Learning to Detect Shifts in Unstructured Data Streams via Monitoring-by-Betting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Continuous monitoring of generative AI systems requires detecting distribution shifts in the unstructured data they ingest and generate. Existing monitoring methods typically control false alarms by requiring the discrepancy measure used to detect shifts to be *pre-specified*. However, for unstructured data, pre-specification creates a sensitivity--breadth trade-off: a narrowly defined measure is sensitive to the anticipated shift but may miss unexpected changes, whereas a broadly defined measure may detect a wider range of shifts but with reduced sensitivity. Although adaptively hypothesizing the shift direction can overcome this limitation, such data-dependent adaptation generally invalidates conventional false-alarm guarantees. We reconcile adaptivity with statistical validity through testing-by-betting, reframing sequential changepoint detection as a betting game in which the bettor continually updates its hypothesized shift direction, or witness function, as new observations arrive. We introduce *asymptotic e-detectors*, which approximate the pre-change distribution using a calibration set of size m, and prove that they asymptotically control the average run length to a false alarm as m increases. Empirically, calibration sets as small as m=30 provide effective control. We then develop adaptive monitoring strategies ranging from black-box bettors that learn from embeddings to interpretable bettors based on LLM-proposed concepts. Across three real-world datasets, including data from a clinical AI scribe deployment, adaptive monitors detect shifts faster than fixed monitors at the same false-alarm level. Further, when the true shifts are sparse and interpretable, LLM-concept monitors provide the fastest and most interpretable detection, while also guiding root-cause diagnosis for complex shifts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 82 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.
Builds on
43 of 82 references.
References · 43
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
- 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 801
- 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 270
- 2016Revisiting Classifier Two-Sample Testscited by 268
- 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 243
- 2022Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inferencecited by 155
- 2021Zero-Shot Out-of-Distribution Detection Based on the Pre-trained Model CLIPcited by 152
- 2019Safe Testingcited by 101
- 2024Hypothesis testing with e-valuescited by 74
- 2023Goal Driven Discovery of Distributional Differences via Language Descriptionscited by 62
31 more
- 2022CEBaB: Estimating the Causal Effects of Real-World Concepts on NLP Model Behaviorcited by 55
- 2021There are natural scores: Full comment on Shafer, "Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication"cited by 53
- 2023Describing Differences in Image Sets with Natural Languagecited by 53
- 2020Admissible anytime-valid sequential inference must rely on nonnegative martingalescited by 48
- 2021Nonparametric Two-Sample Testing by Bettingcited by 37
- 2024Do LLMs Understand Visual Anomalies? Uncovering LLM's Capabilities in Zero-shot Anomaly Detectioncited by 36
- 2019Kernel Change-point Detection with Auxiliary Deep Generative Modelscited by 33
- 2021Retrain or not retrain: Conformal test martingales for change-point detectioncited by 32
- 2022E-detectors: a nonparametric framework for sequential change detectioncited by 32
- 2024Envisioning Outlier Exposure by Large Language Models for Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 32
- 2024Large Language Models for Anomaly and Out-of-Distribution Detection: A Surveycited by 27
- 2021A Witness Two-Sample Testcited by 23
- 2023Model Based Explanations of Concept Driftcited by 21
- 2022AutoML Two-Sample Testcited by 20
- 2025Auditing Black-Box LLM APIs with a Rank-Based Uniformity Testcited by 18
- 2023How Good Are LLMs at Out-of-Distribution Detection?cited by 17
- 2024VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language Modelscited by 17
- 2024Bayesian Concept Bottleneck Models with LLM Priorscited by 17
- 2025E-valuator: Reliable Agent Verifiers with Sequential Hypothesis Testingcited by 17
- 2022Sequential Kernelized Independence Testingcited by 16
- 2023Exploring Large Language Models for Multi-Modal Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 13
- 2025Log Probability Tracking of LLM APIscited by 10
- 2024An Auditing Test To Detect Behavioral Shift in Language Modelscited by 9
- 2024TagFog: Textual Anchor Guidance and Fake Outlier Generation for Visual Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 8
- 2021Failing Conceptually: Concept-Based Explanations of Dataset Shiftcited by 7
- 2022Neural network-based CUSUM for online change-point detectioncited by 5
- 2026Token-Efficient Change Detection in LLM APIscited by 5
- 2025LLMs Judging LLMs: A Simplex Perspectivecited by 4
- 2026Adaptive auditing of AI systems with anytime-valid guaranteescited by 3
- 2023Reliable and Interpretable Drift Detection in Streams of Short Textscited by 2
- 2025E-Scores for (In)Correctness Assessment of Generative Model Outputscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.