Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper's central claim is that the value of a survival loss can be trusted as a proxy for the C-index only if it is value-monotone, and that standard likelihood losses are provably not; the proposed sigmoid concordance loss satisfies thi

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 19:53 UTC pith:3GRAX4VY

load-bearing objection The empirical loss-metric coupling is real and worth knowing; the theory overreaches exactly where Corollary 2 bridges an existence result to a training-trajectory claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16802 v1 pith:3GRAX4VY submitted 2026-07-18 cs.LG cs.CVstat.ML

Value-Monotonicity Matters: A Concordance Loss for Deep Survival Prediction

Meixu Chen , Kai Wang , Jing Wang This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CVstat.ML MSC 62N0168T07
keywords survival analysisconcordance indexvalue-monotonicitysigmoid concordance losslikelihood decouplingcensored dataearly stoppingmodel selection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Deep survival models are judged by the concordance index but trained almost exclusively on likelihood objectives. This paper argues that the mismatch is structural, not incidental: every strictly proper survival likelihood admits a rescaling direction along which the loss decreases while the C-index stays exactly constant, so after the ranking has roughly converged the loss value stops telling you anything about the metric. The remedy is a sigmoid concordance loss (SCL) whose value equals one minus the C-index up to a temperature term, which makes lower loss imply higher concordance throughout training. In eighteen datasets spanning tabular, CT/PET, MRI, and pathology data, the SCL matches the discrimination and calibration of likelihood baselines while its validation value tracks the C-index with rank correlation 0.96–0.99 (versus -0.03 to 0.53 for likelihood losses), and checkpoint selection by the loss alone loses at most 0.011 of C-index. If true, this gives practitioners in expensive end-to-end imaging a loss they can monitor and select on without recomputing the metric every epoch.

Core claim

The central discovery is two-sided. On the negative side, the paper proves that every strictly proper survival likelihood admits an explicit, always-available direction—rescaling the risk score—along which the loss strictly decreases while the C-index, a rank statistic, is exactly unchanged; a general theorem extends this to all monotone reparameterizations. On the positive side, the proposed sigmoid concordance loss Lτ (mean over comparable pairs of σ(−(f_i−f_j)/τ)) satisfies Lτ = 1 − C + O(τ), so for small temperature the loss value itself estimates the misordering rate. Empirically, the SCL's validation trajectory follows the validation C-index with near-perfect rank correlation, whereas

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sigmoid concordance loss (SCL), a temperature-smoothed mean over comparable pairs of the indicator of a wrong ordering. It is constructed so its value approximates one minus the C-index rather than merely sharing its optimum; the key identity is Lτ = 1 − C + O(τ), which gives value-monotonicity. The companion mechanism is rank-invariance of the C-index: C(φ∘f)=C(f) for any strictly increasing φ, so the C-index's level sets are order-equivalence classes. Because likelihood losses are not invariant to such reparameterizations, their gradients carry a component along these rank-preserving directions, and that is the mechanism that decouples the loss value from the

Load-bearing premise

The claim that likelihood losses become uninformative late in training rests on an unproved step: once the ranking has approximately converged, the remaining likelihood gradient is asserted, not shown, to lie predominantly in directions that preserve the ranking, so that the loss keeps moving while the C-index does not.

