The Loss or the Architecture? What Matters in Survival Analysis with Competing Risks

Julie Alberge; Gaël Varoquaux; Judith Abécassis

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.23322

The Loss or the Architecture? What Matters in Survival Analysis with Competing Risks

Julie Alberge·Gaël Varoquaux·Judith Abécassis

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Often, \emph{eg} in healthcare and predictive maintenance, what matters is which of several competing causes will strike first, and with what probability: survival analysis with competing risks. Corresponding deep learning methods are developed as bundles: a new architecture together with a new training loss, tested on one to five datasets against a handful of baselines. Thus, a state-of-the-art result cannot be attributed to the architecture, the loss, or the evaluation protocol. The coupling is not accidental: with one incidence curve per cause, a network's head is tied to the losses expressible on it. We vary the two axes independently, three losses, two of them strictly proper, on four backbones, across two modalities that tease the axes apart: 20 tabular and 3 pathology-image datasets. One loss wins in both: modelling cumulative incidence directly under censoring weighting. It brings twice as much as benefits a good choice of backbone on competing-risks data, and no more than it on single-event data: the loss is decisive for competing risks. The backbone matters too, and must match the modality: tabular networks lead on tables, pretrained vision encoders on images. The two choices compound rather than substitute. Proper scoring rules reveal these dynamics; the concordance index (C-index), which is not proper, does not separate models: neither axis moves it, not even tuning on the loss built to improve it. This is an avenue of progress: composed, the two give a model nobody has tried, RealMLP or TabM trained with the cumulative-incidence loss, which takes the best Brier score in our benchmark.

Explore related subjects

stat.ML cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Julie Alberge, Gaël Varoquaux, Judith Abécassis. 2026-10-16. The Loss or the Architecture? What Matters in Survival Analysis with Competing Risks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23322

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Smooth Flow Matching for Synthesizing Functional Data

Functional data, i.e., random functions observed over a continuous domain, are increasingly available in areas such as biomedical research, health informatics, and epidemiology. However, effective statistical analysis for functional data is often hindered by challenges such as privacy constraints, sparse and irregular sampling, infinite-dimensionality, and non-Gaussian structures. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel framework named Smooth Flow Matching (SFM), tailored for generative modeling of functional data that enables statistical analysis without exposing sensitive real data. Under a copula framework, SFM constructs a semiparametric smooth flow to generate infinite-dimensional functional data, free of Gaussianity and low-rank assumptions. It is computationally efficient, handles irregular observations, and guarantees the smoothness of the generated functions, offering a practical and flexible solution in scenarios where existing deep generative methods are not applicable. Through extensive simulation studies, we demonstrate the advantages of SFM in terms of both synthetic data quality and computational efficiency. We then apply SFM to generate clinical trajectory data from the MIMIC-IV patient electronic health records (EHR) longitudinal database. Our analysis showcases the ability of SFM to produce high-quality surrogate data for downstream tasks, highlighting its potential to boost the utility of EHR data for clinical applications.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Post-Selection Distributional Model Evaluation

Formal model evaluation methods typically certify that a model satisfies a prescribed target key performance indicator (KPI) level. However, in many applications, the relevant target KPI level may not be known a priori, and the user may instead wish to compare candidate models by analyzing the full trade-offs between performance and reliability achievable at test time by the models. This task, requiring the reliable estimate of the test-time KPI distributions, is made more complicated by the fact that the same data must often be used both to pre-select a subset of candidate models and to estimate their KPI distributions, causing a potential post-selection bias. In this work, we introduce post-selection distributional model evaluation (PS-DME), a general framework for statistically valid distributional model assessment after arbitrary data-dependent model pre-selection. Building on e-values, PS-DME controls post-selection false coverage rate (FCR) for the distributional KPI estimates and we establish explicit conditions under which it is provably more sample efficient than a baseline method based on sample splitting. Experiments on synthetic data, text-to-SQL decoding with large language models, and telecom network performance evaluation demonstrate that PS-DME enables reliable comparison of candidate configurations across a range of reliability levels, supporting the statistically reliable exploration of performance--reliability trade-offs.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Best of both worlds: Stochastic & adversarial best-arm identification

We study bandit best-arm identification with arbitrary and potentially adversarial rewards. A simple random uniform learner obtains the optimal rate of error in the adversarial scenario. However, this type of strategy is suboptimal when the rewards are sampled stochastically. Therefore, we ask: Can we design a learner that performs optimally in both the stochastic and adversarial problems while not being aware of the nature of the rewards? First, we show that designing such a learner is impossible in general. In particular, to be robust to adversarial rewards, we can only guarantee optimal rates of error on a subset of the stochastic problems. We give a lower bound that characterizes the optimal rate in stochastic problems if the strategy is constrained to be robust to adversarial rewards. Finally, we design a simple parameter-free algorithm and show that its probability of error matches (up to log factors) the lower bound in stochastic problems, and it is also robust to adversarial ones.

stat.ML↗