Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Surv-IPTB: An Attention-Based Model for Estimating Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit with Survival Data

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Surv-IPTB estimates each patient's chance of longer survival by turning treatment-control pairs into a binary classification, and reports it beats six survival baselines on nonlinear data.

desk verdict Attention-based IPTB estimator with trainable censoring weights is a real step forward, but the headline same-patient estimand is identified only under an untested independence copula. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06288 v1 pith:ER77J6OH submitted 2026-08-06 cs.LG stat.ML

Lev V. Utkin , Stanislav K. Kogan , Andrei V. Konstantinov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords individualprobabilityoftreatmentbenefitsurvivalanalysiseffectheterogeneitycensoreddataattentionmechanismimprecisepairwiseclassificationmeta-learners
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to estimate the Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit (IPTB) in survival settings: the probability $\rho(x)=\Pr\{H^*>Y^*\mid X=x\}$ that a patient with covariates $x$ survives longer under treatment than under control. It reformulates this as a binary classification problem over treatment-control patient pairs, so the training target is whether the paired difference in survival times is positive. Right-censored pairs are not discarded: their contribution enters as an interval-valued or soft probability computed from survival functions, either learned or taken from a Kaplan-Meier estimate. The attention mechanism with learnable query and key transformations aggregates these pairwise signals into a prediction $p_+(x,x)$ for matched covariates. The paper reports that this estimator stays accurate on nonlinear synthetic structures (spiral, bell-shaped, and circular) and on the IHDP semi-synthetic benchmark, beating T-learner and S-learner baselines built on random survival forests, Cox, and Beran estimators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the attention-weighted pairwise probability $p_+(z,x)=\sum_{(i,j)\in R^+\cup T^+} a(z,x,z_i,x_j)+\sum_{(r,s)\in T^-\cup C^+} a(z,x,z_r,x_s)\pi_{(r,s)}$, with attention weights $a(z,x,z_i,x_j)=\exp(q^\top k_{ij}/\sqrt{2d})/\sum_{s,r}\exp(q^\top k_{sr}/\sqrt{2d})$ defined by learnable matrices $W_Q$ and $W_K$ and values $v_{ij}\in\{1\}\cup[0,1]$. The mechanism is trained by minimizing a log-likelihood loss over hard-label pairs and soft-label pairs, with an entropy regularizer on the learned censored-case probabilities $\pi$. The soft probabilities for the two ambiguous censoring cases come from survival functions: $\phi_{i,j}=S_1(y_j)/S_1(h_i)$ when the treated patient is censored, and $\rho_{i,j}=(S_0(y_j)-S_0(h_i))/S_0(y_j)$ when the control patient is censored. The identification step is the copula representation $F_{H^*,Y^*}(h,y\mid x)=C_{\theta,x}(F_{H^*}(h\mid x),F_{Y^*}(y\mid x))$; the paper sets $C(u,v)=uv$, which is what lets $p_+(x,x)$ be read as a patient-level benefit probability.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic survival data where $H^*$ and $Y^*$ are coupled by a Clayton or Gaussian copula with known positive and negative dependence, simulate the observed parallel-arm data with censoring, and compare Surv-IPTB's $p_+(x,x)$ against the true $\Pr\{H^*>Y^*\mid X=x\}$; if the estimates shift systematically with the copula parameter at fixed marginal survival functions, the independence assumption is carrying the identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Surv-IPTB estimates $\Psi(x)=\Pr\{H^*>Y^*\mid X=x\}$ by turning each treatment-control pair into a classification example with an attention-weighted contribution. The model computes $p_+(z,x)$ as a softmax-weighted sum over pairs, where pairs with definite positive differences contribute value 1 and pairs involving censored observations contribute a soft probability $\pi_{(r,s)}$; the paper derives those soft probabilities as $\phi_{i,j}=S_1(y_j)/S_1(h_i)$ for a censored treatment time and $\rho_{i,j}=(S_0(y_j)-S_0(h_i))/S_0(y_j)$ for a censored control time. The paper is explicit that the joint distribution of the two potential outcomes is not identified from parallel-arm data, and that the pairwise construction corresponds to the independence copula $C(u,v)=u\cdot v$; under that assumption $p_+(x,x)$ is the same-patient benefit probability, while under other dependence structures it is the probability that an independent treated patient outlives an independent control patient with the same covariates. With that caveat stated, the experiments report AUC values in the 0.89-0.98 range on the nonlinear synthetic datasets and 0.898-0.916 on IHDP-100 across censoring rates, with the model degrading more slowly than random-forest-based meta-learners; on the linear dataset the Cox S-learner is the best, and a Kaplan-Meier-based soft-probability version performs nearly identically to the fully trained one.