What would settle it

Run a likelihood-trained deep survival model on any public dataset, logging the validation C-index and the validation loss every epoch. If, after the validation C-index has visibly plateaued, one can find a run in which the validation loss and validation C-index remain strongly rank-correlated (say above 0.8) for many epochs, the paper's claim that likelihood losses are uninformative late in training would be false in that regime; if instead the loss moves while the C-index is flat, the decoupling mechanism is confirmed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If SCL is value-monotone, early stopping and checkpoint selection can be driven by the loss value alone, eliminating the per-epoch validation C-index computation that dominates cost in end-to-end imaging.
  • A practitioner who chooses the minimum-validation-loss checkpoint under SCL obtains essentially the same test C-index as one who selects by the metric itself, with selection regret at most 0.011 on all reported datasets.
  • Because every strictly proper survival likelihood is non-invariant to monotone rescaling, no likelihood-based training loss can be made value-monotone; adding any positive likelihood weight to SCL re-introduces decoupling, as the hybrid ablation shows.
  • The same rank-invariance argument applies to any rank-based evaluation metric optimized through a proper scoring rule, so the decoupling phenomenon extends beyond survival analysis to AUC- or NDCG-style training.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The theoretical argument isolates score rescaling, so models whose final-layer scale, batch-normalization gain, or temperature drifts during training are the most exposed to decoupling; a diagnostic experiment that freezes or carefully controls these scale parameters could show that likelihood losses couple better than reported.
  • Because the SCL optimizes only the ordering, it discards information about event-time magnitude; a natural extension is to use SCL as a monitor and selector while training a likelihood, or to add a calibration head, to get both trustworthy value-tracking and calibrated survival curves.
  • A full proof of the finite-sample bound the paper sketches would turn value-monotonicity from an empirical observation into a rigorous guarantee with explicit sample-size requirements, which would strengthen the practical case for routine use of the loss.
  • The SCL's insensitivity to score magnitude could make it brittle when risk scores are badly calibrated across folds; testing the loss under distribution shift or with deliberately mis-scaled scores would reveal whether value-monotonicity survives outside the training distribution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sigmoid concordance loss (SCL) for deep survival prediction, defined as a soft count of misordered comparable pairs, and argues that its value tracks the C-index during training. The authors prove that the population SCL equals one minus the C-index up to an O(τ) temperature term (Theorem 1), and they prove that likelihood losses such as the Cox partial likelihood admit rescaling directions along which the loss decreases while the C-index is exactly unchanged (Proposition 2/Theorem 2). They then use this to claim that likelihood loss values decouple from the concordance index during training, particularly late in training. Empirically, across eighteen datasets from four modalities under a fixed five-fold, three-seed protocol, SCL achieves discrimination comparable to likelihood baselines, with loss-metric rank correlations of 0.96–0.99 versus at most 0.53 for likelihood losses, and selection regret below 0.011 on all datasets. Code and preprocessing pipelines are released.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and underappreciated problem: when validation C-index evaluation is too expensive, practitioners rely on loss values for early stopping and model selection. The proposed SCL is simple, architecture-agnostic, and backed by a strong empirical protocol with a fixed backbone per modality, multiple datasets, multiple seeds, several metrics, and released code. If the value-tracking property is taken as the design criterion, the paper makes an original contribution. The main caveat is that the theoretical attack on likelihood losses is only partially established: the existence of a rank-preserving descent direction does not by itself prove that actual gradient-based training follows such a direction, and the paper's Corollary 2, which is the bridge to the training-time conclusion, is asserted without proof. The empirical results remain informative, but the theoretical claims need to be either strengthened or explicitly reframed.

major comments (2)
  1. [A.4 / Theorem 2] The statement of Theorem 2 contains an invalid inference: 'there is a descent direction of L along which the concordance index is first-order stationary, so gradient flow on L moves within the class of order-equivalent scores while the concordance index does not change.' Gradient flow follows the negative full gradient, not an arbitrary tangent descent direction, and nothing in the proof constrains the full gradient to the tangent space of the orbit. This overstates the theoretical result. The proved content — existence of a rank-preserving descent direction — is correct but much weaker than the training-trajectory conclusion drawn from it.
  2. [A.4 / A.1] The paper repeatedly classifies the Cox partial likelihood as a 'strictly proper survival likelihood.' The Cox partial likelihood is not a strictly proper scoring rule for the conditional event distribution; it is a partial likelihood that uses risk sets and does not score the full survival distribution. This does not invalidate Proposition 2, whose rescaling computation is independent of properness, but the terminology is inaccurate and appears in the abstract, Section 3.5, and Appendix A.4. The authors should say that the Cox partial likelihood and the listed discrete-time likelihoods are likelihood-based objectives, and reserve 'strictly proper' for the full-data negative log-likelihoods where it is justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [A.1] Assumption A1 says the score gap has a density bounded by B 'whenever f is non-degenerate and X has a density.' This is not generally true without additional regularity on f; a continuous non-degenerate f can still push a continuous X distribution onto a distribution with no density. Add smoothness/injectivity conditions or state A1 directly as an assumption.
  2. [3.3 / Theorem 1] The phrase 'value equals one minus the C-index up to a temperature term' should specify that the equality is asymptotic as τ → 0 and that at τ = 0.1 the residual term is not quantified. The abstract and conclusion state this slightly more strongly than the theorem proves.
  3. [4.4] The checkpoint selection protocol (best validation Harrell C-index) is favorable to all methods, but this is stated only in the supplementary material. Consider stating it explicitly in the main text, since it affects interpretation of the discrimination results.
  4. [Table S1 / Table 2] Some per-dataset standard deviations in the supplementary tables are missing or shown without ± (e.g., Table S1a 'Ours-Sigmoid' 0.725±0.000, and some cells such as '0.934' or '0.995' with no deviation). Please ensure all entries have consistent formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No material circularity found: SCL's value-monotonicity is an explicit design property, and the likelihood-decoupling result is an independent (though gap-ridden) argument.

