Dimension-Calibrated Unexplained Mass: An Interpretable Drift Statistic for Contamination Monitoring in Data Streams

Behnam Asadi

cs.LGJul 18, 2026

Dimension-Calibrated Unexplained Mass: An Interpretable Drift Statistic for Contamination Monitoring in Data Streams

Authors: Behnam Asadi

Abstract

Drift detectors that work tend not to explain themselves, and drift detectors that explain themselves tend to fail in high dimension. We close that gap for Gaussian mixture models (GMMs): each fitted component is a named "regime," and the fraction of a stream window matching no regime -- its unexplained mass -- is a drift signal that is simultaneously its own explanation. We identify why this statistic collapses in high dimension and repair it. Under a correct component a normal point in d dimensions lies about sqrt(d) sigma from the mean, so once d exceeds 9 essentially every point exceeds a fixed 3-sigma radius: window-level ROC-AUC is exactly 0.50 on Satellite (d=36) and Optdigits (d=64). Calibrating the radius to sqrt(chi-squared_d(0.99)) removes the collapse -- AUC 1.00 and 0.89 -- while leaving low dimensions unchanged. Across seven public benchmarks, five seeds, and eight model-free detectors spanning the kernel, classifier, projection, density-difference, transport, likelihood and partition families, the repaired statistic is best or tied-best on five of seven datasets at 10% window contamination (its two losses are Pendigits, where the whole field beats it, and Optdigits), and as contamination becomes sparse the sample-level detectors fade toward chance while it degrades most gracefully: at 2% its mean AUC across the benchmarks is 0.86 against at most 0.73 for any model-free detector (1.00 vs. MMD's 0.72 on KDD-http) -- while alone among them reporting which regime the data left and how far outside it the window lies. We delimit its scope honestly: unexplained mass detects and explains novel-regime drift but is blind by construction to in-support re-weighting of known regimes, where distribution-level tests are required and explain nothing; and the underlying density model's EVT-calibrated false-alarm rates degrade above d of about 36. All code and experiments are released.

Explore similar work

Jul 19, 2026cs.LG

When Drift Detectors cry Wolf: False Alarm Rates in continuous ML Monitoring

Drift detection is a core component of production machine learning monitoring systems, where detectors are used to compare incoming data with a reference distribution and trigger alerts when changes occur. However, these detectors are often evaluated in research settings that emphasize detection accuracy under synthetic shifts, while overlooking false alarms under continuous monitoring. In production environments, models are monitored repeatedly over time and across many features, and even small false positive rates can accumulate into frequent alerts, leading to alarm fatigue. We empirically analyze false positive behavior across five commonly used drift detectors: PSI, KS, MMD, LSDD, and adversarial validation. Consistent with existing literature, PSI exhibits strong sensitivity to batch size, producing frequent false alarms at small sample sizes; however, we further observe that its behavior stabilizes and improves substantially once batch sizes exceed approximately 200 samples. In contrast, KS, MMD, and LSDD display persistent fluctuations across batch sizes, while remaining comparatively more reliable than PSI in low-data regimes. Applying a Bonferroni correction reduces false positive rates, but often at the cost of reduced true positive sensitivity, reinforcing the well-known stability - sensitivity trade-off in drift detection. This work provides a systematic comparison of false positive behavior across multiple drift detectors under continuous monitoring conditions. We identify tradeoffs across detector families and provide practical guidelines for selecting and calibrating drift detectors in production ML systems.

Raj Shekhar Singh

False Positive Rate Change-Point Detection Early Warning Machine Learning Domain Shift

Ask PDF

Jun 5, 2026cs.LG

A Framework for Evaluating and Benchmarking Concept Drift Detection Methods

Data stream mining is fundamentally challenged by concept drift, where distributional changes can degrade model performance. Despite the proliferation of drift detection methods, progress in the field is hindered by inconsistent evaluation practices: studies rely on oversimplified synthetic data generators, adopt incompatible metrics, and lack transparency in hyperparameter selection, making fair comparisons difficult. We address this gap with a novel benchmarking framework comprising three contributions: (1) a drift simulation method that injects controlled distributional changes into real-world datasets via Monte Carlo trials, enabling supervised evaluation while preserving real-world data complexity; (2) an evaluation protocol for drift detection with timing-aware criteria, including the derivation of new metrics (e.g., F1 detection score, normalized detection time) that are comparable across streams; and (3) we advocate for a leave-one-dataset-out hyperparameter optimization protocol for drift detection methods that promotes configuration robustness across heterogeneous stream dynamics. We benchmark 14 widely used drift detection methods on 7 realworld datasets across 4 drift types (class prior, label swap, feature permutation, feature filtering), each under both abrupt and gradual transitions. Our experimental results provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current drift detection approaches while establishing baseline performance metrics for future research in this area. All code and experiments are publicly available.

Vitor Cerqueira, Heitor Murilo Gomes, Marco Heyden +2

Synthetic Data Hyperparameter Optimization

Ask PDF

Aug 8, 2026cs.AI

When Is Benchmark Contamination Detectable? Information Limits and Power-Calibrated Audits

Behavioral contamination detectors can return "no evidence" either because a benchmark is clean or because the audit has little power. We formalize this distinction for a benchmark in which an unknown fraction alpha of items was seen during training. With matched clean and seen controls, the behavioral channel is the sparse mixture Q_alpha = (1 - alpha) P_0 + alpha P_1, and an exact second-moment argument shows that detectability is governed by alpha * rho * sqrt(m), where rho^2 = chi^2(P_1 || P_0) measures behavioral separability. Any scalar detector reduces to its efficacy, ef = |E_1 f - E_0 f| / sqrt(Var_0(f)) <= rho, which can be estimated from controls before the audit is run. A separate sample-split certificate lower-bounds alpha distribution-free, without requiring an orientation assumption. Our empirical finding is two-sided. Frozen calibration efficacy predicts held-out power curves, with R^2 = 0.83-0.98 across six exact-permutation channels, but the efficacy-only Gaussian budget is miscalibrated at the small sample sizes it prescribes, failing in 9/9 gate-passing channels even though efficacy itself transports. The failure is in the inversion, not the calibration. A predeclared two-stage planner that simulates the deployed test repairs the budgets, is uniformly conservative, and abstains when its probe does not transport. The certificate is valid but vacuous at audit scale, and a five-seed paired injection study recovers the mechanism ordering verbatim > paraphrase > surface, in which the apparent answer-only signal is explained by baseline drift. We report the audit contract and its failures together: a non-rejection is interpretable only alongside the efficacy, budget, and validity gates that produced it.

Ibne Farabi Shihab, Sanjeda Akter, Anuj Sharma

Contamination-Aware Benchmarking Framework Algorithm Auditing Multicalibration and Calibration

Ask PDF