Inverse-Weighted Survival Games
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deep models trained through maximum likelihood have achieved state-of-the-art results for survival analysis. Despite this training scheme, practitioners evaluate models under other criteria, such as binary classification losses at a chosen set of time horizons, e.g. Brier score (BS) and Bernoulli log likelihood (BLL). Models trained with maximum likelihood may have poor BS or BLL since maximum likelihood does not directly optimize these criteria. Directly optimizing criteria like BS requires inverse-weighting by the censoring distribution. However, estimating the censoring model under these metrics requires inverse-weighting by the failure distribution. The objective for each model requires the other, but neither are known. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce Inverse-Weighted Survival Games. In these games, objectives for each model are built from re-weighted estimates featuring the other model, where the latter is held fixed during training. When the loss is proper, we show that the games always have the true failure and censoring distributions as a stationary point. This means models in the game do not leave the correct distributions once reached. We construct one case where this stationary point is unique. We show that these games optimize BS on simulations and then apply these principles on real world cancer and critically-ill patient data.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2021.
Builds on
16 of 64 references.
References · 16
- 2016DeepSurv: Personalized Treatment Recommender System Using A Cox Proportional Hazards Deep Neural Networkcited by 354
- 2019Time-to-Event Prediction with Neural Networks and Cox Regressioncited by 173
- 2019Orthogonal Statistical Learningcited by 150
- 2018A Scalable Discrete-Time Survival Model for Neural Networkscited by 70
- 2019Continuous and Discrete-Time Survival Prediction with Neural Networkscited by 68
- 2018Effective Ways to Build and Evaluate Individual Survival Distributionscited by 64
- 2018Deep Recurrent Survival Analysiscited by 61
- 2016Deep Survival Analysiscited by 60
- 2018Deep Neural Networks for Survival Analysis Based on a Multi-Task Frameworkcited by 44
- 2019Differentiable Game Mechanicscited by 43
- 2018Countdown Regression: Sharp and Calibrated Survival Predictionscited by 30
- 2021X-CAL: Explicit Calibration for Survival Analysiscited by 30
4 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
8 papers.
- 2023An Effective Meaningful Way to Evaluate Survival Modelscited by 15
- 2022Survival Mixture Density Networkscited by 9
- 2023Proper Scoring Rules for Survival Analysiscited by 9
- 2023Neural Frailty Machine: Beyond proportional hazard assumption in neural survival regressionscited by 6
- 2024Survival Models: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Riskscited by 6
- 2025Position: Stop Chasing the C-index when Evaluating Survival Analysis Modelscited by 5
- 2022Hazard Gradient Penalty for Survival Analysiscited by 0
- 2024Teaching Models To Survive: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Riskscited by 0
- 2025Position: Stop Chasing the C-index when Evaluating Survival Analysis Models2 Jun 2025
- 2024Survival Models: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Risks22 Oct 2024
- 2024Teaching Models To Survive: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Risks20 Jun 2024
- 2023An Effective Meaningful Way to Evaluate Survival Models1 Jun 2023
- 2023Proper Scoring Rules for Survival Analysis1 May 2023
- 2023Neural Frailty Machine: Beyond proportional hazard assumption in neural survival regressions18 Mar 2023
- 2022Survival Mixture Density Networks23 Aug 2022
- 2022Hazard Gradient Penalty for Survival Analysis27 May 2022