Load-bearing premise

The model's output is only the patient's own treatment-benefit probability if the two potential survival times are independent within a patient, an assumption the data cannot check from parallel-arm observations alone and that the paper does not test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A clinician gets a single number in [0,1] per patient, the chance that treatment extends that patient's survival, with values near 0.5 marking neutrality rather than a mean effect.
  • Censored observations are used rather than dropped: every pair except the both-censored case contributes a hard or soft label, which is why the model keeps working at 50% censoring.
  • The Kaplan-Meier version of the soft probabilities matches the trained version, so a simpler, less costly implementation can be used in practice.
  • On nonlinear feature spaces, the reported advantage over RSF, Cox, and Beran meta-learners grows as censoring increases, since the baselines degrade faster.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper but implied by its own setup: if the two potential survival times are dependent rather than independent, the published numbers shift from "this patient's benefit probability" to "probability that an independent treated patient outlives an independent control patient"; a copula sensitivity analysis over $\theta$ would quantify the gap.
  • A practical extension the paper notes but does not develop: at biobank scale, the quadratic pair count can be reduced by random subsampling of pairs or locality-sensitive hashing without changing the loss.
  • Because the output is a probability rather than a mean effect, a clinician could set an explicit treatment threshold such as $\rho(x)>0.6$; the paper motivates this use but does not evaluate its operating characteristics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Surv-IPTB, an attention-based model for estimating the Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit (IPTB) in survival analysis. The method reformulates IPTB estimation as a binary classification task over pairs of treatment and control patients, uses interval-valued/imprecise probabilities to handle censored pairs, and aggregates pairwise comparisons via learnable attention. The authors evaluate the model on synthetic datasets with linear, bell-shaped, circular, and spiral structures and on the semi-synthetic IHDP-100 dataset, comparing with T- and S-learners based on random survival forests, Cox proportional hazards, and Beran estimators. The reported results show consistent AUC improvements on nonlinear data across censoring rates, treatment power, and treatment group sizes.