full rationale

The paper's central positive claim is that SCL is value-monotone because its value approximates 1 minus the C-index (Theorem 1). This is not a hidden reuse of the target: the loss is defined as a smoothed misordering rate over comparable pairs, and the theorem quantifies the approximation error from the sigmoid temperature. The paper explicitly labels the property 'by construction' in the conclusion, so no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction. The temperature tau=0.1 is fixed in advance rather than tuned to the measured coupling. The negative result about likelihood losses is independent of the SCL: Proposition 2 derives an explicit rescaling direction along which the Cox loss strictly decreases while the C-index is constant, using strict convexity of the Cox partial likelihood in the scale parameter; Theorem 2 generalizes this through a group-orbit argument. These are self-contained mathematical arguments, not restatements of the empirical coupling statistics. The empirical loss-metric rank correlations and selection regrets are measured quantities, not outputs of the theorems. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the paper cites prior surrogate-loss work (Steck et al., Gao and Zhou) as external context, and none of the authors' own prior results is invoked to forbid alternatives. The acknowledged weaknesses are non-circular: Corollary 2's assertion that once the ranking has approximately converged the remaining likelihood gradient lies predominantly in the rank-preserving subspace is an unproved bridge, and Proposition 3's finite-sample bound is admitted to be 'sketched rather than written in full.' These are completeness and rigor gaps, not reductions of the conclusion to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a few modeling premises: a bounded-density assumption on score gaps, an overstated identification of survival likelihoods as strictly proper scoring rules, an unproved training-dynamics assumption in Corollary 2, and standard concentration arguments. The SCL introduces one hand-chosen hyperparameter, temperature τ=0.1, but no new physical or model entities.

