The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characterizing concept drift
Open accessAbstract
Most machine learning models are static, but the world is dynamic, and increasing online deployment of learned models gives increasing urgency to the development of efficient and effective mechanisms to address learning in the context of non-stationary distributions, or as it is commonly called concept drift. However, the key issue of characterizing the different types of drift that can occur has not previously been subjected to rigorous definition and analysis. In particular, while some qualitative drift categorizations have been proposed, few have been formally defined, and the quantitative descriptions required for precise and objective understanding of learner performance have not existed. We present the first comprehensive framework for quantitative analysis of drift. This supports the development of the first comprehensive set of formal definitions of types of concept drift. The formal definitions clarify ambiguities and identify gaps in previous definitions, giving rise to a new comprehensive taxonomy of concept drift types and a solid foundation for research into mechanisms to detect and address concept drift.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A survey on concept drift adaptation
Gama, J., Žliobaitė, I., Bifet, A., Pechenizkiy, M., & Bouchachia, A. (2014) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2523813 · Cited by 3,735
Cited by
Ensemble learning for data stream analysis: A survey
Krawczyk, B., Minku, L. L., Gama, J., Stefanowski, J., & Woźniak, M. (2017) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.004 · Cited by 1,050
Theissler, A., Pérez-Velázquez, J., Kettelgerdes, M., & Elger, G. (2021) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107864 · Cited by 581
A Survey on Ensemble Learning for Data Stream Classification
Gomes, H. M., Barddal, J. P., Enembreck, F., & Bifet, A. (2018) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3054925 · Cited by 579
How to Cope with Change? - Preserving Validity of Predictive Services over Time
Baier, L., Kühl, N., & Satzger, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2019.133 · Cited by 33
DeepObliviate: A Powerful Charm for Erasing Data Residual Memory in Deep Neural Networks
He, Y., Meng, G., Chen, K., He, J., & Hu, X. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.06209 · Cited by 9
Abdaoui, H., Barki, C., Dergaa, I., Tlili, K., Ceylan, H. İ., Bragazzi, N. L., de Giorgio, A., Ben Salah, R., & Rahmouni, H. B. (2025) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering13010030 · Cited by 6
A Classification of Feedback Loops and Their Relation to Biases in Automated Decision-Making Systems
Pagan, N., Baumann, J., Elokda, E., De Pasquale, G., Bolognani, S., & Hannák, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.06055 · Cited by 4
Sturm, F., Trat, M., Sathiyababu, R., Allipilli, H., Menz, B., Hergenroether, E., & Siegel, M. (2025) · Machine Vision and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00138-024-01638-9 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Webb, G. I., Hyde, R., Cao, H., Nguyen, H. L., & Petitjean, F.
- Venue
- Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
- Published
- 2016-04-15
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 964-994
- ISSN
- 1384-5810 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-756X
- OpenAlex
- W2244109919
- Cited by
- 536
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.