Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

When to retrain a machine learning model

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 2505.14903 v1 pith:ISNXR2GC submitted 2025-05-20 cs.LG

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

A significant challenge in maintaining real-world machine learning models is responding to the continuous and unpredictable evolution of data. Most practitioners are faced with the difficult question: when should I retrain or update my machine learning model? This seemingly straightforward problem is particularly challenging for three reasons: 1) decisions must be made based on very limited information - we usually have access to only a few examples, 2) the nature, extent, and impact of the distribution shift are unknown, and 3) it involves specifying a cost ratio between retraining and poor performance, which can be hard to characterize. Existing works address certain aspects of this problem, but none offer a comprehensive solution. Distribution shift detection falls short as it cannot account for the cost trade-off; the scarcity of the data, paired with its unusual structure, makes it a poor fit for existing offline reinforcement learning methods, and the online learning formulation overlooks key practical considerations. To address this, we present a principled formulation of the retraining problem and propose an uncertainty-based method that makes decisions by continually forecasting the evolution of model performance evaluated with a bounded metric. Our experiments addressing classification tasks show that the method consistently outperforms existing baselines on 7 datasets.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An empirical evaluation of the risks of AI model updates using clinical data: stability, arbitrariness, and fairness

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updating clinical AI models can cause prediction flips, arbitrariness, and unfair error rates across groups, requiring dedicated monitoring dimensions.

  2. Efficient Dataset Selection for Continual Adaptation of Generative Recommenders

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Gradient-based representations paired with distribution-matching enable efficient curation of small data subsets that improve performance and training efficiency for continually adapting generative recommenders while ...

Pith tools