6 ms·
Most models ("AI" or otherwise) behave very poorly in the situation known a "structural break" [1]. In extreme instances you can even end up with something like
by IIAOPSW 6y ago
Most models ("AI" or otherwise) behave very poorly in the situation known a "structural break" [1]. In extreme instances you can even end up with something like Simpsons paradox where the predicted correlation is the opposite of the true correlation [2]. I've had to deal with this exact problem before. The trick is to have a meta model that sits on top and tries to detect when the recent data is highly unlikely to have been produced if the existing model is true. When that happens you flush the older data. This might be what our brains do [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_break
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
[3] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/06/predictive-processing-and-perceptual-control/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/09/06/predictive-processing-...
- enchiridion 6y agoInteresting idea. Why would your existing model not be able to detect a change in the distribution of the input?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- IIAOPSW 6y agoHow do you detect change in the input distribution before you even have a model of the input distribution?
- rmrfstar 6y agoHave you had any luck with change-point models? I always find myself falling back to hand-crafted heuristics + Snorkel [1]. Is there anything better? [1] https://www.snorkel.org/ https://www.snorkel.org/
- IIAOPSW 6y agoFor me its always been hand-crafted artisanal heuristics. I wouldn't know of a one size fits all solution because I've only had to deal with this scenario once.