A Large-Scale Neutral Comparison Study of Survival Models on Low-Dimensional Data
Authors:
Lukas Burk,
John Zobolas,
Bernd Bischl,
Andreas Bender,
Marvin N. Wright,
Raphael Sonabend
Abstract:
This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. Benchmark experiments are essential in methodological research to scientifically compare new and existing model classes through proper empirical evaluation. Existing benchmarks in the survival literature are often narrow in scope, focusing, for example, on h…
▽ More
This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. Benchmark experiments are essential in methodological research to scientifically compare new and existing model classes through proper empirical evaluation. Existing benchmarks in the survival literature are often narrow in scope, focusing, for example, on high-dimensional data. Additionally, they may lack appropriate tuning or evaluation procedures, or are qualitative reviews, rather than quantitative comparisons. This comprehensive study aims to fill the gap by neutrally evaluating a broad range of methods and providing generalizable conclusions. We benchmark 18 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 32 publicly available datasets. The benchmark tunes for both a discrimination measure and a proper scoring rule to assess performance in different settings. Evaluating on 8 survival metrics, we assess discrimination, calibration, and overall predictive performance of the tested models. Using discrimination measures, we find that no method significantly outperforms the Cox model. However, (tuned) Accelerated Failure Time models were able to achieve significantly better results with respect to overall predictive performance as measured by the right-censored log-likelihood. Machine learning methods that performed comparably well include Oblique Random Survival Forests under discrimination, and Cox-based likelihood-boosting under overall predictive performance. We conclude that for predictive purposes in the standard survival analysis setting of low-dimensional, right-censored data, the Cox Proportional Hazards model remains a simple and robust method, sufficient for practitioners.
△ Less
Submitted 6 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
Examining properness in the external validation of survival models with squared and logarithmic losses
Authors:
Raphael Sonabend,
John Zobolas,
Philipp Kopper,
Lukas Burk,
Andreas Bender
Abstract:
Scoring rules promote rational and honest decision-making, which is becoming increasingly important for automated procedures in `auto-ML'. In this paper we survey common squared and logarithmic scoring rules for survival analysis and determine which losses are proper and improper. We prove that commonly utilised squared and logarithmic scoring rules that are claimed to be proper are in fact improp…
▽ More
Scoring rules promote rational and honest decision-making, which is becoming increasingly important for automated procedures in `auto-ML'. In this paper we survey common squared and logarithmic scoring rules for survival analysis and determine which losses are proper and improper. We prove that commonly utilised squared and logarithmic scoring rules that are claimed to be proper are in fact improper, such as the Integrated Survival Brier Score (ISBS). We further prove that under a strict set of assumptions a class of scoring rules is strictly proper for, what we term, `approximate' survival losses. Despite the difference in properness, experiments in simulated and real-world datasets show there is no major difference between improper and proper versions of the widely-used ISBS, ensuring that we can reasonably trust previous experiments utilizing the original score for evaluation purposes. We still advocate for the use of proper scoring rules, as even minor differences between losses can have important implications in automated processes such as model tuning. We hope our findings encourage further research into the properties of survival measures so that robust and honest evaluation of survival models can be achieved.
△ Less
Submitted 3 June, 2024; v1 submitted 10 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
