Examining marginal properness in the external validation of survival models with squared and logarithmic losses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05260v3
• Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 09:29:26 GMT
• Title: Examining marginal properness in the external validation of survival models with squared and logarithmic losses
• Authors: Raphael Sonabend, John Zobolas, Riccardo Be Bin, Philipp Kopper, Lukas Burk, Andreas Bender,
• Abstract summary: We survey common squared and logarithmic scoring rules for survival analysis.<n>We show that both the Integrated Survival Brier Score (ISBS) and the Right-Censored Log-Likelihood (RCLL) are theoretically improper.<n>We advocate for both the RCLL and ISBS in external validation of models, including in automated procedures.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Scoring rules promote rational and honest decision-making, which is important for model evaluation and becoming increasingly important for automated procedures such as `AutoML'. In this paper we survey common squared and logarithmic scoring rules for survival analysis, with a focus on their theoretical and empirical properness. We introduce a marginal definition of properness and show that both the Integrated Survival Brier Score (ISBS) and the Right-Censored Log-Likelihood (RCLL) are theoretically improper under this definition. We also investigate a new class of losses that may inform future survival scoring rules. Simulation experiments reveal that both the ISBS and RCLL behave as proper scoring rules in practice. The RCLL showed no violations across all settings, while ISBS exhibited only minor, negligible violations at extremely small sample sizes, suggesting one can trust results from historical experiments. As such we advocate for both the RCLL and ISBS in external validation of models, including in automated procedures. However, we note practical challenges in estimating these losses including estimation of censoring distributions and densities; as such further research is required to advance development of robust and honest evaluation in survival analysis.

Related papers

• TULiP: Test-time Uncertainty Estimation via Linearization and Weight Perturbation [11.334867025651233]
  We propose TULiP, a theoretically-driven uncertainty estimator for OOD detection.<n>Our approach considers a hypothetical perturbation applied to the network before convergence.<n>Our method exhibits state-of-the-art performance, particularly for near-distribution samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T17:16:41Z)
• SurvUnc: A Meta-Model Based Uncertainty Quantification Framework for Survival Analysis [8.413107141283502]
  Survival analysis is fundamental in numerous real-world applications, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and risk assessment.<n>Despite advances in numerous survival models, quantifying the uncertainty of predictions remains underexplored and challenging.<n>We introduce SurvUnc, a novel meta-model based framework for post-hoc uncertainty quantification for survival models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T18:12:20Z)
• Causal Lifting of Neural Representations: Zero-Shot Generalization for Causal Inferences [56.23412698865433]
  We focus on Prediction-Powered Causal Inferences (PPCI)<n> PPCI estimates the treatment effect in a target experiment with unlabeled factual outcomes, retrievable zero-shot from a pre-trained model.<n>We validate our method on synthetic and real-world scientific data, offering solutions to instances not solvable by vanilla Empirical Risk Minimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T10:52:17Z)
• Bridging Internal Probability and Self-Consistency for Effective and Efficient LLM Reasoning [53.25336975467293]
  We present the first theoretical error decomposition analysis of methods such as perplexity and self-consistency.<n>Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: perplexity methods suffer from substantial model error due to the absence of a proper consistency function.<n>We propose Reasoning-Pruning Perplexity Consistency (RPC), which integrates perplexity with self-consistency, and Reasoning Pruning, which eliminates low-probability reasoning paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T18:09:49Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n> Namely, we propose novel metrics with high probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model.<n>Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework [77.45983464131977]
  We focus on how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications.<n>Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions.<n>We develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:52:14Z)
• Is Difficulty Calibration All We Need? Towards More Practical Membership Inference Attacks [16.064233621959538]
  We propose a query-efficient and computation-efficient MIA that directly textbfRe-levertextbfAges the original membershitextbfP scores to mtextbfItigate the errors in textbfDifficulty calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-31T11:59:42Z)
• Language Generation with Strictly Proper Scoring Rules [70.340673452404]
  We propose a strategy for adapting scoring rules to language generation, allowing for language modeling with any non-local scoring rules. We train language generation models using two classic strictly proper scoring rules, the Brier score and the Spherical score, as alternatives to the logarithmic score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T09:09:00Z)
• Selective Learning: Towards Robust Calibration with Dynamic Regularization [79.92633587914659]
  Miscalibration in deep learning refers to there is a discrepancy between the predicted confidence and performance. We introduce Dynamic Regularization (DReg) which aims to learn what should be learned during training thereby circumventing the confidence adjusting trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T11:25:20Z)
• TeLeS: Temporal Lexeme Similarity Score to Estimate Confidence in End-to-End ASR [1.8477401359673709]
