim is supported across multiple datasets, so it does not constitute a prediction forced by construction. Self-citations ([7], [13], [24]) are used for background context or standard taxonomy, not as load-bearing evidence, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work. Thus the paper's central claim does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the co-training loop, whose stability is assumed rather than analyzed. Hyperparameters K, k and the router architecture are chosen by hand or tuned on a single stream, while other router training constants are not reported.

free parameters (5)

Number of experts K = 12
Selected via preliminary grid search on the LED stream (Figure 3), then fixed for all datasets.
Top-k experts updated = 3
Same grid search; fixed for all datasets.
Router learning rate eta = not reported
Adam optimizer is mentioned, but the learning rate is not stated, making the configuration incomplete.
Router mini-batch size B = not reported
Mini-batch size for router updates is not stated in the paper.
Router hidden layer width = not reported
The router is a three-layer MLP, but the number of hidden units is not reported.

assumptions (3)

standard math Hoeffding bound ensures adequate split decisions in the trees with high probability
Used as the theoretical basis for Hoeffding tree splits; standard in the field.
domain assumption Concept drift in the evaluated streams follows the assumed patterns (abrupt, gradual, real-world)
Datasets are standard drift benchmarks; this is an empirical premise.
ad hoc to paper The multi-hot correctness mask provides a stable training signal for the router in a non-stationary environment
This is the core assumption behind the co-training loop; the paper does not analyze stability or convergence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFUSY2GD

@misc{pith2026250718464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFUSY2GD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18464}
}

read the original abstract

Learning from non-stationary data streams subject to concept drift requires models that can adapt on-the-fly while remaining resource-efficient. Existing adaptive ensemble methods often rely on coarse-grained adaptation mechanisms or simple voting schemes that fail to optimally leverage specialized knowledge. This paper introduces DriftMoE, an online Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture that addresses these limitations through a novel co-training framework. DriftMoE features a compact neural router that is co-trained alongside a pool of incremental Hoeffding tree experts. The key innovation lies in a symbiotic learning loop that enables expert specialization: the router selects the most suitable expert for prediction, the relevant experts update incrementally with the true label, and the router refines its parameters using a multi-hot correctness mask that reinforces every accurate expert. This feedback loop provides the router with a clear training signal while accelerating expert specialization. We evaluate DriftMoE's performance across nine state-of-the-art data stream learning benchmarks spanning abrupt, gradual, and real-world drifts testing two distinct configurations: one where experts specialize on data regimes (multi-class variant), and another where they focus on single-class specialization (task-based variant). Our results demonstrate that DriftMoE achieves competitive results with state-of-the-art stream learning adaptive ensembles, offering a principled and efficient approach to concept drift adaptation. All code, data pipelines, and reproducibility scripts are available in our public GitHub repository: https://github.com/miguel-ceadar/drift-moe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18464 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Accuracy over time plot for LEDg dataset 5 Discussion Across all three metrics, accuracy, Kappam, and Kappat DriftMoE is competitive with state-of-the-art ensembles while using far fewer trees. It tops the Airlines stream and stays within 2 pp of the leader on both RBF streams, streams characterised by high-frequency drift. MoETask shows the highest reactivity, excelling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Grid search on the LED stream showing prequential accuracy as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

Bifet, A., de Francisci Morales, G., Read, J., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B.: Efficient online evaluation of big data stream classifiers. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 59–68 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

In: Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining

Bifet, A., Gavalda, R.: Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing. In: Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining. vol. 7, pp. 443–448. SIAM (2007)

work page 2007
[3]

In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases

Bifet, A., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B.: Leveraging bagging for evolving data streams. In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. pp. 135–150. Springer (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Journal of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings Track11, 44–50 (2010)

Bifet, A., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Kranen, P., Kremer, H., Jansen, T., Seidl, T.: MOA: Massive Online Analysis, a framework for stream classifi- cation and clustering. Journal of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings Track11, 44–50 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Routledge (1984)

Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J.: Classification And Regression Trees. Routledge (1984). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470

doi:10.1201/9781315139470 1984
[6]

Information Sciences265, 50–67 (May 2014)

Brzezinski, D., Stefanowski, J.: Combining block-based and online meth- ods in learning ensembles from concept drifting data streams. Information Sciences265, 50–67 (May 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.011 2014
[7]