Significance. The pairwise classification view of treatment benefit and the use of trainable imprecise probabilities for censored pairs are interesting, and the empirical robustness on nonlinear synthetic data is well documented. The public code is a practical asset. However, the paper's central identification claim is conditional: the estimator actually recovers the cross-patient probability Pr{H* > Y* | Z=z, X=x} under the independence copula, not the same-patient IPTB Psi(x) = Pr{H* > Y* | X=x} advertised in the abstract. Section 3.1 acknowledges this and promises a copula sensitivity analysis, but no such analysis appears in the paper. The significance of the contribution as stated is therefore not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (7) and (20)] The headline estimand Psi(x) = Pr{H* > Y* | X=x} (Eq. 7) is the probability that the same patient survives longer under treatment than under control. The estimator p+(z,x) in Eq. (20) is an attention-weighted average over pairs of distinct treatment and control patients, so for z=x it targets Pr{H* > Y* | Z=x, X=x} for independent potential outcomes. Section 3.1 correctly states that the pairwise construction corresponds to the independence copula C(u,v)=u*v and that the dependence parameter theta is not identified from parallel-arm data; it adds that alternative values 'can be examined through sensitivity analysis.' The paper, however, contains no such sensitivity analysis, and validation scheme 2 (Eq. 34) labels p+(x,x) as Pr{Delta > 0 | Z=x, X=x}, which is still a cross-patient probability. Consequently the Val 2 AUCs reported in Tables 3-7 do not test the same-patient estimand, and the abstract's claim that the model directly quantifies the probability that a specific patient experiences extended survival under treatment is not supported by the identification argument.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (13)-(16)] The soft labels phi_ij and rho_ij for censored pairs are computed from unconditional survival functions S1(t) and S0(t), which do not depend on the covariate vectors z_i and x_j. The authors explicitly acknowledge this approximation in the paragraph following Eq. (16), noting that conditional survival functions are 'a rather complex problem.' This means that for precisely the censored pairs where individualized treatment information is most uncertain, the training targets carry no covariate information. The paper does not quantify how this approximation affects the individual-level accuracy of the estimated probabilities, so the claim that Surv-IPTB captures individual rather than aggregate benefit is only partially assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Eqs. (26), (29), (30)] The index sets S-, Q-, and C- are used in the loss definitions but never defined; please define them or align the notation with the sets R-, T-, and C+ already introduced.
  2. [Section 4.1, Cases 3/4/7/8] The text states that Cases 3 and 4 coincide with Cases 7 and 8, yet the listed conditions for Cases 3 and 7 are identical and those for Cases 4 and 8 are identical; the distinction between the positive and negative treatment effect regions should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (16)] The expression S0(y_j) - S0(h_i) requires y_j <= h_i; please state this domain condition explicitly, as is done for Eq. (13).
  4. [Section 5.3, Table 7 caption and Section 5.3 text] There are several typos: 'the the IHDP-100 dataset' in the Table 7 caption, 'wether' in Section 4.2, 'betwenn' in Section 5.3, and 'implemetation' in Section 5.3.
  5. [Section 5.2] Because censoring indicators are drawn from binomial distributions independent of covariates and event times, the text should state that independent censoring is assumed in the simulations, since the Conclusion lists this as a limitation of the current framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained: Surv-IPTB's output is an attention-weighted average of externally labeled pairwise comparisons; the acknowledged independence-copula gap between the headline IPTB and the cross-patient estimand is a validity caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The headline estimand Ψ(x) = Pr{H* > Y* | X=x} (Eq. 7) is defined independently of the estimator, and the model output p_+(z,x) (Eq. 20) is an attention-weighted average of pairwise labels: definite labels (value 1 for R+∪T+) come from observed pairwise comparisons, and soft labels (π for T-∪C+) are trained toward targets φ, ρ computed from KM/Beran/Cox survival functions (Eqs. 13-16, with loss terms in Eqs. 27-30). These training targets are external to the fitted parameters (W_Q, W_K, π), and the validation labels in both schemes are computed from the specified data-generating mechanisms rather than from the model output, so the reported AUCs are genuine held-out measurements. The only load-bearing bridge between the estimator and the headline claim is the copula assumption: Section 3.1 states that 'the current pairwise construction corresponds to the independence copula C(u,v)=u·v' and that 'the dependence parameter θ is not identified from parallel-arm observational data', and the promised sensitivity analysis over alternative copulas is not delivered. This makes the abstract's phrasing that the model 'directly quantifies' the same-patient IPTB conditional on an untested assumption; per the reviewing rule I flag this limitation explicitly and weigh it in the verdict, but it is an identification/validity caveat rather than an equivalence by definition or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, so it does not count as circularity. The two self-citations ([9], the kernel/imprecise-classification precursor by Konstantinov, Utkin et al., and [49], the BENK synthetic functions) are non-load-bearing methodological pointers whose content is fully re-derived or re-described in the present text (Eqs. 8-32 and Eqs. 41-46); the benchmarks (IHDP-100) and baselines (RSF, Cox, Beran) are external. The circularity burden is accordingly low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on causal identifiability of the marginals, an unverified independence copula to equate pairwise comparisons with same-patient IPTB, and an approximation that soft censoring probabilities use unconditional survival functions. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; the trainable pi values are model parameters, captured under free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Attention projection matrices W_Q and W_K
    Learned from the loss in Eq 24; dimensions are d x 2d, with numerical values not reported.
  • Per-pair imprecise probabilities pi_(r,s)
    One trainable scalar for each pair in T- union C+ (Eqs 20-21); fitted jointly with attention weights and regularized by L(pi).
  • Regularization coefficients gamma and eta = not reported
    Hyperparameters in Eq 24 that control entropy and weight regularization; no values or tuning procedure given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Consistency, conditional ignorability, and positivity identify the marginal survival distributions F_H*(t|x) and F_Y*(t|x).
    Section 3.1 invokes these standard causal conditions to justify using observed parallel-arm data for the marginal distributions.
  • ad hoc to paper The joint distribution of potential outcomes is the independence copula C(u,v)=u*v.
    Section 3.1 states the pairwise construction corresponds to the independence copula; this equates the cross-patient comparison with the same-patient IPTB and is not tested or varied by sensitivity analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Soft class probabilities for censored pairs can be computed from unconditional survival functions.
    Section 4.3 derives phi and rho in Eqs 13-16 from unconditional KM survival curves S1(t), S0(t) and calls this an approximate simple approach; covariates are ignored in these soft labels.
  • domain assumption Censoring is independent and non-informative in both treatment arms.
    Section 6 lists independent censoring as a limitation; informative or covariate-dependent censoring is not handled.
  • domain assumption Synthetic event times follow Weibull distributions consistent with a Cox proportional hazards model.
    Section 5.2 Eqs 47-48 generate y and h; this justifies including Cox as a baseline but limits external validity of the synthetic benchmarks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surv-IPTB: An Attention-Based Model for Estimating Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit with Survival Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ER77J6OH

