The C-index illusion: discrimination without calibration in published survival models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19526v2
• Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:01:25 GMT
• Title: The C-index illusion: discrimination without calibration in published survival models
• Abstract summary: We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains.<n>We test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.

Related papers

• ConfidenceBench: Evaluating Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [14.831793255747181]
  ConfidenceBench is a calibration benchmark for large language models.<n>It evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier large language models.<n> Confidence is elicited via prompting, requiring no access to model logits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-10T01:56:30Z)
• Modeling Normal Is All You Need: Joint Latent Clustering for Anomaly Detection in Multimodal Cyber-Physical Systems [47.027290803102666]
  Normal behaviour is the union of many imbalanced, curved, thin-fringed operating regimes.<n>We model the normal law with a jointly learned latent representation plus explicit Gaussian-mixture mode clustering.<n>We evaluate under a deliberately fair protocol: raw point-wise metrics with no point adjustment, a trivial-detector difficulty split, prevalence-matched F1, and train-normal-only calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T10:10:00Z)
• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models [0.0]
  Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter.<n>We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion.<n>Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T20:05:08Z)
• VAE-Inf: A statistically interpretable generative paradigm for imbalanced classification [8.677199689027772]
  We propose a two-stage framework to bridge the gap between generative modeling and discriminative classification.<n>For inference, we introduce a projection-based score that admits a natural hypothesis testing interpretation.<n>Experiments on diverse real-world benchmarks demonstrate that our framework achieves competitive performance against other approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T07:50:56Z)
• Adversarial Stress Tests for Quantum Certification [0.0]
  Apparent violations of classical benchmarks need not signal genuinely non-classical behaviour.<n>We formalise a protocol-agnostic alignment principle based on a martingale-safe lower confidence bound.<n>We show that adaptive learning-based classical agents do not enlarge the admissible classical set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T03:49:58Z)
• CDRRM: Contrast-Driven Rubric Generation for Reliable and Interpretable Reward Modeling [61.75914342638658]
  CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Reward Model) is a framework for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment.<n>This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T07:15:23Z)
• Deterministic Fuzzy Triage for Legal Compliance Classification and Evidence Retrieval [0.0]
  Legal teams increasingly use machine learning to triage large volumes of contractual evidence.<n>Many models are opaque, non-deterministic, and difficult to align with frameworks such as HIPAA or NERC-CIP.<n>We study a simple, reproducible alternative based on deterministic dual encoders and transparent fuzzy triage bands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T00:31:34Z)
• Towards Anytime-Valid Statistical Watermarking [63.02116925616554]
  We develop the first e-value-based watermarking framework, Anchored E-Watermarking, that unifies optimal sampling with anytime-valid inference.<n>Our framework can significantly enhance sample efficiency, reducing the average token budget required for detection by 13-15% relative to state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T18:32:26Z)
• When LLMs get significantly worse: A statistical approach to detect model degradations [33.63321816712603]
  Minimizing the inference cost and latency of foundation models has become a crucial area of research.<n>We propose a statistically sound hypothesis testing framework based on McNemar's test allowing to efficiently detect model degradations.<n>We find that with our tests even empirical accuracy degradations of 0.3% can be confidently attributed to actual degradations rather than noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T10:45:13Z)
• Measuring Language Model Hallucinations Through Distributional Correctness [7.106986689736826]
  A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem.<n>DCS distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range.<n>DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T17:50:42Z)
• The NazoNazo Benchmark: A Cost-Effective and Extensible Test of Insight-Based Reasoning in LLMs [3.9977256267361754]
  We present Nazonazo, a cost-effective benchmark built from Japanese children's riddles to test insight-based reasoning.<n>No model except for GPT-5 is comparable to human performance, which achieves a 52.9% mean accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T07:50:04Z)
• Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology [43.8328264420381]
  We show that ignoring uncertainty leads to overly optimistic estimates of model performance.<n>In skin condition classification, we find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T10:33:45Z)
• Conservative Prediction via Data-Driven Confidence Minimization [70.93946578046003]
  In safety-critical applications of machine learning, it is often desirable for a model to be conservative. We propose the Data-Driven Confidence Minimization framework, which minimizes confidence on an uncertainty dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T07:05:36Z)
• Robust Outlier Rejection for 3D Registration with Variational Bayes [70.98659381852787]
  We develop a novel variational non-local network-based outlier rejection framework for robust alignment. We propose a voting-based inlier searching strategy to cluster the high-quality hypothetical inliers for transformation estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:48:56Z)
• Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
  UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously. Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)
• Approaching Neural Network Uncertainty Realism [53.308409014122816]
  Quantifying or at least upper-bounding uncertainties is vital for safety-critical systems such as autonomous vehicles. We evaluate uncertainty realism -- a strict quality criterion -- with a Mahalanobis distance-based statistical test. We adopt it to the automotive domain and show that it significantly improves uncertainty realism compared to a plain encoder-decoder model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-08T11:56:12Z)

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.