Differential Refresh Policies for Models Trained on Lagging Data Snapshots: From a Single-Age Equivalence Limit to an Optimal Per-Segment Allocation
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Differential Refresh Policies for Models Trained on Lagging Data Snapshots: From a Single-Age Equivalence Limit to an Optimal Per-Segment Allocation
Abstract:Production machine-learning models are derived artifacts of time-bounded training snapshots: a deployed model is a materialized view over a training cut that ages the instant it is built. A common response is to replace the fixed retraining cadence with an adaptive trigger -- a weighted staleness score that retrains when accumulated source risk crosses a threshold. We show this is the wrong lever, and identify the right one. First, an equivalence limit: any refresh trigger that is a static, strictly monotone function of a single shared global training-data age is operationally equivalent to a calibrated uniform age timer, so a global staleness budget, however elaborately it weights segments, sources, and sensitivities, carries no scheduling information a clock does not. The limit also shows how to escape it: refresh segments differentially, giving each its own age and refresh interval, which is meaningful when refresh cost is separable across segments (incremental training or per-segment models). We solve the resulting budget-allocation problem. In the frequent-refresh regime each segment's optimal refresh rate is proportional to the square root of its risk $w_j \lambda_j$ (weight times change rate), and the optimal policy never costs more than the uniform timer, beating it by a closed-form Cauchy-Schwarz "price of uniformity" that is zero for homogeneous workloads and grows with heterogeneity. In a discrete-event simulation with real Poisson change events, the optimal policy lowers realized weighted stale exposure by 8-29% relative to the uniform timer at matched refresh budget, winning on 86-100% of seeds; a naive exposure-threshold policy does not, showing the allocation is what helps; and the advantage survives 50% rate-estimation noise. The leverage in model refresh is not a better score but a better action.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing (cs.DC) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2610.09519 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2610.09519v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09519
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Additional Features
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Algebraic Integer Quantization for Machine Learning Applications
Oct 12
-
CircuitTree: Composing Circuits into A Syllable Transcriber
Oct 12
-
Behind-the-Meter Photovoltaic Visibility from Net Smart Meters: Deployment Regimes and Operational Insights
Oct 12
-
GlucoPRISM: Protocol-Supervised Pretraining for Cross-Cohort Glucose Transfer
Oct 12
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.