@misc{pith2026260806288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surv-IPTB: An Attention-Based Model for Estimating Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit with Survival Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ER77J6OH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06288}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents a novel attention-based framework for estimating the Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit (IPTB) in survival analysis contexts. The proposed model, called Surv-IPTB, directly quantifies the probability that a specific patient will experience extended survival time under treatment versus control. We reformulate IPTB estimation as a binary classification problem, leveraging pairwise patient comparisons across treatment and control cohorts. The framework incorporates a principled handling of right-censored observations through imprecise probability representations, where uncertain treatment effects are characterized by interval-valued probabilities. An attention mechanism with learnable query-key transformations enables flexible, data-driven aggregation of pairwise comparisons, while simultaneously learning soft class probabilities for censored cases. Through extensive experiments on synthetic datasets with complex nonlinear structures, including spiral, bell-shaped, and circular feature spaces, we demonstrate that our approach maintains robust performance across varying censoring rates and treatment effect strengths. The model consistently outperforms meta-learner baselines (T-learner and S-learner) equipped with random survival forests, Cox proportional hazards, and Beran estimators, particularly in challenging nonlinear scenarios where conventional methods exhibit significant degradation. The results establish the proposed attention-based framework as a scalable and statistically principled solution for personalized treatment benefit assessment in survival settings. The code implementing the model is publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the same way, we consider cases of the negative treatment effect (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Four cases of subsets where ∆ > 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four cases of subsets where ∆ ≤ 0 4.2 Treatment Effect Partitioning We collect all ordered treatment effect values ∆ij for i = 1, . . . , t and j = 1, . . . , c, into two subsets G + and G − with positive and negative values ∆ij , respectively, i.e., we can write G + = {∆ij : ∆ij > 0}, G − = {∆ij : ∆ij ≤ 0}. (8) The values of ∆ij define the class values in the binary classification task which are 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left plot: The ROC curves and ROC-AUC scores obtained on the training set and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training and validation loss functions for the linear dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left plot: The ROC curves and ROC-AUC scores obtained on the training set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Training and validation loss functions for the Bell-shaped dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left plot: The ROC curves and ROC-AUC scores obtained on the training set and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Konstantinov, L.V

    A.V. Konstantinov, L.V. Utkin, V.A. Efremenko, V.A. Muliukha, A.A. Lukashin, and N.M. Verbova. Survival analysis as imprecise classification with trainable kernels. Mathematics, 13(18):3040, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Kent, J.K

    D.M. Kent, J.K. Paulus, and D. et al. Van Klaveren. The predictive approaches to treatment effect heterogeneity (PATH) statement.Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(1):35–45, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Rekkas, J.K Paulus, G

    A. Rekkas, J.K Paulus, G. Raman, J.B. Wong, E.W. Steyerberg, P.R. Rijnbeek, D.M. Kent, and D. van Klaveren. Predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects: a scoping review.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20:264(1):1–12, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Ruiz and O.H.M

    G. Ruiz and O.H.M. Padilla. Non-asymptotic confidence bands on the probability an individual benefits from treatment (pibt). arXiv:2205.09094, May 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    B. Fava. Predicting the distribution of treatment effects via covariate-adjustment, with an application to microcredit. arXiv:2407.14635, Jul 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Nadaraya

    E.A. Nadaraya. On estimating regression.Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 9(1):141–142, 1964

    work page 1964

  7. [6]

    G.S. Watson. Smooth regression analysis.Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A, pages 359–372, 1964

    work page 1964

  8. [7]

    Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and C.D. Manning. Effective approaches to attention- based neural machine translation. InProceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1412–1421, Lisbon, Portugal, 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics. 25

    work page 2015

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    X.J. Jeng, W. Lu, and H. Peng. High-dimensional inference for personalized treatment decision.Electronic Journal of Statistics, 12:12 2074–2089, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    X. Zhou, N. Mayer-Hamblett, U. Khan, and M.R. Kosorok. Residual weighted learning for estimating individualized treatment rules.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(517):169–187, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Mining hetero- geneous causal effects for personalized cancer treatment.Bioinformatics, 33(15):2372– 2378, 2017

    Weijia Zhang, Thuc Duy Le, Lin Liu, Zhi-Hua Zhou, and Jiuyong Li. Mining hetero- geneous causal effects for personalized cancer treatment.Bioinformatics, 33(15):2372– 2378, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Limits of estimating heterogeneous treat- ment effects: Guidelines for practical algorithm design

    Ahmed Alaa and Mihaela van der Schaar. Limits of estimating heterogeneous treat- ment effects: Guidelines for practical algorithm design. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 ofProceedings of Ma- chine Learning Research, pages 129–1...

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y. Xie, N. Chen, and X. Shi. False discovery rate controlled heterogeneous treatment effect detection for online controlled experiments. arXiv:1808.04904v1, Aug 2018

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Wendling, K

    T. Wendling, K. Jung, A. Callahan, A. Schuler, N.H. Shah, and B. Gallego. Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases.Statistics in Medicine, (23):3309–3324, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Caron, G

    A. Caron, G. Baio, and I. Manolopoulou. Estimating individual treatment effects using non-parametric regression models: a review.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 185(3):1115–1149, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Curth, R.W

    A. Curth, R.W. Peck, E. McKinney, J. Weatherall, and M. van Der Schaar. Using machine learning to individualize treatment effect estimation: challenges and oppor- tunities.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 115(4):710–719, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A survey on causal inference.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 15(5):1–46, 2021

    Liuyi Yao, Zhixuan Chu, Sheng Li, Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, and Aidong Zhang. A survey on causal inference.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD), 15(5):1–46, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    A unified survey of treatment effect hetero- geneity modelling and uplift modelling.ACM Computing Surveys, 54(8):1–36, 2022

    Weijia Zhang, Jiuyong Li, and Lin Liu. A unified survey of treatment effect hetero- geneity modelling and uplift modelling.ACM Computing Surveys, 54(8):1–36, 2022. 26

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y. Wang, P. Wu, Y. Liu, C. Weng, and D. Zeng. Learning optimal individualized treatment rules from electronic health record data. InIEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), pages 65–71. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Kunzel, J.S

    S.R. Kunzel, J.S. Sekhona, P.J. Bickel, and B. Yu. Meta-learners for estimating hetero- geneous treatment effects using machine learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10):4156–4165, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    I. Bica, J. Jordon, and M. van der Schaar. Estimating the effects of continuous-valued interventions using generative adversarial networks. InAdvances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), volume 33, pages 16434–16445, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Curth and M

    A. Curth and M. van der Schaar. Nonparametric estimation of heterogeneous treat- ment effects: From theory to learning algorithms. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1810–1818. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Lizhen Nie, Mao Ye, Qiang Liu, and D. Nicolae. Vcnet and functional targeted regular- ization for learning causal effects of continuous treatments. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021), pages 1–24, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Budgeted heterogeneous treatment effect estimation

    Tian Qin, Tian-Zuo Wang, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. Budgeted heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, volume 139, pages 8693–8702, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Estimating conditional average treatment effects via sufficient representa- tion learning

    Pengfei Shi, Wei Zhong, Xinyu Zhang, Ningtao Wang, Xing Fu, Weiqiang Wang, and Yin Jin. Estimating conditional average treatment effects via sufficient representa- tion learning. InProceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cetransformer: Casual effect estimation via transformer based representation learning

    Zhenyu Guo, Shuai Zheng, Zhizhe Liu, Kun Yan, and Zhenfeng Zhu. Cetransformer: Casual effect estimation via transformer based representation learning. InPattern Recognition and Computer Vision. PRCV 2021, volume 13022 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 524–535. Springe...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Melnychuk, D

    V. Melnychuk, D. Frauen, and S. Feuerriegel. Causal transformer for estimating coun- terfactual outcomes. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 15293– 15329. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Lipton, Li Erran Li, and Eric Xing

    YiFan Zhang, Hanlin Zhang, Z.C. Lipton, Li Erran Li, and Eric Xing. Exploring transformer backbones for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Estimation of the treatment effect for the survival time data.Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 42(2):227–234, 2013

