mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Test for non-negligible adverse shifts

arXiv 2107.02990 ↗First posted 7 Jul 2021stat.ML cs.LG stat.MEcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Statistical tests for dataset shift are susceptible to false alarms: they are sensitive to minor differences when there is in fact adequate sample coverage and predictive performance. We propose instead a framework to detect adverse dataset shifts based on outlier scores, textttD-SOS for short. textttD-SOS holds that the new (test) sample is not substantively worse than the reference (training) sample, and not that the two are equal. The key idea is to reduce observations to outlier scores and compare contamination rates at varying weighted thresholds. Users can define what itworse means in terms of relevant notions of outlyingness, including proxies for predictive performance. Compared to tests of equal distribution, our approach is uniquely tailored to serve as a robust metric for model monitoring and data validation. We show how versatile and practical textttD-SOS is on a wide range of real and simulated data.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2021.

Builds on

28 of 68 references.

References · 28

  1. 2016A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networkscited by 2,385
  2. 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
  3. 2020A Unifying Review of Deep and Shallow Anomaly Detectioncited by 425
  4. 2018Detecting and Correcting for Label Shift with Black Box Predictorscited by 366
  5. 2018Learning Models with Uniform Performance via Distributionally Robust Optimizationcited by 335
  6. 2016Revisiting Classifier Two-Sample Testscited by 268
  7. 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 243
  8. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 218
  9. 2018To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifiercited by 207
  10. 2017OpenML Benchmarking Suitescited by 178
  11. 2015ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and Rcited by 172
  12. 2020Challenges in Deploying Machine Learning: a Survey of Case Studiescited by 152
16 more
  1. 2021Testing for Outliers with Conformal p-valuescited by 134
  2. 2018Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 99
  3. 2016Time for a change: a tutorial for comparing multiple classifiers through Bayesian analysiscited by 93
  4. 2020Density of States Estimation for Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 74
  5. 2016Classification accuracy as a proxy for two sample testingcited by 42
  6. 2021Confidence-based Out-of-Distribution Detection: A Comparative Study and Analysiscited by 34
  7. 2017On the Reliable Detection of Concept Drift from Streaming Unlabeled Datacited by 33
  8. 2021Retrain or not retrain: Conformal test martingales for change-point detectioncited by 32
  9. 2019Can You Trust This Prediction? Auditing Pointwise Reliability After Learningcited by 28
  10. 2019Two-sample Testing Using Deep Learningcited by 27
  11. 2019On the Use of Random Forest for Two-Sample Testingcited by 13
  12. 2017OpenML: An R Package to Connect to the Machine Learning Platform OpenMLcited by 12
  13. 2019Goodness-of-fit testing in high-dimensional generalized linear modelscited by 8
  14. 2013Estimation Stability with Cross Validation (ESCV)cited by 7
  15. 2016Small sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects modelscited by 7
  16. 2015Superheat: An R package for creating beautiful and extendable heatmaps for visualizing complex datacited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

5 papers.