mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Anticipating the Optimism Gap: Predicting Distribution-Shift Degradation of RF-Impairment Detectors from In-Distribution Statistics

arXiv 2606.22054 ↗First posted 20 Jun 2026eess.SP cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Detectors for GNSS radio-frequency impairments (jamming, spoofing, multipath) are usually reported with a single AUC measured on the distribution they were tuned on. That number falls once conditions move, and the size of the drop is rarely known in advance because labelled field data is scarce. We ask whether this optimism can be predicted before any out-of-distribution data is seen. On an open, parameter-grounded synthetic testbed with a tunable severity shift, we evaluate thirteen detectors (five physics baselines, full-feature logistic regression and multilayer perceptrons, and single-feature learned controls) across four impairment classes. The optimism gap, the difference between in-distribution and shifted AUC, grows monotonically as the shift deepens (mean Spearman correlation 0.50). It is driven by how many observables a detector uses rather than by whether it is learned, and it varies systematically by class. Centrally, a ridge model built only from in-distribution score statistics predicts the gap for a detector it has never seen (R^2 = 0.47) and for an impairment class it has never seen (R^2 = 0.46); both are significant against a 2000-fold permutation null (p < 0.001) and survive removing the feature that is, by construction, part of the target. The headline findings are synthetic. We then run the pre-registered protocol on three open field corpora: on Jammertest 2024 the cross-detector prediction holds (R^2 = 0.11, p = 0.009), and on SatGrid, whose spoofer power sweep gives a calibrated severity axis, in-distribution AUC overstates higher-severity AUC by up to 0.22 and to the point of sign inversion, with in-distribution AUC and realised gap perfectly rank-correlated (Spearman rho = 1.0). The mechanism survives contact with real data, at smaller magnitude than in simulation. We release the testbed, a software-receiver front end, the ingest adapters and the protocol.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2026.

Builds on

12 of 27 references.

References · 12

  1. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,877
  2. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
  3. 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
  4. 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
  5. 2020Measuring Robustness to Natural Distribution Shifts in Image Classificationcited by 454
  6. 2021Accuracy on the Line: On the Strong Correlation Between Out-of-Distribution and In-Distribution Generalizationcited by 249
  7. 2022Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performancecited by 145
  8. 2021Assessing Generalization of SGD via Disagreementcited by 117
  9. 2021Predicting with Confidence on Unseen Distributionscited by 116
  10. 2020Are Labels Always Necessary for Classifier Accuracy Evaluation?cited by 104
  11. 2022Agreement-on-the-Line: Predicting the Performance of Neural Networks under Distribution Shiftcited by 94
  12. 2025Evaluation of (Un-)Supervised Machine Learning Methods for GNSS Interference Classification with Real-World Data Discrepanciescited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.