  Class-probability-based confidence scores do not accurately represent quality of overconfident ASR predictions. We propose a novel Temporal-Lexeme Similarity (TeLeS) confidence score to train Confidence Estimation Model (CEM) We conduct experiments with ASR models trained in three languages, namely Hindi, Tamil, and Kannada, with varying training data sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-06T16:29:13Z)
• Robust Linear Regression: Phase-Transitions and Precise Tradeoffs for General Norms [29.936005822346054]
  We investigate the impact of test-time adversarial attacks on linear regression models. We determine the optimal level of robustness that any model can reach while maintaining a given level of standard predictive performance (accuracy) We obtain a precise characterization which distinguishes between regimes where robustness is achievable without hurting standard accuracy and regimes where a tradeoff might be unavoidable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T13:55:45Z)
• Large Class Separation is not what you need for Relational Reasoning-based OOD Detection [12.578844450586]
  Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) detection methods provide a solution by identifying semantic novelty. Most of these methods leverage a learning stage on the known data, which means training (or fine-tuning) a model to capture the concept of normality. A viable alternative is that of evaluating similarities in the embedding space produced by large pre-trained models without any further learning effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T14:10:15Z)
• When Does Confidence-Based Cascade Deferral Suffice? [69.28314307469381]
  Cascades are a classical strategy to enable inference cost to vary adaptively across samples. A deferral rule determines whether to invoke the next classifier in the sequence, or to terminate prediction. Despite being oblivious to the structure of the cascade, confidence-based deferral often works remarkably well in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T04:13:57Z)
• Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology [44.80772162289557]
  We propose a metric for measuring annotation uncertainty and provide uncertainty-adjusted metrics for performance evaluation. We present a case study applying our framework to skin condition classification from images where annotations are provided in the form of differential diagnoses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T10:33:45Z)
• An Effective Meaningful Way to Evaluate Survival Models [34.21432603301076]
  In practice, the test set includes (right) censored individuals, meaning we do not know when a censored individual actually experienced the event. We introduce a novel and effective approach for generating realistic semi-synthetic survival datasets. Our proposed metric is able to rank models accurately based on their performance, and often closely matches the true MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T23:22:46Z)
• Improving Adaptive Conformal Prediction Using Self-Supervised Learning [72.2614468437919]
  We train an auxiliary model with a self-supervised pretext task on top of an existing predictive model and use the self-supervised error as an additional feature to estimate nonconformity scores. We empirically demonstrate the benefit of the additional information using both synthetic and real data on the efficiency (width), deficit, and excess of conformal prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T18:57:14Z)
• Improved Policy Evaluation for Randomized Trials of Algorithmic Resource Allocation [54.72195809248172]
  We present a new estimator leveraging our proposed novel concept, that involves retrospective reshuffling of participants across experimental arms at the end of an RCT. We prove theoretically that such an estimator is more accurate than common estimators based on sample means.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T05:17:22Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification [0.491574468325115]
  We present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T12:25:27Z)
• Uncertainty Estimates of Predictions via a General Bias-Variance Decomposition [7.811916700683125]
  We introduce a bias-variance decomposition for proper scores, giving rise to the Bregman Information as the variance term. We showcase the practical relevance of this decomposition on several downstream tasks, including model ensembles and confidence regions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T21:24:37Z)
• Post-Contextual-Bandit Inference [57.88785630755165]
  Contextual bandit algorithms are increasingly replacing non-adaptive A/B tests in e-commerce, healthcare, and policymaking. They can both improve outcomes for study participants and increase the chance of identifying good or even best policies. To support credible inference on novel interventions at the end of the study, we still want to construct valid confidence intervals on average treatment effects, subgroup effects, or value of new policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T12:01:51Z)
• Don't Just Blame Over-parametrization for Over-confidence: Theoretical Analysis of Calibration in Binary Classification [58.03725169462616]
  We show theoretically that over-parametrization is not the only reason for over-confidence. We prove that logistic regression is inherently over-confident, in the realizable, under-parametrized setting. Perhaps surprisingly, we also show that over-confidence is not always the case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-15T21:38:09Z)
• Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained Learning [123.3472310767721]
  Prediction credibility measures are fundamental in statistics and machine learning. These measures should account for the wide variety of models used in practice. The framework developed in this work expresses the credibility as a risk-fit trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-24T19:52:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.