mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Aligning Data-Driven Predictors with Allocation: A Decision-Focused Approach to Survival Analysis

arXiv 2606.02671 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning predictors have become essential tools for guiding automated decision making. However, a major misalignment persists: predictive models are typically optimized in terms of standard statistical metrics in isolation from the algorithmic tasks they inform. We highlight this incongruity in the high-stakes domain of organ allocation by demonstrating that any algorithm relying on (even highly accurate) survival predictors optimized for standard metrics -- such as the Concordance index (C-index) -- can yield arbitrarily poor outcomes when used for allocation, failing to guarantee utility better than a uniform random selection. To bridge the gap between survival analysis and policy optimization, we introduce a decision-focused learning approach based on optimizing normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG), a mainstay metric in information retrieval. We establish the utility of NDCG in survival analysis by proving that it translates to guarantees on the performance of allocation. Empirically, we propose a bootstrapping approach to optimize the NDCG of existing survival models. Unlike prior work, we also address the challenge of right censorship when evaluating ranking. On historical heart transplant data from the US, our method dramatically boosts the NDCG of baseline models by 50-100%, which translates to tens of thousands of additional life years gained annually when deployed for transplant allocation. We anticipate that our framework will find broader applications in decision making with predictions.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

Builds on

21 of 60 references.

References · 21

  1. 2016DeepSurv: Personalized Treatment Recommender System Using A Cox Proportional Hazards Deep Neural Networkcited by 354
  2. 2017Smart "Predict, then Optimize"cited by 332
  3. 2020Performative Predictioncited by 318
  4. 2018Melding the Data-Decisions Pipeline: Decision-Focused Learning for Combinatorial Optimizationcited by 220
  5. 2020Algorithms with Predictionscited by 152
  6. 2023Decision-Focused Learning: Foundations, State of the Art, Benchmark and Future Opportunitiescited by 129
  7. 2013A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measurescited by 119
  8. 2023Calibration in Deep Learning: A Survey of the State-of-the-Artcited by 72
  9. 2021Deep Cox Mixtures for Survival Regressioncited by 43
  10. 2021Causal Decision Making and Causal Effect Estimation Are Not the Same... and Why It Matterscited by 25
  11. 2025Algorithms with Calibrated Machine Learning Predictionscited by 7
  12. 2025Treatment Effect Estimation for Optimal Decision-Makingcited by 7
9 more
  1. 2016Position-Indexed Formulations for Kidney Exchangecited by 6
  2. 2025Policy Optimization for Dynamic Heart Transplant Allocationcited by 5
  3. 2026Near-Optimal Dynamic Matching via Coarsening with Application to Heart Transplantationcited by 3
  4. 2026Position: Machine Learning for Heart Transplant Allocation Policy Optimization Should Account for Incentivescited by 3
  5. 2024Metalearners for Ranking Treatment Effectscited by 2
  6. 2026Rank-Learner: Orthogonal Ranking of Treatment Effectscited by 2
  7. 2026Learning Potentials for Dynamic Matching and Application to Heart Transplantationcited by 2
  8. 2021Adaptively Weighted Top-N Recommendation for Organ Matchingcited by 1
  9. 2026Necessary Optimality Conditions for Integrated Learning and Optimization Problem in Contextual Optimizationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.