A Domain-Region Based Evaluation of ML Performance Robustness to Covariate Shift
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Most machine learning methods assume that the input data distribution is the same in the training and testing phases. However, in practice, this stationarity is usually not met and the distribution of inputs differs, leading to unexpected performance of the learned model in deployment. The issue in which the training and test data inputs follow different probability distributions while the input-output relationship remains unchanged is referred to as covariate shift. In this paper, the performance of conventional machine learning models was experimentally evaluated in the presence of covariate shift. Furthermore, a region-based evaluation was performed by decomposing the domain of probability density function of the input data to assess the classifier's performance per domain region. Distributional changes were simulated in a two-dimensional classification problem. Subsequently, a higher four-dimensional experiments were conducted. Based on the experimental analysis, the Random Forests algorithm is the most robust classifier in the two-dimensional case, showing the lowest degradation rate for accuracy and F1-score metrics, with a range between 0.1% and 2.08%. Moreover, the results reveal that in higher-dimensional experiments, the performance of the models is predominantly influenced by the complexity of the classification function, leading to degradation rates exceeding 25% in most cases. It is also concluded that the models exhibit high bias towards the region with high density in the input space domain of the training samples.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2023.
Builds on
22 of 69 references.
References · 22
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,507
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,274
- 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,232
- 2020Learning under Concept Drift: A Reviewcited by 470
- 2020Measuring Robustness to Natural Distribution Shifts in Image Classificationcited by 452
- 2020Improving robustness against common corruptions by covariate shift adaptationcited by 427
- 2019Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biasescited by 279
- 2021Accuracy on the Line: On the Strong Correlation Between Out-of-Distribution and In-Distribution Generalizationcited by 248
- 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 240
- 2022Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performancecited by 141
10 more
- 2015Distributionally Robust Logistic Regressioncited by 124
- 2019Unlearn Dataset Bias in Natural Language Inference by Fitting the Residualcited by 119
- 2021Predicting with Confidence on Unseen Distributionscited by 116
- 2020The Effect of Natural Distribution Shift on Question Answering Modelscited by 104
- 2020Are Labels Always Necessary for Classifier Accuracy Evaluation?cited by 104
- 2022From Concept Drift to Model Degradation: An Overview on Performance-Aware Drift Detectorscited by 82
- 2019Cold Case: The Lost MNIST Digitscited by 61
- 2021Mandoline: Model Evaluation under Distribution Shiftcited by 55
- 2017Fisher consistency for prior probability shiftcited by 20
- 2019Robust Importance Weighting for Covariate Shiftcited by 14
Built on by
Not cited yet.