Papers › When to Retrain: An Empirical Study of Retraining Policies for Streaming ML Under...

When to Retrain: An Empirical Study of Retraining Policies for Streaming ML Under Concept Drift, Budget, and Latency Constraints

19 Aug 2026arXiv:2608.19488added by Syntology

Sawan Dasari

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Production machine learning systems degrade under concept drift, yet practitioners have little principled guidance on when to retrain. Retraining is costly, retraining budgets are finite, and a retrained model does not take effect instantly: training and deployment latency leave a stale model serving predictions while the data continues to move. We present a controlled empirical study of three practical model-refresh policies (periodic retraining, error-threshold triggering, and statistical drift-triggered retraining with ADWIN) against a no-retrain baseline, evaluated under a unified system model that makes retraining budgets and training-plus-deployment latency explicit. Across 3,933 experiment runs spanning three drift regimes, three budget levels, up to five latency levels, three datasets, and two learning modes, we find that the single most consequential design decision is not the retraining policy but whether the deployed model learns incrementally. With per-sample incremental updates, and for the linear online learner with immediate labels studied here, no policy differs from the no-retrain baseline by a practically significant margin in any of 54 paired comparisons, even at extreme latency. Without incremental updates, policy choice separates outcomes by 15-55 percentage points of post-drift accuracy, and simple periodic retraining significantly outperforms both reactive policies under abrupt and gradual drift, while reactive policies retain an advantage only under recurring drift. We document systematic failure modes of reactive policies and a latency-budget queueing interaction that silently halves effective retraining budgets, and release the full simulator, dataset pipelines, and per-run artifacts for reproducibility.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

12 samples harvested; 8 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 12 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from sa1dasari/Study-of-Drift-Triggered-Retraining-Policies-Under-Budget-and-Latency-Constraints. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.19488, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections