arXiv subjects

Raphael Sonabend

Publications and source records attributed to Raphael Sonabend.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2024

Unicorns Do Not Exist: Employing and Appreciating Community Managers in Open Source

Open-source software is released under an open-source licence, which means the software can be shared, adapted, and reshared without prejudice. In the context of open-source software, community managers manage the communities that contribute to the development and upkeep of open-source tools. Despite playing a crucial role in maintaining open-source software, community managers are often overlooked. In this paper we look at why this happens and the troubling future we are heading towards if this trend continues. Namely if community managers are driven to focus on corporate needs and become conflicted with the communities they are meant to be managing. We suggest methods to overcome this by stressing the need for the specialisation of roles and by advocating for transparent metrics that highlight the real work of the community manager. Following these guidelines can allow this vital role to be treated with the transparency and respect that it deserves, alongside more traditional roles including software developers and engineers.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

A Large-Scale Neutral Comparison Study of Survival Models on Low-Dimensional Data

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 smaller in scale regarding the number of used datasets and extent of empirical evaluation. They often lack appropriate tuning or evaluation procedures, while other comparison studies focus on 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 guidelines for practitioners. We benchmark 19 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 34 publicly available datasets. The benchmark tunes models using both a discrimination measure (Harrell's C-index) and a scoring rule (Integrated Survival Brier Score), and evaluates them across six metrics covering discrimination, calibration, and overall predictive performance. Despite superior average ranks in overall predictive performance from individual learners like oblique random survival forests and likelihood-based boosting, and better discrimination rankings from multiple boosting- and tree-based methods as well as parametric survival models, no method significantly outperforms the commonly used Cox proportional hazards model for either tuning measure. 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 most practitioners. All code, data, and results are publicly available on GitHub https://github.com/slds-lmu/paper_2023_survival_benchmark

stat.ML↗

arXiv2024

FAIR-USE4OS: Guidelines for Creating Impactful Open-Source Software

This paper extends the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guidelines to provide criteria for assessing if software conforms to best practices in open source. By adding 'USE' (User-Centered, Sustainable, Equitable), software development can adhere to open source best practice by incorporating user-input early on, ensuring front-end designs are accessible to all possible stakeholders, and planning long-term sustainability alongside software design. The FAIR-USE4OS guidelines will allow funders and researchers to more effectively evaluate and plan open source software projects. There is good evidence of funders increasingly mandating that all funded research software is open source; however, even under the FAIR guidelines, this could simply mean software released on public repositories with a Zenodo DOI. By creating FAIR-USE software, best practice can be demonstrated from the very beginning of the design process and the software has the greatest chance of success by being impactful.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

On Training Survival Models with Scoring Rules

Scoring rules are an established way of comparing predictive performances across model classes. In the context of survival analysis, they require adaptation in order to accommodate censoring. This work investigates using scoring rules for model training rather than evaluation. Doing so, we establish a general framework for training survival models that is model agnostic and can learn event time distributions parametrically or non-parametrically. In addition, our framework is not restricted to any specific scoring rule. While we focus on neural network-based implementations, we also provide proof-of-concept implementations using gradient boosting, generalized additive models, and trees. Empirical comparisons on synthetic and real-world data indicate that scoring rules can be successfully incorporated into model training and yield competitive predictive performance with established time-to-event models.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Deep Learning for Survival Analysis: A Review

The influx of deep learning (DL) techniques into the field of survival analysis in recent years has led to substantial methodological progress; for instance, learning from unstructured or high-dimensional data such as images, text or omics data. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive systematic review of DL-based methods for time-to-event analysis, characterizing them according to both survival- and DL-related attributes. In summary, the reviewed methods often address only a small subset of tasks relevant to time-to-event data - e.g., single-risk right-censored data - and neglect to incorporate more complex settings. Our findings are summarized in an editable, open-source, interactive table: https://survival-org.github.io/DL4Survival. As this research area is advancing rapidly, we encourage community contribution in order to keep this database up to date.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

When Are Scoring Rules Proper? Bridging Theory and Practice in Survival Model Evaluation

Proper scoring rules encourage probabilistic predictions that match the true underlying distribution and are central to model evaluation, with increasing relevance in automated workflows such as AutoML. In survival analysis, however, their behavior under censoring is not fully understood. We study commonly used squared and logarithmic scoring rules for right-censored survival data under independent censoring, introducing a notion of marginal properness based on observable outcomes. Within this framework, we show that the SBS, evaluated at a fixed time point, along with its integrated version (ISBS) and the RCLL are strictly proper when all individuals eventually experience the event, but can become improper under finite follow-up or in the presence of cure fractions. For the SBS, we derive a closed-form expression that reveals the true mechanism: residual mass, corresponding to individuals who remain event-free at study end, systematically biases the score toward underestimating survival, with the effect increasing at later evaluation times and under heavier censoring. Through simulation experiments, we examine how these issues manifest in finite samples and under misspecification. The SBS exhibits pronounced improperness at late evaluation times and poor discrimination between models. The ISBS is more robust due to temporal integration but remains sensitive to tail regularity violations, exhibiting detectable improperness and reduced discriminatory power. The RCLL behaves consistently with strict properness and effectively separates misspecified models. Overall, our results demonstrate how theoretical improperness can translate into misleading model comparisons, underscoring the need for further methodological development in survival model evaluation under censoring and realistic data conditions.

math.ST↗

arXiv2022

Flexible Group Fairness Metrics for Survival Analysis

Algorithmic fairness is an increasingly important field concerned with detecting and mitigating biases in machine learning models. There has been a wealth of literature for algorithmic fairness in regression and classification however there has been little exploration of the field for survival analysis. Survival analysis is the prediction task in which one attempts to predict the probability of an event occurring over time. Survival predictions are particularly important in sensitive settings such as when utilising machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis of patients. In this paper we explore how to utilise existing survival metrics to measure bias with group fairness metrics. We explore this in an empirical experiment with 29 survival datasets and 8 measures. We find that measures of discrimination are able to capture bias well whereas there is less clarity with measures of calibration and scoring rules. We suggest further areas for research including prediction-based fairness metrics for distribution predictions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures

In this paper we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is a non-trivial problem as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages. Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons. We find that the most robust method of reducing a distribution to a risk is to sum over the predicted cumulative hazard. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation. The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2021

distr6: R6 Object-Oriented Probability Distributions Interface in R

distr6 is an object-oriented (OO) probability distributions interface leveraging the extensibility and scalability of R6, and the speed and efficiency of Rcpp. Over 50 probability distributions are currently implemented in the package with `core' methods including density, distribution, and generating functions, and more `exotic' ones including hazards and distribution function anti-derivatives. In addition to simple distributions, distr6 supports compositions such as truncation, mixtures, and product distributions. This paper presents the core functionality of the package and demonstrates examples for key use-cases. In addition this paper provides a critical review of the object-oriented programming paradigms in R and describes some novel implementations for design patterns and core object-oriented features introduced by the package for supporting distr6 components.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

Designing Machine Learning Toolboxes: Concepts, Principles and Patterns

Machine learning (ML) and AI toolboxes such as scikit-learn or Weka are workhorses of contemporary data scientific practice -- their central role being enabled by usable yet powerful designs that allow to easily specify, train and validate complex modeling pipelines. However, despite their universal success, the key design principles in their construction have never been fully analyzed. In this paper, we attempt to provide an overview of key patterns in the design of AI modeling toolboxes, taking inspiration, in equal parts, from the field of software engineering, implementation patterns found in contemporary toolboxes, and our own experience from developing ML toolboxes. In particular, we develop a conceptual model for the AI/ML domain, with a new type system, called scientific types, at its core. Scientific types capture the scientific meaning of common elements in ML workflows based on the set of operations that we usually perform with them (i.e. their interface) and their statistical properties. From our conceptual analysis, we derive a set of design principles and patterns. We illustrate that our analysis can not only explain the design of existing toolboxes, but also guide the development of new ones. We intend our contribution to be a state-of-art reference for future toolbox engineers, a summary of best practices, a collection of ML design patterns which may become useful for future research, and, potentially, the first steps towards a higher-level programming paradigm for constructing AI.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2020

mlr3proba: An R Package for Machine Learning in Survival Analysis

As machine learning has become increasingly popular over the last few decades, so too has the number of machine learning interfaces for implementing these models. Whilst many R libraries exist for machine learning, very few offer extended support for survival analysis. This is problematic considering its importance in fields like medicine, bioinformatics, economics, engineering, and more. mlr3proba provides a comprehensive machine learning interface for survival analysis and connects with mlr3's general model tuning and benchmarking facilities to provide a systematic infrastructure for survival modeling and evaluation.

stat.CO↗

arXiv2018

NIPS - Not Even Wrong? A Systematic Review of Empirically Complete Demonstrations of Algorithmic Effectiveness in the Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Literature

Objective: To determine the completeness of argumentative steps necessary to conclude effectiveness of an algorithm in a sample of current ML/AI supervised learning literature. Data Sources: Papers published in the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, née NIPS) journal where the official record showed a 2017 year of publication. Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting a (semi-)supervised model, or pre-processing fused with (semi-)supervised models for tabular data. Study Appraisal: Three reviewers applied the assessment criteria to determine argumentative completeness. The criteria were split into three groups, including: experiments (e.g real and/or synthetic data), baselines (e.g uninformed and/or state-of-art) and quantitative comparison (e.g. performance quantifiers with confidence intervals and formal comparison of the algorithm against baselines). Results: Of the 121 eligible manuscripts (from the sample of 679 abstracts), 99\% used real-world data and 29\% used synthetic data. 91\% of manuscripts did not report an uninformed baseline and 55\% reported a state-of-art baseline. 32\% reported confidence intervals for performance but none provided references or exposition for how these were calculated. 3\% reported formal comparisons. Limitations: The use of one journal as the primary information source may not be representative of all ML/AI literature. However, the NeurIPS conference is recognised to be amongst the top tier concerning ML/AI studies, so it is reasonable to consider its corpus to be representative of high-quality research. Conclusion: Using the 2017 sample of the NeurIPS supervised learning corpus as an indicator for the quality and trustworthiness of current ML/AI research, it appears that complete argumentative chains in demonstrations of algorithmic effectiveness are rare.

cs.LG↗