In: Piangerelli, M., Prenkaj, B., Rotalinti, Y., Joshi, A., Stilo, G

Cajas, S.A., Samanta, J., Suárez-Cetrulo, A.L., Simón Carbajo, R.: Adap- tive machine learning for resource-constrained environments. In: Piangerelli, M., Prenkaj, B., Rotalinti, Y., Joshi, A., Stilo, G. (eds.) Discovering Drift Phenomena in Evolving Landscapes. pp. 3–19. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82346-6_1

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82346-6_1 2025
[8]

An Online Boosting Algorithm with Theoretical Justifications

Chen, S.T., Lin, H.T., Lu, C.J.: An online boosting algorithm with theo- retical justifications (2012). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1206.6422

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.6422 2012

Show all 28 references

[9]

https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2401.06066,https://arxiv

Dai, D., Deng, C., Zhao, C., Xu, R.X., Gao, H., Chen, D., Li, J., Zeng, W., Yu, X., Wu, Y., Xie, Z., Li, Y.K., Huang, P., Luo, F., Ruan, C., Sui, Z., Liang, W.: Deepseekmoe: Towards ultimate expert specialization in mixture-of-experts language mod- els (2024). https://doi.org/...

2024 doi arXiv
[10]

In: Proceedings ofthesixthACMSIGKDDinternationalconferenceonKnowledgediscovery and data mining

Domingos, P., Hulten, G.: Mining high-speed data streams. In: Proceedings ofthesixthACMSIGKDDinternationalconferenceonKnowledgediscovery and data mining. pp. 71–80 (2000)

2000
[11]

https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2101.03961,https: //arxiv.org/abs/2101.03961 DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts 15

Fedus, W., Zoph, B., Shazeer, N.: Switch transformers: Scal- ing to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient spar- sity (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2101.03961,https: //arxiv.org/abs/2101.03961 DriftMoE: A Mixture of Experts Approach to Handle Concept Drifts 15

2021 doi arXiv
[12]

ACM computing surveys (CSUR)46(4), 1–37 (2014)

Gama, J., Žliobait˙ e, I., Bifet, A., Pechenizkiy, M., Bouchachia, A.: A survey on concept drift adaptation. ACM computing surveys (CSUR)46(4), 1–37 (2014)

2014
[13]

In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on MetaOS for the Cloud-Edge-IoT Continuum

Garcia, J., Masip-Bruin, X., Giannopoulos, A., Trakadas, P., Cajas, S.A., Samanta, J., Suárez-Cetrulo, A.L., Simón Carbajo, R., Michalke, M., Jukan, A., Jaworski, A., Kotliński, M., Giammatteo, G., D’Andria, F.: Icos: An in- telligent metaos for the continuum. In: Proceedings ...

2025
[14]

Machine Learning pp

Gomes, H.M., Bifet, A., Read, J., Barddal, J.P., Enembreck, F., Pfharinger, B., Holmes, G., Abdessalem, T.: Adaptive random forests for evolving data stream classification. Machine Learning pp. 1–27 (6 2017)

2017
[15]

https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.07432

Gomes, H.M., Lee, A., Gunasekara, N., Sun, Y., Cassales, G.W., Liu, J., Heyden, M., Cerqueira, V., Bahri, M., Koh, Y.S., Pfahringer, B., Bifet, A.: CapyMOA: Efficient machine learning for data streams in Python (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.07432

2025 doi arXiv
[16]

In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

Gomes, H.M., Read, J., Bifet, A.: Streaming random patches for evolving data stream classification. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). pp. 240–249. IEEE (2019)

2019
[17]

Neural computation3(1), 79–87 (1991)

Jacobs, R.A., Jordan, M.I., Nowlan, S.J., Hinton, G.E.: Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation3(1), 79–87 (1991)

1991
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16437 (2024)

Li, H., Lin, S., Duan, L., Liang, Y., Shroff, N.B.: Theory on mixture-of- experts in continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16437 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09762 (2023)

Liu, B., Ding, L., Shen, L., Peng, K., Cao, Y., Cheng, D., Tao, D.: Di- versifying the mixture-of-experts representation for language models with orthogonal optimizer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09762 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[20]

