MOTIVATION: This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. Benchmark experiments are essential in methodological research to scientifically compare new and existing model classes through proper empirical evaluation. Existing benchmarks in the survival literature are smaller in scale regarding the number of used datasets and extent of empirical evaluation. They often lack appropriate tuning or evaluation procedures, while other comparison studies focus on qualitative reviews rather than quantitative comparisons. This comprehensive study aims to fill the gap by neutrally evaluating a broad range of methods and providing generalizable guidelines for practitioners. RESULTS: We benchmark 21 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 34 publicly available datasets. The benchmark tunes models using both a discrimination measure (Harrell's C-index) and a scoring rule (Integrated Survival Brier Score), and evaluates them across six metrics covering discrimination, calibration, and overall predictive performance. Despite superior average ranks in overall predictive performance from individual learners like oblique random survival forests and likelihood-based boosting, and better discrimination rankings from multiple boosting- and tree-based methods as well as parametric survival models, no method statistically significantly outperforms the commonly used Cox proportional hazards model for either tuning measure. We conclude that while the Cox Proportional Hazards model remains a robust default for low-dimensional, right-censored survival data, more flexible methods may be preferable for specific dataset characteristics. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All code, data, and results are publicly available on GitHub https://github.com/slds-lmu/paper_2023_survival_benchmark and archived on Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19075310.

This paper proposes a method for measuring conditional feature importance via generative modeling. In explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), conditional feature importance assesses the impact of a feature on a prediction model's performance given the information of other features. Model-agnostic post hoc methods to do so typically evaluate changes in the predictive performance under on-manifold feature value manipulations. Such procedures require creating feature values that respect conditional feature distributions, which can be challenging in practice. Recent advancements in generative modeling can facilitate this. For tabular data, which may consist of both categorical and continuous features, the adversarial random forest (ARF) stands out as a generative model that can generate on-manifold data points without requiring intensive tuning efforts or computational resources, making it a promising candidate model for subroutines in XAI methods. This paper proposes cARFi (conditional ARF feature importance), a method for measuring conditional feature importance through feature values sampled from ARF-estimated conditional distributions. cARFi requires only little tuning to yield robust importance scores that can flexibly adapt for conditional or marginal notions of feature importance, including straightforward extensions to condition on feature subsets and allows for inferring the significance of feature importances through statistical tests.