free parameters (1)
  • temperature τ = 0.1
    Fixed by hand across all experiments rather than tuned; controls the accuracy of the Lτ ≈ 1 − C approximation in Theorem 1 and the scale of the sigmoid gradient.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption A1: the score gap has a density bounded by B near zero
    Invoked in Theorem 1 and Proposition 3 to control the O(τ) approximation and the U-statistic concentration; excludes point-mass ties.
  • domain assumption Survival likelihood losses such as Cox, discrete-time NLL, and DeepHit are strictly proper scoring rules with the true conditional event distribution as population minimizer
    Section 3.5 and Appendix A.4 rely on this to argue the likelihood minimizer is a single distribution point rather than an ordering class; the Cox partial likelihood is not strictly proper in general, so the premise is overstated.
  • ad hoc to paper Corollary 2: after the ranking has approximately converged, the remaining likelihood gradient lies predominantly in the rank-preserving subspace
    Unproved training-dynamics assumption that bridges the existence of one descent direction to the claim that likelihood loss values become uninformative during actual training.
  • standard math Standard concentration tools: Hoeffding reduction, bounded differences, Rademacher complexity, Talagrand contraction
    Used in Proposition 3 to state a finite-sample value-monotonicity bound; the proof is sketched and suppresses a ratio-of-U-statistics normalization term.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27261 in / 15022 out tokens · 148901 ms · 2026-08-01T19:53:09.305680+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep survival models are evaluated almost exclusively by the concordance index (C-index), yet they are commonly trained using likelihood objectives such as the Cox partial likelihood, discrete-time negative log-likelihood, and DeepHit likelihood. This mismatch is usually considered acceptable because the C-index can be recomputed on validation data during training. However, for end-to-end training of high-capacity encoders on small, heavily censored oncology cohorts, frequent C-index evaluation is computationally expensive, making the loss value itself an important signal for monitoring, early stopping, and model selection. We show that likelihood losses are unreliable for this purpose and propose a value-monotone concordance loss. We prove that every strictly proper survival likelihood admits directions where the loss decreases while the C-index remains unchanged, causing the loss value to decouple from ranking performance. We then study a sigmoid concordance loss (SCL), whose value approximates one minus the C-index up to a temperature term, ensuring that lower loss corresponds to higher C-index during optimization. The loss is architecture agnostic and reduces to a convex survival ranking support vector machine for linear models. Across eighteen datasets from four modalities using a unified five-fold cross-validation protocol, SCL achieves discrimination comparable to standard likelihood losses and is the best or within one standard deviation of the best C-index. Unlike likelihood losses, SCL maintains a strong correlation between loss value and C-index during training, with rank correlations of 0.96 to 0.99 compared with -0.03 to 0.53 for likelihood losses. Calibration measured by the integrated Brier score is comparable. SCL provides a value-monotone optimization objective whose value can serve as a reliable surrogate for the C-index during expensive end-to-end training.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16802 by Jing Wang, Kai Wang, Meixu Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The decoupling mechanism on synthetic Cox data. Rescaling the risk score leaves the concordance index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the study design. For each modality a standard backbone maps the input to a scalar risk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coupling between the loss and the concordance index across the six imaging and tabular cohorts, measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training and validation trajectories for six losses on the METABRIC cohort (1904 patients, 801 events). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the selection regret across all eighteen datasets and four modalities, with one point per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of the likelihood anchor weight in the hybrid loss. The loss-metric coupling collapses as soon as any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. HERMES: A Hybrid Ensemble for Head-and-Neck Tumor Segmentation, TN Staging, and Recurrence-Free Survival on PET/CT

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On HECKTOR 2026, mask-derived geometry features for nodal staging gave out-of-fold balanced accuracy 0.720 vs 0.691 for radiomics (paired CI includes zero); on ground-truth masks the gap was 0.897 vs 0.837.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Harrell, Robert M

    Frank E. Harrell, Robert M. Califf, David B. Pryor, Kerry L. Lee, and Robert A. Rosati. Evaluating the yield of medical tests.JAMA, 247(18):2543–2546, 1982

    1982

  2. [2]

    Pencina, Ralph B

    Hajime Uno, Tianxi Cai, Michael J. Pencina, Ralph B. D’Agostino, and L. J. Wei. On the c-statistics for evaluating overall adequacy of risk prediction procedures with censored survival data.Statistics in Medicine, 30(10):1105–1117, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Katzman, Uri Shaham, Alexander Cloninger, Jonathan Bates, Tingting Jiang, and Yuval Kluger

    Jared L. Katzman, Uri Shaham, Alexander Cloninger, Jonathan Bates, Tingting Jiang, and Yuval Kluger. DeepSurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a Cox proportional hazards deep neural network.BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1):24, 2018. 18

    2018

  4. [4]

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

    1972

  5. [5]

    Zame, Jinsung Yoon, and Mihaela van der Schaar

    Changhee Lee, William R. Zame, Jinsung Yoon, and Mihaela van der Schaar. DeepHit: A deep learning approach to survival analysis with competing risks. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2314–2321, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Learning patient-specific cancer survival distributions as a sequence of dependent regressors

    Chun-Nam Yu, Russell Greiner, Hsiu-Chin Lin, and Vickie Baracos. Learning patient-specific cancer survival distributions as a sequence of dependent regressors. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 24, pages 1845–1853, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    Gensheimer and Balasubramanian Narasimhan

