Survival analysis on tabular data is a well-studied problem. However, existing deep learning methods are often highly task-specific, which can limit the transfer of new approaches from other domains and introduce constraints that may affect performance. We propose TabSurv, an approach that adapts modern tabular architectures to survival analysis using either the Weibull distribution or non-parametric survival prediction. TabSurv optimizes SurvHL, a novel histogram loss function supporting censored data. In addition to a baseline feed-forward network, we implement deep ensembles of MLPs for survival analysis within TabSurv. In contrast to prior work, the ensemble components are trained in parallel, optimizing survival distribution parameters before averaging, which promotes diversity across ensemble component predictions. We perform a comprehensive empirical evaluation of different proposed architectures on 10 diverse real-world survival datasets. Our results show that TabSurv consistently outperforms on average established classical and deep learning baselines, such as RSF, DeepSurv, DeepHit, SurvTRACE. Notably, deep ensembles with Weibull parametrization instead of non-parametric models achieve the highest average rank by C-index. Overall, our study clarifies how modern tabular neural networks can be adapted and trained to tackle survival analysis problems, offering a strong and reliable approach. The TabSurv implementation is publicly available.

Time series forecasting models often exhibit inconsistent performance across datasets with varying statistical and structural properties. Despite the wide range of available forecasting techniques, it remains unclear whether model selection can be reliably guided by simple data characteristics. This paper investigates why rule-based model selection fails in time series forecasting by analyzing the relationship between data-regime descriptors and model performance. A descriptor-based framework is introduced to characterize time series using measurable properties, including trend strength, seasonality, noise level, and temporal dependence. Based on these descriptors, a rule-based selection mechanism is formulated to map data regimes to candidate forecasting models. The approach is evaluated on multiple real-world datasets across different domains and forecasting horizons. The results show that rule-based model selection achieves low accuracy, with correct model identification occurring in only a small fraction of cases. Significant discrepancies are observed between recommended and empirically optimal models, particularly in noisy and mixed regimes. Further analysis reveals that model performance is highly sensitive to both dataset characteristics and forecasting horizon, resulting in substantial ranking instability across scenarios. These findings explain why simple heuristic rules fail to generalize and demonstrate that forecasting performance cannot be reliably predicted using static, descriptor-based approaches. This study provides empirical evidence that model selection in time series forecasting is inherently context-dependent and highlights the need for more adaptive, data-driven strategies.

Evaluating the performance of machine learning models on diverse and underrepresented subgroups is essential for ensuring fairness and reliability in real-world applications. However, accurately assessing model performance becomes challenging due to two main issues: (1) a scarcity of test data, especially for small subgroups, and (2) possible distributional shifts in the model's deployment setting, which may not align with the available test data. In this work, we introduce 3STesting, a deep generative modeling framework to facilitate model evaluation by generating synthetic test sets for small subgroups and simulating distributional shifts. Our experiments demonstrate that 3STesting outperforms traditional baselines--including real test data alone--in estimating model performance on minority subgroups and under plausible distributional shifts. In addition, 3S offers intervals around its performance estimates, exhibiting superior coverage of the ground truth compared to existing approaches. Overall, these results raise the question of whether we need a paradigm shift away from limited real test data towards synthetic test data.

As regression is a widely studied problem, many methods have been proposed to solve it, each of them often requiring setting different hyper-parameters. Therefore, selecting the proper method for a given application may be very difficult and relies on comparing their performances. Performance is usually measured using various metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), or R-squared (R${}^2$). These metrics provide a numerical summary of predictive accuracy by quantifying the difference between predicted and actual values. However, while these metrics are widely used in the literature for summarizing model performance and useful to distinguish between models performing poorly and well, they often aggregate too much information. This article addresses these limitations by introducing a novel visualization approach that highlights key aspects of regression model performance. The proposed method builds upon three main contributions: (1) considering the residuals in a 2D space, which allows for simultaneous evaluation of errors from two models, (2) leveraging the Mahalanobis distance to account for correlations and differences in scale within the data, and (3) employing a colormap to visualize the percentile-based distribution of errors, making it easier to identify dense regions and outliers. By graphically representing the distribution of errors and their correlations, this approach provides a more detailed and comprehensive view of model performance, enabling users to uncover patterns that traditional aggregate metrics may obscure. The proposed visualization method facilitates a deeper understanding of regression model performance differences and error distributions, enhancing the evaluation and comparison process.