Deployed machine learning (ML) models can degrade as the distribution of their input data shifts. Such shifts can result from changes in the population or from data integrity issues in the pipeline that materializes model features, two sources that operate through different mechanisms. Because labels are often absent or delayed, it is common practice to track shifts in the data instead, but a detected shift does not indicate how it affects the model. We formulate this problem as online model testing under distribution shift. Testing requires reproducing the shift on a controlled baseline with known labels. Since the same shift can come from either source, doing so requires knowing which mechanism changed. We propose a methodology that reproduces observed changes in both mechanisms to estimate current performance and the potential gain from repairing observed data integrity issues. Experiments on real-world datasets with simulated faults show that separating the two sources generally improves both estimates, supporting this formulation. A churn prediction case illustrates how these tests can support monitoring and repair prioritization
Distribution shift poses a significant challenge to the robustness of machine learning models, but the current solutions only aim to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) samples and predict uncertainty levels. We introduce a problem setting for failure attribution under distribution shift, which enables the models not only to detect OOD samples, but also to find out the reason for their failure. The solution we propose is called self-diagnosing models, which are capable of jointly learning predictive output, predictive uncertainty, and a failure attribution signal. In particular, we use the failure attribution vector, produced by a neural network, which provides a structured representation of predictive unreliability by distinguishing four different types of failures: covariance shift, semantic shift, noise corruption, and adversarial perturbation. In other words, we move from scalar uncertainty towards failure identification. For training the model, we introduce a consistency regularizer that encourages consistency between uncertainty and failure attribution predictions. Moreover, to be able to evaluate the model on its ability to find the reasons for failure, we construct several distribution shift benchmarks with predefined mechanisms for generating distribution shifts.
Despite the burgeoning body of work on distribution shifts, provenance shift-where the relationship between data source and label changes at deployment-remains poorly understood and under-addressed. In this paper, we establish a formal connection between provenance shift, counterfactual invariance, and invariant learning to derive a learning objective for robustness. We then introduce DeconDTN-Toolkit, a specialized evaluation and remediation suite designed to simulate provenance shifts of varying degrees while maintaining the training protocol and the infrastructure of existing benchmarks. We reveal the vulnerability of Empirical Risk Minimization under provenance shift, introduce a robust out-of-distribution performance indicator, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation on existing algorithms. Our work provides both the theoretical grounding and the practical tools necessary to characterize the problem of confounding by provenance, and implementations of methods to mitigate it.
Yongsen Tan, Zhecheng Sheng, Xiruo Ding +2
University of Washington · University of Minnesota
In small-batch scientific deployments, labeled target outcomes may be too scarce for reliable shift estimation even when unlabeled target inputs are available. We address the complementary setting where the practitioner has a pre-specified label-shift correction from domain knowledge and asks whether incoming labeled outcomes support it. We show that the per-observation likelihood ratio between a label-shift-corrected predictive and the source predictive is a conditional e-value, so its running product is a nonnegative martingale and Ville's inequality yields an anytime-valid confirmation rule. The log martingale equals the cumulative negative log-predictive density (NLPD) gap between the source and the corrected predictive, converting routine model monitoring into a formal sequential test. Rejection means the incoming data support the posited correction relative to the source predictive, but it is not a precise estimate of the degree of shift. Closed forms are available for GP sources with Gaussian label-shift ratios. GP regression simulations validate Type I control, finite-sample power, miscalibration sensitivity, and the small-batch advantage of a reliable prior over label-based re-estimation.
Seungjin Choi
CROID Research and aSSIST University, Seoul, Korea.