    Michael F. Gensheimer and Balasubramanian Narasimhan. A scalable discrete-time survival model for neural networks.PeerJ, 7:e6257, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Time-to-event prediction with neural networks and Cox regression.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(129):1–30, 2019

    Håvard Kvamme, Ørnulf Borgan, and Ida Scheel. Time-to-event prediction with neural networks and Cox regression.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(129):1–30, 2019

    2019

  9. [9]

    SODEN: A scalable continuous-time survival model through ordinary differential equation networks.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 (34):1–29, 2022

    Weijing Tang, Jiaqi Ma, Qiaozhu Mei, and Ji Zhu. SODEN: A scalable continuous-time survival model through ordinary differential equation networks.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 (34):1–29, 2022

    2022

  10. [10]

    Chirag Nagpal, Xinyu Rachel Li, and Artur Dubrawski. Deep survival machines: Fully parametric survival regression and representation learning for censored data with competing risks.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 25(8):3163–3175, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Chen, Ming Y

    Richard J. Chen, Ming Y . Lu, Drew F. K. Williamson, Tiffany Y . Chen, Jana Lipkova, Zahra Noor, Muhammad Shaban, Maha Shady, Mane Williams, Bumjin Joo, and Faisal Mahmood. Pan-cancer integrative histology-genomic analysis via multimodal deep learning.Cancer Cell, 40(8):865–878, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Chen, Ming Y

    Richard J. Chen, Ming Y . Lu, Wei-Hung Weng, Tiffany Y . Chen, Drew F. K. Williamson, Trevor Manz, Maha Shady, and Faisal Mahmood. Multimodal co-attention transformer for survival predic- tion in gigapixel whole slide images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 4015–4025, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Chen, Drew F

    Guillaume Jaume, Anurag Vaidya, Richard J. Chen, Drew F. K. Williamson, Paul Pu Liang, and Faisal Mahmood. Modeling dense multimodal interactions between biological pathways and histology for survival prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11579–11590, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    TripleSurv: Triplet time-adaptive coordinate learning approach for survival analysis.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(12):9464–9475, 2024

    Liwen Zhang, Lianzhen Zhong, Fan Yang, Di Dong, Hui Hui, and Jie Tian. TripleSurv: Triplet time-adaptive coordinate learning approach for survival analysis.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(12):9464–9475, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Chen, Tong Ding, Ming Y

    Richard J. Chen, Tong Ding, Ming Y . Lu, Drew F. K. Williamson, Guillaume Jaume, Andrew H. Song, Bowen Chen, Andrew Zhang, Daniel Shao, Muhammad Shaban, Mane Williams, Lukas Oldenburg, Luca L. Weishaupt, Judy J. Wang, Anurag Vaidya, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, Sharifa Sahai, Walt Williams, and Faisal Mahmood. Towards a general-purpose foundation model for ...

    2024

  16. [16]

    Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew F

    Ming Y . Lu, Bowen Chen, Drew F. K. Williamson, Richard J. Chen, Ivy Liang, Tong Ding, Guillaume Jaume, Igor Odintsov, Long Phi Le, Georg Gerber, Anil V . Parwani, Andrew Zhang, and Faisal Mahmood. A visual-language foundation model for computational pathology.Nature Medicine, 30(3):863–874, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Wagner, Andrew H

    Tong Ding, Sophia J. Wagner, Andrew H. Song, Richard J. Chen, Ming Y . Lu, Andrew Zhang, Anurag J. Vaidya, Guillaume Jaume, Muhammad Shaban, Ahrong Kim, Drew F. K. Williamson, Bowen Chen, and Faisal Mahmood. Multimodal whole slide foundation model for pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19666, 2024. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Harald Steck, Balaji Krishnapuram, Cary Dehing-Oberije, Philippe Lambin, and Vikas C. Raykar. On ranking in survival analysis: Bounds on the concordance index. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 20, 2007

    2007

  19. [19]

    On the consistency of AUC pairwise optimization

    Wei Gao and Zhi-Hua Zhou. On the consistency of AUC pairwise optimization. InProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 939–945, 2015

    2015

  20. [20]

