Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Uniform Cox partial-likelihood Hessian convergence

Statement

Use the IID bounded-covariate setup and the risk-support and compact-set hypotheses of Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums. For each subject let Ni(t)=1{Ui≤t,δi=1} and Ai(t)=∫0tYi(u)eβ0TZi(u)λ0(u) du. Assume the continuous counting-process contract of Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract for each Mi=Ni−Ai on one common filtration, and assume no two subjects fail at the same time. Write N⋅=∑iNi, A⋅=∑iAi, and M=N⋅−A⋅. For β∈B, let Vn(t,β)=Sn(2)(t,β)Sn(0)(t,β)−Zˉn(t,β)Zˉn(t,β)T,V(t,β)=s(2)(t,β)s(0)(t,β)−zˉ(t,β)zˉ(t,β)T, using zero values when a finite-sample denominator is zero. Let Un(β)=∂βlog⁡Lp(β) and Hn(β)=∂βUn(β)T. Define J(β)=∫0τV(t,β)s(0)(t,β0)λ0(t) dt. Then the partial log-likelihood Hessian satisfies sup⁡β∈B∥n−1Hn(β)+J(β)∥max⁡⟶P0. The map J:B→Rp×p is continuous. In particular, J(β0)=I, where I=∫0τ{s(2)(t,β0)−s(1)(t,β0)s(1)(t,β0)Ts(0)(t,β0)}λ0(t) dt.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The integrated risk-set hypotheses, fixed p, bounded predictable covariates, integrable λ0, no tied failures, and the per-subject continuous counting-process contracts in the Statement.

[F1]

Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood: the no-tie partial likelihood uses R(t)={j:Uj≥t} and weights eβTZj(t).

[F2]

Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums: the risk sums, weighted means and covariances converge in expected squared error integrated against λ0(t)dt, uniformly in parameter, and empirical denominators have a uniform positive bound with probability tending to one.

[L1]

Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract: for a simple counting process, the specified continuous compensator is At=∫0tYsλs ds, and the model contract assumes M=N−A is a square-integrable martingale.

[L2]

Brackets of a compensated simple counting process: for that contract, M2−A is a martingale and the continuous predictable bracket is A.

[L3]

L² extension of the predictable counting-process integral: a predictable integrand with finite E∫H2 dA has a square-integrable integral with E(∫H dM)2=E∫H2 dA.

[F3]

Stochastic order and convergence notation for finite-dimensional random vectors: Xn=OP(1) means the sequence is bounded in probability.

[F4]

Progressively measurable and predictable processes: bounded predictable processes are jointly measurable, and deterministic Borel functions of time are predictable.

[F5]

Pathwise identity for bounded predictable counting-process integrals: bounded predictable stochastic integrals equal their pathwise dN−dA expressions, and E∫GdN=E∫GdA for nonnegative predictable G.

[F6]

Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for L2: on every measure space, ∫∣fg∣dμ≤∥f∥2∥g∥2 for square-integrable f,g.

[A1]

AC is inherited through the counting-process martingale and conditional-expectation interfaces. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

technique · Differentiate the likelihood, use the integrated risk-set law in the compensator term, and control the empirical covariance martingale integral by isometry and finite parameter nets
1.1A1F1F2F4F5given

At each recorded failure the risk set contains its failing subject, so its denominator is positive for every β, even if risk sets are empty at other times. Differentiate the finite sum defining log⁡Lp to obtain Un(β)=∑i∫(Zi−Zˉn(t,β)) dNi and Hn(β)=−∫Vn(t,β) dN⋅. Define Vn=0 on empty risk sets. It is predictable, its entries are bounded by 2K2, and [F5] permits the pathwise decomposition against dN⋅=dM+dA⋅.

2.1F5L1L2L3step 1.1algebra

Since subjects have no simultaneous failures, N⋅ is simple; M=∑iMi is square-integrable and has continuous compensator A⋅=∑iAi. Its total compensator satisfies A⋅(τ)≤neK∥β0∥2∥λ0∥1, and EN⋅(τ)=EA⋅(τ) by [F5]. Thus the aggregate contract holds and [L2]–[L3] apply. For each fixed β, including the random predictable Vn(t,β), their isometry bounds E∥n−1∫Vn(t,β)dM∥F2≤C/n.

3.1F2F3F5L3step 2.1constructalgebra

The parameter maps Vn(t,β) have a deterministic Lipschitz bound independent of n,t: on a nonempty risk set, differentiating a weighted expectation of a bounded coordinate g(Z) gives En,β[gZ]−En,β[g]En,β[Z], bounded by 2Ksup⁡∣g∣; apply this to g=Zj,ZjZk and the covariance product. An empty risk set is empty for every parameter, so its zero convention also has this bound. The population maps satisfy the same bounds by differentiation under their bounded expectations and positive denominators. A finite ε-net of B and step 2.1 control n−1∫VndM on net points. Between points, [F5] bounds the difference by Cε(N⋅(τ)+A⋅(τ))/n=OP(ε); letting ε↓0 proves its uniform parameter convergence to zero. The population Lipschitz bound and integrability of s(0)(t,β0)λ0(t) also prove continuity of J.

4.1F2F6step 1.1step 3.1algebra∎

The compensator term equals ∫Vn(t,β)Sn(0)(t,β0)λ0(t)dt. Its difference from J(β) is bounded uniformly in parameter by C∫0τ{sup⁡β∈B∥Vn(t,β)−V(t,β)∥max⁡+∣Sn(0)(t,β0)−s(0)(t,β0)∣}λ0(t)dt. [F6] and [F2]'s expected integrated squared-error convergence make this bound tend to zero in L¹ and hence probability (if ∥λ0∥1=0, the bound is zero directly). Combine this with step 3.1 and the Hessian identity in step 1.1 to prove the stated uniform parameter limit. Finally J(β0)=I by direct multiplication of V(t,β0) by s(0)(t,β0).

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

46 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources