{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016564952048823016, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.887179487179488, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Naïve Approaches to Deal With Concept Drifts

A common problem in machine learning is to find representative real-world labeled datasets to put the methods to test. When developing approaches to deal with concept drifts, some datasets such as the Forest Covertype and Nebraska Weather are common choices for testing, even though there is no consensus on whether these exhibit concept drifts or not. We argue that some well-known real-world concept drift datasets present a high serial dependence in the target class and may have only minor changes. With this in mind, we propose the use of Naïve methods that should be used for comparison with methods that deal with concept drifts. The experimental results using six real-world well-known concept drift datasets show that the Naïve approaches can be better than some methods to deal with possible concept drifts in datasets such as the Forest Covertype, Electricity, and Nebraska Weather. These results suggest that some widely used datasets may be trivial from the concept drift standpoint, and thus, should be avoided, or at least the results should be compared with the proposed Naïve methods.