    A statistical learning take on the concordance index for survival analysis

    Kevin Elgui, Alex Nowak, and Geneviève Robin. A statistical learning take on the concordance index for survival analysis. InProceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), volume 206 ofPMLR, pages 4712–4731, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Bartlett, Michael I

    Peter L. Bartlett, Michael I. Jordan, and Jon D. McAuliffe. Convexity, classification, and risk bounds.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(473):138–156, 2006

    2006

  22. [22]

    How to compare different loss functions and their risks.Constructive Approximation, 26(2):225–287, 2007

    Ingo Steinwart. How to compare different loss functions and their risks.Constructive Approximation, 26(2):225–287, 2007

    2007

  23. [23]

    Christopher J. C. Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Gregory N. Hullender. Learning to rank using gradient descent. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 89–96, 2005

    2005

  24. [24]

    A general approximation framework for direct optimization of information retrieval measures.Information Retrieval, 13(4):375–397, 2010

    Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, and Hang Li. A general approximation framework for direct optimization of information retrieval measures.Information Retrieval, 13(4):375–397, 2010

    2010

  25. [25]

    A multimodal and multi-centric head and neck cancer dataset for segmentation, diagnosis and outcome prediction

    Numan Saeed, Salma Hassan, Shahad Hardan, Ahmed Aly, Darya Taratynova, Umair Nawaz, Ufaq Khan, Muhammad Ridzuan, Vincent Andrearczyk, Adrien Depeursinge, et al. A multimodal and multi-centric head and neck cancer dataset for segmentation, diagnosis and outcome prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00367, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    HEad and neCK tumOR (HECKTOR) 2025: Benchmark of segmentation, diagnosis, and prognosis in multimodal PET/CT

    Numan Saeed, Salma Hassan, Shahad Hardan, Lishan Cai, Xinglong Liang, Moona Mazher, Abdul Qayyum, Vincent Andrearczyk, Adrien Depeursinge, Mathieu Hatt, et al. HEad and neCK tumOR (HECKTOR) 2025: Benchmark of segmentation, diagnosis, and prognosis in multimodal PET/CT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20143, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D

    Evan Calabrese, Javier E. Villanueva-Meyer, Jeffrey D. Rudie, Andreas M. Rauschecker, Ujjwal Baid, Spyridon Bakas, Soonmee Cha, John T. Mongan, and Christopher P. Hess. The university of california san francisco preoperative diffuse glioma MRI dataset.Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 4(6):e220058, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    The university of pennsylvania glioblastoma (UPenn-GBM) cohort: advanced MRI, clinical, genomics, & radiomics.Scientific Data, 9(1):453, 2022

    Spyridon Bakas, Aristeidis Sotiras, Michel Bilello, Martin Rozycki, Ujjwal Baid, et al. The university of pennsylvania glioblastoma (UPenn-GBM) cohort: advanced MRI, clinical, genomics, & radiomics.Scientific Data, 9(1):453, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Shah, Suet-Feung Chin, Gulisa Turashvili, Oscar M

    Christina Curtis, Sohrab P. Shah, Suet-Feung Chin, Gulisa Turashvili, Oscar M. Rueda, Mark J. Dunning, Doug Speed, Andy G. Lynch, Shamith Samarajiwa, Yinyin Yuan, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups.Nature, 486(7403): 346–352, 2012

    2012

  30. [30]

    Knaus, Frank E

    William A. Knaus, Frank E. Harrell, Joanne Lynn, Lee Goldman, Russell S. Phillips, Alfred F. Connors, Neal V . Dawson, William J. Fulkerson, Robert M. Califf, et al. The SUPPORT prognostic model: Objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults.Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(3):191–203, 1995

    1995

  31. [31]

    Schumacher, G

    M. Schumacher, G. Bastert, H. Bojar, K. Hübner, M. Olschewski, W. Sauerbrei, C. Schmoor, C. Beyerle, R. D. Neumann, and H. F. Rauschecker. Randomized 2 x 2 trial evaluating hormonal treatment and the duration of chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer patients. german breast cancer study group.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12(10):2086–2093, 1994

    2086

  32. [32]

