When Should a Model Change Its Mind? An Energy-Based Theory and Regularizer for Concept Drift in Electrocardiogram (ECG) Signals
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
Models operating on dynamic physiologic signals must distinguish benign, label-preserving variability from true concept change. Existing concept-drift frameworks are largely distributional and provide no principled guidance on how much a model's internal representation may move when the underlying signal undergoes physiologically plausible fluctuations in energy. As a result, deep models often misinterpret harmless changes in amplitude, rate, or morphology as concept drift, yielding unstable predictions, particularly in multimodal fusion settings. This study introduces Physiologic Energy Conservation Theory (PECT), an energy-based framework for concept stability in dynamic signals. PECT posits that under virtual drift, normalized latent displacement should scale proportionally with normalized signal energy change, while persistent violations of this proportionality indicate real concept drift. We operationalize this principle through Energy-Constrained Representation Learning (ECRL), a lightweight regularizer that penalizes energy-inconsistent latent movement without modifying encoder architectures or adding inference-time cost. Although PECT is formulated for dynamic signals in general, we instantiate and evaluate it on multimodal ECG across seven unimodal and hybrid models. Experiments show that in the strongest trimodal hybrid (1D+2D+Transformer), clean accuracy is largely preserved (96.0% to 94.1%), while perturbed accuracy improves substantially (72.6% to 85.5%) and fused representation drift decreases by over 45%. Similar trends are observed across all architectures, providing empirical evidence that PECT functions as an energy-drift law governing concept stability in continuous physiologic signals.
Figures & tables
| Framework family | Primary object of change | Stability notion | Uses measured signal energy? | What it cannot do (gap PECT fills) |
| Concept-drift / distributional drift [ 3 , 7 ] | Input/label distributions ( , , ) | Detect/track distribution change; trigger adaptation | No | No principled bound on how much latent space may move under label-preserving physiologic variability. |
| Robustness / Lipschitz / margin bounds [ 8 , 9 , 10 ] | Model mapping sensitivity (input features/logits) | Small input change bounded output/feature change | No | Perturbations are abstract (e.g., norm-bounded); does not relate drift to a physiologically interpretable quantity like . |
| Invariance / equivariance (group-based) [ 11 , 12 ] | Transformation structure (symmetries) | Representation should be invariant/equivariant to certain transforms | No | Specifies which transforms should preserve outputs, but not the magnitude law governing admissible latent motion under physiologic variability. |
| Energy-Based Models (EBMs) [ 13 , 14 ] | Learned scalar energy function over configurations | Low learned energy for plausible states | No (learned energy) | “Energy” is a learned potential, not physical/physiologic waveform energy; no energy–drift consistency constraint in representation space. |
| Physics-informed learning (PINNs, mechanistic constraints) [ 15 ] | Outputs constrained by known physics (often PDEs) | Physical consistency of outputs/trajectories | Sometimes (via equations) | Typically constrains outputs, not latent drift geometry ; does not define a runtime criterion separating virtual drift from real drift via and . |
| Continual learning / representation-drift penalties [ 16 , 17 ] | Feature/parameter drift across tasks or time | Reduce forgetting; stabilize features across domains/tasks | No | Targets task/domain shifts rather than benign within-class physiologic variability; no physically grounded admissible-drift rule. |
| Model | Acc clean | Acc pert | Robustness Deg. |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 1D-CNN (baseline) | 0.9355 | 0.3925 | 0.5430 |
| M1 1D-CNN (BIT+PECT) | 0.9409 | 0.8817 | 0.0591 |
| M2 2D-CNN (baseline) | 0.9194 | 0.9086 | 0.0108 |
| M2 2D-CNN (BIT+PECT) | 0.9032 | 0.9032 | 0.0000 |
| M3 Transformer (baseline) | 0.8763 | 0.8441 | 0.0323 |
| M3 Transformer (BIT+PECT) | 0.8871 | 0.8871 | 0.0000 |
| Model | Acc clean | Acc pert | Robustness Deg. |
|---|---|---|---|
| M4 1D+TR (baseline) | 0.9300 | 0.7688 | 0.1612 |
| M4 1D+TR (BIT+PECT) | 0.9247 | 0.8065 | 0.1183 |
| M5 2D+TR (baseline) | 0.9300 | 0.2527 | 0.6773 |
| M5 2D+TR (BIT+PECT) | 0.9301 | 0.9247 | 0.0054 |
| M6 1D+2D (baseline) | 0.9400 | 0.7258 | 0.2142 |
| M6 1D+2D (BIT+PECT) | 0.9301 | 0.9086 | 0.0215 |
| Model | Clean | Pert | Robust. Red.% |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 1D-CNN | +0.58% | +124.6% | 89.1% |
| M2 2D-CNN | -1.75% | -0.6% | 100% |
| M3 TR | +1.24% | +5.1% | 100% |
| M4 1D+TR | -0.6% | +4.9% | 26.6% |
| M5 2D+TR | +0.01% | +266% | 99.2% |
| M6 1D+2D | -1.06% | +25.2% | 89.9% |
Concept Drift
Concept drift is change over time in the relationship between data and target outcomes, which can erode the accuracy of deployed models.
See all 90 papers