MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206990816 · doi:10.1109/icdm51629.2021.00080

Combining Ranking and Point-wise Losses for Training Deep Survival Analysis Models

2021· article· en· W4206990816 on OpenAlexaff
Lu Wang, Yan Li, Mark Chignell

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)Survival analysisArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsParametric statisticsProportional hazards modelRegressionTime pointSurvival functionFunction (biology)Regression analysisData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to accurately predict the time to event of interest, commonly known as survival analysis, is extremely beneficial in many real-world applications. Traditional commonly used statistical survival analysis methods, e.g., Cox proportional hazards model and parametric censored regressions, are based on strong and sometimes impractical assumptions and can only handle linearity relationship between features and target. Recently, deep learning based formulations have been proposed for survival analysis to handle non-linearity. However, these existing deep learning methods either inherit strong assumptions from their corresponding base models or tailor discrete-time survival analysis. To overcome the limitations within these existing models in the literature, we propose an objective function to guide the training of a deep learning model for continuous-time survival analysis. The objective function combines both ranking based and point-wise regression based losses. The ranking based loss measures the goodness of the orders of the predicted survival time for all instances. The point-wise based loss measures the difference between the predicted survival time and the true survival time for the right censored time-to-event data. More specifically, we derive two versions of the ranking based loss from the smoothed concordance index, and two versions of point-wise based loss based on the normalized mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE). Thus, the proposed formulation is capable of dealing with the continuous-time survival analysis from both global and local perspectives. We conduct experimental analysis over several large-scale real-world time-to-event datasets, and the results demonstrate that our model outperforms the state-of-the-art survival analysis methods. The codes and data used in the experiments are available in the link <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> . <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> https://github.com/yanlirock/local_global_survival

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.358
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.042 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)Same topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207