Frontiers in psychology4, 504 (2013)

Mermillod,M.,Bugaiska,A.,Bonin,P.:Thestability-plasticitydilemma:In- vestigating the continuum from catastrophic forgetting to age-limited learn- ing effects. Frontiers in psychology4, 504 (2013)

2013
[21]

In: International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

Oza, N.C., Russell, S.J.: Online bagging and boosting. In: International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. pp. 229–236. PMLR (2001)

2001
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538 (2017)

Shazeer, N., Mirhoseini, A., Maziarz, K., Davis, A., Le, Q., Hinton, G., Dean, J.: Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture- of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[23]

In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD interna- tional conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

Street, W.N., Kim, Y.: A streaming ensemble algorithm (SEA) for large- scale classification. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD interna- tional conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 377–382. ACM (2001)

2001
[24]

Expert Systems with Applications213, 118934 (2023)

Suárez-Cetrulo, A.L., Quintana, D., Cervantes, A.: A survey on machine learning for recurring concept drifting data streams. Expert Systems with Applications213, 118934 (2023)

2023
[25]

Technical Report: TCD-CS-2004-15, Department of Computer Science Trin- ity College, Dublin (2004) 16 Aspis, Cajas Ordoñez, et al

Tsymbal, A.: The Problem of Concept Drift: Definitions and Related Work. Technical Report: TCD-CS-2004-15, Department of Computer Science Trin- ity College, Dublin (2004) 16 Aspis, Cajas Ordoñez, et al

2004
[26]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01739 (2024)

Xue, F., Zheng, Z., Fu, Y., Ni, J., Zheng, Z., Zhou, W., You, Y.: Openmoe: An early effort on open mixture-of-experts language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01739 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[27]

In: 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT)

Yang, G., Mou, W., Xia, T., Fan, L.: MEDA: MoE-based Concept Drift Adaptation for In-vehicle Network Intrusion Detection. In: 2024 IEEE 24th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT). pp. 634– 638 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCT62411.2024.10946581

2024
[28]

Machine Learning98(3), 455–482 (Apr 2014)

Žliobait˙ e, I., Bifet, A., Read, J., Pfahringer, B., Holmes, G.: Evalua- tion methods and decision theory for classification of streaming data with temporal dependence. Machine Learning98(3), 455–482 (Apr 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-014-5441-4

2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

Bifet, A., de Francisci Morales, G., Read, J., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B.: Efficient online evaluation of big data stream classifiers. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 59–68 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining

Bifet, A., Gavalda, R.: Learning from time-changing data with adaptive windowing. In: Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM international conference on data mining. vol. 7, pp. 443–448. SIAM (2007)

work page 2007

[3] [3]

In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases

Bifet, A., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B.: Leveraging bagging for evolving data streams. In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. pp. 135–150. Springer (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Journal of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings Track11, 44–50 (2010)

Bifet, A., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Kranen, P., Kremer, H., Jansen, T., Seidl, T.: MOA: Massive Online Analysis, a framework for stream classifi- cation and clustering. Journal of Machine Learning Research - Proceedings Track11, 44–50 (2010)

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Routledge (1984)

Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J.: Classification And Regression Trees. Routledge (1984). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470

doi:10.1201/9781315139470 1984

[6] [6]

Information Sciences265, 50–67 (May 2014)

Brzezinski, D., Stefanowski, J.: Combining block-based and online meth- ods in learning ensembles from concept drifting data streams. Information Sciences265, 50–67 (May 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.011 2014

[7] [7]

In: Piangerelli, M., Prenkaj, B., Rotalinti, Y., Joshi, A., Stilo, G

Cajas, S.A., Samanta, J., Suárez-Cetrulo, A.L., Simón Carbajo, R.: Adap- tive machine learning for resource-constrained environments. In: Piangerelli, M., Prenkaj, B., Rotalinti, Y., Joshi, A., Stilo, G. (eds.) Discovering Drift Phenomena in Evolving Landscapes. pp. 3–19. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82346-6_1

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82346-6_1 2025

[8] [8]

An Online Boosting Algorithm with Theoretical Justifications

Chen, S.T., Lin, H.T., Lu, C.J.: An online boosting algorithm with theo- retical justifications (2012). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1206.6422

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.6422 2012