Indrė Žliobaitė

Jesse Read, Indrė Žliobaitė

The literature on machine learning in the context of data streams is vast and growing. However, many of the defining assumptions regarding data-stream learning tasks are too strong to hold in practice, or are even contradictory such that they cannot be met in the contexts of supervised learning. Algorithms are chosen and designed based on criteria which are often not clearly stated, for problem settings not clearly defined, tested in unrealistic settings, and/or in isolation from related approaches in the wider literature. This puts into question the potential for real-world impact of many approaches conceived in such contexts, and risks propagating a misguided research focus. We propose to tackle these issues by reformulating the fundamental definitions and settings of supervised data-stream learning with regard to contemporary considerations of concept drift and temporal dependence; and we take a fresh look at what constitutes a supervised data-stream learning task, and a reconsideration of algorithms that may be applied to tackle such tasks. Through and in reflection of this formulation and overview, helped by an informal survey of industrial players dealing with real-world data streams, we provide recommendations. Our main emphasis is that learning from data streams does not impose a single-pass or online-learning approach, or any particular learning regime; and any constraints on memory and time are not specific to streaming. Meanwhile, there exist established techniques for dealing with temporal dependence and concept drift, in other areas of the literature. For the data streams community, we thus encourage a shift in research focus, from dealing with often-artificial constraints and assumptions on the learning mode, to issues such as robustness, privacy, and interpretability which are increasingly relevant to learning in data streams in academic and industrial settings.

Indrė Žliobaitė

In many scientific and data-driven applications, machine learning models are increasingly used as measurement instruments, rather than merely as predictors of predefined labels. When the measurement function is learned from data, the mapping from observations to quantities is determined implicitly by the training distribution and inductive biases, allowing multiple inequivalent mappings to satisfy standard predictive evaluation criteria. We formalize learned measurement functions as a distinct focus of evaluation and introduce measurement stability, a property capturing invariance of the measured quantity across admissible realizations of the learning process and across contexts. We show that standard evaluation criteria in machine learning, including generalization error, calibration, and robustness, do not guarantee measurement stability. Through a real-world case study, we show that models with comparable predictive performance can implement systematically inequivalent measurement functions, with distribution shift providing a concrete illustration of this failure. Taken together, our results highlight a limitation of existing evaluation frameworks in settings where learned model outputs are identified as measurements, motivating the need for an additional evaluative dimension.