Explaining Concept Shift with Interpretable Feature Attribution
Ruiqi Lyu, Alistair Turcan, Bryan Wilder

TL;DR
This paper introduces SGShift, a method for detecting and explaining concept shift in tabular data by identifying features responsible for performance drops, using a GAM-based approach with extensions for false discovery control.
Contribution
The paper proposes SGShift, a novel GAM-based model that detects and attributes concept shift to specific features, improving interpretability and accuracy over baseline methods.
Findings
SGShift achieves AUC > 0.9 in identifying shifted features.
Recall exceeds 90% in various experiments.
Outperforms baseline methods by 2-3 times in feature detection.
Abstract
Regardless the amount of data a machine learning (ML) model is trained on, there will inevitably be data that differs from their training set, lowering model performance. Concept shift occurs when the distribution of labels conditioned on the features changes, making even a well-tuned ML model to have learned a fundamentally incorrect representation. Identifying these shifted features provides unique insight into how one dataset differs from another, considering the difference may be across a scientifically relevant dimension, such as time, disease status, population, etc. In this paper, we propose SGShift, a model for detecting concept shift in tabular data and attributing reduced model performance to a sparse set of shifted features. SGShift models concept shift with a Generalized Additive Model (GAM) and performs subsequent feature selection to identify shifted features. We propose…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- The paper tackles a relevant and well-scoped problem (concept shift in tabular data with limited target data available) - The key idea (and potentially contribution) of the paper is simple and easily understandable (the idea of the sparsity of concept shift), and straightforwardly addressed with a simple and easy to implement method.
Major: - The paper is unclear at many places and as such hard to correctly interpret or assess (see questions), in particular also as to assessing the strength of the empirical results - More empirical results on real world data would be needed to understand if the key idea and contribution is really relevant (i.e. if sparsity of concept shift is really a commonly occurring thing in practice) - Empirical results in Section 4.2 are not compared to any baseline - The effects of the variants intr
- The proposed approach and its variants are rigorous, supported by both theoretical analysis and thorough empirical validation. The formulation of distribution shift detection as a sparse regression problem is well-motivated, and the inclusion of variants that account for model misspecification and false discovery control adds robustness and credibility to the framework. - While the idea of modeling distribution shift through sparsity assumptions is not entirely novel, and is widely used in ca
- The authors should cite relevant work on causal representation learning to properly justify the sparsity assumption. This assumption is well established in the causality literature through the concept of sparse mechanism shift, which posits that under the correct causal factorization, only a small subset of mechanisms is expected to vary across domains (Schölkopf et al., 2021). This conceptual connection is currently missing from the paper. - Several aspects of the main experiments in Section
The method is well-motivated and theoretically grounded. Modeling conditional changes as a sparse correction to a fixed predictor is a reasonable and efficient approach. Semi-synthetic results are clear and consistent, showing reliable feature recovery under designed concept shifts. The theoretical analysis is sound, and the paper is clearly written and organized. The real-world examples are interesting, though they mostly serve as demonstrations rather than solid proof of conditional shift
1. Real-world concept shift validity is unclear It is unclear whether the real-world studies truly exhibit concept shift. For COVID-19, a shift in clinical patterns is plausible, but many other factors (e.g. testing policy, vaccination, care protocols) also changed, affecting p(X) and label definitions. Without reweighting or calibration analyses to separate covariate or label shift, the claim of conditional change remains suggestive rather than proven. The same issue applies to the Diabetes and
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference · Semantic Web and Ontologies
