Searcharxiv⌕ Search
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.MLcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

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

Deep conditional distribution learning via conditional Föllmer flow

We introduce an ordinary differential equation (ODE) based deep generative method for learning conditional distributions, named Conditional Föllmer Flow. Starting from a standard Gaussian distribution, the proposed flow could approximate the target conditional distribution very well when the time is close to 1. For effective implementation, we discretize the flow with Euler's method where we estimate the velocity field nonparametrically using a deep neural network. Furthermore, we also establish the convergence result for the Wasserstein-2 distance between the distribution of the learned samples and the target conditional distribution, providing the first comprehensive end-to-end error analysis for conditional distribution learning via ODE flow. Our numerical experiments showcase its effectiveness across a range of scenarios, from standard nonparametric conditional density estimation problems to more intricate challenges involving image data, illustrating its superiority over various existing conditional density estimation methods.

stat.ML↗
arXiv2026

What is causal about causal models and representations?

Causal Bayesian networks are often described as causal because they support reasoning about interventions. Yet interventions are defined in the mathematical model, whereas the resulting model predictions concern the effects of actions in the real world. Consequently, whether and how a causal model makes falsifiable predictions about the effects of actions depends on how actions are interpreted as interventions. This requires specifying which actions correspond to which interventions, a step that is frequently left implicit. We develop a formal framework that separates a causal model from the data-generating process it aims to describe and formalizes interpretations connecting actions to interventions. Within this framework, we prove an impossibility result: no interpretation can simultaneously satisfy a collection of desirable properties while remaining non-circular. Under a circular interpretation, every model that fits the observational distribution is interventionally valid, so no experiment can falsify it. We analyze several non-circular alternatives and discuss implications for falsification, causal discovery, causal representation learning, and causal abstraction. More broadly, our framework provides a way to make assumptions about the connections between actions and interventions explicit and to reason formally about the empirical content of causal models.

stat.ML↗
arXiv2026

Optimal estimates for the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constants of deep random ReLU neural networks

This paper studies the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constants of ReLU neural networks $Φ: \mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ with random parameters for $p \in [1,\infty]$. The distribution of the weights follows a variant of the He initialization. In the case of zero-bias networks, we derive matching high-probability upper and lower bounds for wide networks that differ at most by an absolute constant. The bounds reveal two remarkable phenomena. First, the bounds grow root-logarithmically in terms of the depth of the net. Second, the behavior of the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constants varies significantly between the regimes $p \in [1,2)$ and $p \in [2,\infty]$. For $p \in [2,\infty]$, the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constant behaves similarly to $\|g\|_{p'}$, where $g \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is a standard Gaussian vector and $1/p + 1/p' = 1$. In contrast, for $p \in [1,2)$, the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constant aligns more closely with $\|g\|_2$. For networks with possibly nonzero biases, we obtain the same lower bounds without assumptions on the bias distributions. For symmetric bias distributions with bounded densities, we also derive high-probability upper bounds for the $\ell^p$-Lipschitz constants. For fixed sub-exponential bias distributions, these upper bounds differ from the lower bounds by a factor that has square-root dependence on the depth and logarithmic dependence on the width.

stat.ML↗