aiqbench analysis
This article addresses the lack of standardized evaluation methods in survival analysis by introducing an open-source framework specifically designed to benchmark competing risks models across multiple datasets and performance metrics. By extending SHAP for time-dependent interpretability, it provides a crucial tool for researchers aiming to systematically compare machine learning approaches where event occurrence precludes others. This work directly advances methodological rigor within the broader field of statistical machine learning rather than focusing on consumer applications or general AI infrastructure.
A reproducible and extensible framework for benchmarking competing risks survival models
arXiv:2608.00271v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A wide range of statistical and machine learning methods have been proposed for survival analysis with competing risks, where the occurrence of one event (i.e., cancer death) precludes the occurrence of other events (i.e., cardiovascular disease death). Despite these methodological advances, their systematic evaluation and adoption are limited by the lack of comprehensive, reproducible and extensible benchmarking frameworks. We developed an open-source benchmarking framework for competing risks models that enables their systematic comparison across multiple datasets under different aspects of performance; calibration, discrimination, overall prediction error and clinical utility. We additionally introduce an extension of SHAP for competing risks, allowing model-agnostic interpretability of covariates contributions over time. All our code is publicly available via GitHub:https://github.com/BBolosSierra/CompRisksBenchmark
Abstract:A wide range of statistical and machine learning methods have been proposed for survival analysis with competing risks, where the occurrence of one event (i.e., cancer death) precludes the occurrence of other events (i.e., cardiovascular disease death). Despite these methodological advances, their systematic evaluation and adoption are limited by the lack of comprehensive, reproducible and extensible benchmarking frameworks. We developed an open-source benchmarking framework for competing risks models that enables their systematic comparison across multiple datasets under different aspects of performance; calibration, discrimination, overall prediction error and clinical utility. We additionally introduce an extension of SHAP for competing risks, allowing model-agnostic interpretability of covariates contributions over time. All our code is publicly available via GitHub:this https URL
Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.00271 [stat.ML]
(or arXiv:2608.00271v1 [stat.ML] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.00271 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 212 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

AI and Quantum Computing Briefing
livetradingnews.com · Aug 4, 2026