BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Raphael Sonabend

Raphael Sonabend contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningMethodologyApplicationscs.CYmath.STSoftware EngineeringStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures

In this paper we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is a non-trivial problem as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages. Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons. We find that the most robust method of reducing a distribution to a risk is to sum over the predicted cumulative hazard. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation. The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Flexible Group Fairness Metrics for Survival Analysis

Algorithmic fairness is an increasingly important field concerned with detecting and mitigating biases in machine learning models. There has been a wealth of literature for algorithmic fairness in regression and classification however there has been little exploration of the field for survival analysis. Survival analysis is the prediction task in which one attempts to predict the probability of an event occurring over time. Survival predictions are particularly important in sensitive settings such as when utilising machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis of patients. In this paper we explore how to utilise existing survival metrics to measure bias with group fairness metrics. We explore this in an empirical experiment with 29 survival datasets and 8 measures. We find that measures of discrimination are able to capture bias well whereas there is less clarity with measures of calibration and scoring rules. We suggest further areas for research including prediction-based fairness metrics for distribution predictions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Designing Machine Learning Toolboxes: Concepts, Principles and Patterns

Machine learning (ML) and AI toolboxes such as scikit-learn or Weka are workhorses of contemporary data scientific practice -- their central role being enabled by usable yet powerful designs that allow to easily specify, train and validate complex modeling pipelines. However, despite their universal success, the key design principles in their construction have never been fully analyzed. In this paper, we attempt to provide an overview of key patterns in the design of AI modeling toolboxes, taking inspiration, in equal parts, from the field of software engineering, implementation patterns found in contemporary toolboxes, and our own experience from developing ML toolboxes. In particular, we develop a conceptual model for the AI/ML domain, with a new type system, called scientific types, at its core. Scientific types capture the scientific meaning of common elements in ML workflows based on the set of operations that we usually perform with them (i.e. their interface) and their statistical properties. From our conceptual analysis, we derive a set of design principles and patterns. We illustrate that our analysis can not only explain the design of existing toolboxes, but also guide the development of new ones. We intend our contribution to be a state-of-art reference for future toolbox engineers, a summary of best practices, a collection of ML design patterns which may become useful for future research, and, potentially, the first steps towards a higher-level programming paradigm for constructing AI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access