Drift-to-Action Controllers: Budgeted Interventions with Online Risk Certificates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deployed machine learning systems face distribution drift, yet most monitoring pipelines stop at alarms and leave the response underspecified under labeling, compute, and latency constraints. We introduce Drift2Act, a drift-to-action controller that treats monitoring as constrained decision-making with explicit safety. Drift2Act combines a sensing layer that maps unlabeled monitoring signals to a belief over drift types with an active risk certificate that queries a small set of delayed labels from a recent window to produce an anytime-valid upper bound Ut(δ) on current risk. The certificate gates operation: if Ut(δ) ≤ τ, the controller selects low-cost actions (e.g., recalibration or test-time adaptation); if Ut(δ) > τ, it activates abstain/handoff and escalates to rollback or retraining under cooldowns. In a realistic streaming protocol with label delay and explicit intervention costs, Drift2Act achieves near-zero safety violations and fast recovery at moderate cost on WILDS Camelyon17, DomainNet, and a controlled synthetic drift stream, outperforming alarm-only monitoring, adapt-always adaptation, schedule-based retraining, selective prediction alone, and an ablation without certification. Overall, online risk certification enables reliable drift response and reframes monitoring as decision-making with safety.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Mar 2026.
Builds on
22 of 41 references.
References · 22
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
- 2016Learning without Forgettingcited by 2,496
- 2016iCaRL: Incremental Classifier and Representation Learningcited by 2,333
- 2017Gradient Episodic Memory for Continual Learningcited by 1,898
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
- 2018Moment Matching for Multi-Source Domain Adaptationcited by 1,331
- 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,247
10 more
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2018Detecting and Correcting for Label Shift with Black Box Predictorscited by 366
- 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 327
- 2022Conformal Risk Controlcited by 299
- 2016Revisiting Classifier Two-Sample Testscited by 268
- 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 243
- 2019Two-sample Testing Using Deep Learningcited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.