    Hyo-Il Park. Estimation of the treatment effect for the survival time data.Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 42(2):227–234, 2013. 27

    2013

  23. [31]

    Kosorok, E

    Yifan Cui, M.R. Kosorok, E. Sverdrup, S. Wager, and Ruoqing Zhu. Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with right-censored data via causal survival forests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 85(2):179– 211, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    A meta-learner frame- work to estimate individualized treatment effects for survival outcomes.Journal of data science: JDS, 22(4):505, 2024

    Na Bo, Yue Wei, Lang Zeng, Chaeryon Kang, and Ying Ding. A meta-learner frame- work to estimate individualized treatment effects for survival outcomes.Journal of data science: JDS, 22(4):505, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Na Bo, Jong-Hyeon Jeong, Erick Forno, and Ying Ding. Evaluating meta-learners to analyze treatment heterogeneity in survival data: Application to electronic health records of pediatric asthma care in covid-19 pandemic.Statistics in medicine, 44(3- 4):e10333, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Estimating the individual treatment effect on survival time based on prior knowledge and counterfactual prediction.Entropy, 24(7):975, 2022

    Yijie Zhao, Hao Zhou, Jin Gu, and Hao Ye. Estimating the individual treatment effect on survival time based on prior knowledge and counterfactual prediction.Entropy, 24(7):975, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    A new method for clustered survival data: Estimation of treatment effect heterogeneity and variable selection.Biometrical Journal, 66(1):2200178, 2024

    Liangyuan Hu. A new method for clustered survival data: Estimation of treatment effect heterogeneity and variable selection.Biometrical Journal, 66(1):2200178, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Frauen, M

    D. Frauen, M. Schr¨ oder, K. Hess, and S. Feuerriegel. Orthogonal survival learners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects from time-to-event data. InThe Thirty- ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Henderson, T.A

    N.C. Henderson, T.A. Louis, G.L. Rosner, and R. Varadhan. Individualized treatment effects with censored data via fully nonparametric bayesian accelerated failure time models.Biostatistics, 21(1):50–68, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Ozenne, T.H

    B.M.H. Ozenne, T.H. Scheike, L. Stark, and T.A. Gerds. On the estimation of aver- age treatment effects with right-censored time to event outcome and competing risks. Biometrical Journal, 62:751–763, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Schrod, A

    S. Schrod, A. Sch¨ afer, S. Solbrig, R. Lohmayer, W. Gronwald, P.J. Oefner, T. Beißbarth, R. Spang, H.U. Zacharias, and M. Altenbuchinger. Bites: balanced individual treatment effect for survival data.Bioinformatics, 38(Supplement 1):i60– i67, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Trinquart, J

    L. Trinquart, J. Jacot, S.C. Conner, and R. Porcher. Comparison of treatment effects measured by the hazard ratio and by the ratio of restricted mean survival times in oncology randomized controlled trials.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(15):1813–1819, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Jie Zhu and B. Gallego. Targeted estimation of heterogeneous treatment effect in observational survival analysis.Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 107(103474):1–10, 2020. 28

    2020

  34. [42]

    Melnychuk, S

    V. Melnychuk, S. Feuerriegel, and M. van der Schaar. Quantifying aleatoric uncertainty of the treatment effect: a novel orthogonal learner. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 105039–105089. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    D.B. Rubin. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469):322–331, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Nelsen.An introduction to copulas

    R.B. Nelsen.An introduction to copulas. Springer, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Ishwaran and U.B

    H. Ishwaran and U.B. Kogalur. Random survival forests for r.R News, 7(2):25–31, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    D.R. Cox. Regression models and life-tables.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 34(2):187–220, 1972

    1972

  39. [47]

    R. Beran. Nonparametric regression with randomly censored survival data. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, 1981

    1981

  40. [48]

    Chapfuwa, S

    P. Chapfuwa, S. Assaad, S. Zeng, M. Pencina, L. Carin, and R. Henao. Survival analysis meets counterfactual inference. arXiv:2006.07756, Jun 2020

    2006 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kirpichenko, L

    S. Kirpichenko, L. Utkin, A. Konstantinov, and V. Muliukha. BENK: The Beran estimator with neural kernels for estimating the heterogeneous treatment effect.Algo- rithms, 17(1):40, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    J.L. Hill. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference.Journal of Compu- tational and Graphical Statistics, 20(1), 2011. 29

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.