    Katzmann, Robert A

    Angela Dispenzieri, Jerry A. Katzmann, Robert A. Kyle, Dirk R. Larson, Terry M. Therneau, Colin L. Colby, Raynell J. Clark, Graham P. Mead, Shaji Kumar, L. Joseph Melton, and S. Vincent 20 Rajkumar. Use of nonclonal serum immunoglobulin free light chains to predict overall survival in the general population.Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 87(6):517–523, 2012

    2012

  33. [33]

    Hosmer, Stanley Lemeshow, and Susanne May.Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time-to-Event Data

    David W. Hosmer, Stanley Lemeshow, and Susanne May.Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time-to-Event Data. John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition, 2008

    2008

  34. [34]

    Therneau and Patricia M

    Terry M. Therneau and Patricia M. Grambsch.Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. Springer, 2000

    2000

  35. [35]

    Loprinzi, John A

    Charles L. Loprinzi, John A. Laurie, H. Sam Wieand, James E. Krook, Paul J. Novotny, John W. Kugler, Joan Bartel, Marlene Law, Marilyn Bateman, Nancy E. Klatt, et al. Prospective evaluation of prognostic variables from patient-completed questionnaires. north central cancer treatment group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12(3):601–607, 1994

    1994

  36. [36]

    Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program

    National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. https: //www.seer.cancer.gov. DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program

  37. [37]

    Weinstein, Eric A

    John N. Weinstein, Eric A. Collisson, Gordon B. Mills, Kenna R. Mills Shaw, Brad A. Ozenberger, Kyle Ellrott, Ilya Shmulevich, Chris Sander, Joshua M. Stuart, and The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project.Nature Genetics, 45(10): 1113–1120, 2013

    2013

  38. [38]

    Simpson, Jacob Peoples, John M

    Amber L. Simpson, Jacob Peoples, John M. Creasy, Gabor Fichtinger, Natalie Gangai, Krishna N. Keshavamurthy, Andras Lasso, Jinru Shia, Michael I. D’Angelica, and Richard K. G. Do. Preopera- tive CT and survival data for patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases.Scientific Data, 11(1):172, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository.Journal of Digital Imaging, 26(6):1045–1057, 2013

    Kenneth Clark, Bruce Vendt, Kirk Smith, John Freymann, Justin Kirby, Paul Koppel, Stephen Moore, Stanley Phillips, David Maffitt, Michael Pringle, Lawrence Tarbox, and Fred Prior. The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository.Journal of Digital Imaging, 26(6):1045–1057, 2013

    2013

  40. [40]

    Kogalur, Eugene H

    Hemant Ishwaran, Udaya B. Kogalur, Eugene H. Blackstone, and Michael S. Lauer. Random survival forests.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2(3):841–860, 2008

    2008

  41. [41]

    Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data.Statistics in Medicine, 18(17-18):2529–2545, 1999

    Erika Graf, Claudia Schmoor, Willi Sauerbrei, and Martin Schumacher. Assessment and comparison of prognostic classification schemes for survival data.Statistics in Medicine, 18(17-18):2529–2545, 1999

    1999

  42. [42]

    Norman E. Breslow. Contribution to the discussion of the paper by D.R. Cox.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 34(2):216–217, 1972

    1972

  43. [43]

    Bartlett and Shahar Mendelson

    Peter L. Bartlett and Shahar Mendelson. Rademacher and Gaussian complexities: Risk bounds and structural results.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:463–482, 2002

    2002

  44. [44]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301):13–30, 1963

    Wassily Hoeffding. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301):13–30, 1963

    1963

  45. [45]

    On the method of bounded differences

    Colin McDiarmid. On the method of bounded differences. InSurveys in Combinatorics, 1989, volume 141 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pages 148–188. Cambridge University Press, 1989

    1989

  46. [46]

    Springer-Verlag, 1991

    Michel Ledoux and Michel Talagrand.Probability in Banach Spaces: Isoperimetry and Processes. Springer-Verlag, 1991. 21 Supplementary Material A value-monotone concordance loss for trustworthy deep survival prediction This supplement reports per-dataset results that are summarized in the main text. All numbers come from the same five-fold cross-validation ...

    1991