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.

Consistency of the weighted logrank variance estimate

Statement

Assume the two-group common-hazard model with finite-horizon predictable risk processes and the explicit square-integrable martingale contracts Mgi=Ngi−Agi, Agi(t)=∫0tYgi(s)λ(s) ds; assume no simultaneous event jumps. Let Yg,n=∑iYgi, Yn=Y0,n+Y1,n, and assume the uniform risk-fraction convergence Yn/n→y and pn=Y1,n/Yn→zˉ in probability on [0,τ], with pn=0 on an empty risk set (as proved in Uniform convergence of the risk-set treatment fraction). Let wn→w uniformly in probability, where the predictable weights are uniformly bounded and w is deterministic. Suppose event times are continuous, so every observed failure time has dj=1 almost surely. Here V^n,wn is the plug-in statistic defined in Two-group logrank and weighted logrank scores; the claim is its asymptotic consistency and does not assert an exact finite-sample conditional variance law. Here y0,y1 are deterministic nonnegative Borel functions, y=y0+y1, inf⁡0≤t≤τy(t)>0, and zˉ=y1/y. Define σw2:=∫0τw(t)2y0(t)y1(t)y(t)λ(t) dt. Then the weighted plug-in variance sum from Two-group logrank and weighted logrank scores satisfies V^n,wnn⟶Pσw2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The model and convergence hypotheses in the Statement, with finite horizon and Λ(τ)<∞.

[A1]

Assume the Axiom of Choice inherited from the counting-process martingale and integral interfaces. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

Two-group logrank and weighted logrank scores: V^n,wn=∑jwn(tj)2Vj and Vj is the stated conditional risk-set variance.

[F2]

Two-group logrank and weighted logrank scores: the plug-in contribution is Vj=Y1,n(tj)Y0,n(tj)dj(Yn(tj)−dj)/(Yn(tj)2(Yn(tj)−1)) for Yn(tj)>1, and zero for Yn(tj)=1.

[F3]

Uniform convergence of the risk-set treatment fraction: pn→zˉ and Yn/n→y uniformly in probability on [0,τ].

[F4]

Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract: for the aggregate simple process the compensator is An=∫Ynλ and Mn=Nn−An is a square-integrable martingale under the separately stated model contract.

[F5]

Brackets of a compensated simple counting process: Mn2−An is a martingale and its predictable bracket is An.

[F6]

L² extension of the predictable counting-process integral: for predictable h with finite compensator energy, E(∫h dMn)2=E∫h2 dAn.

Proof

1.1F1F2given

Since dj=1, the variance formula [F2] reduces to Vj=Y1,n(tj)Y0,n(tj)/Yn(tj)2=pn(tj)(1−pn(tj)) when Yn(tj)>1. If Yn(tj)=1, both groups' product is zero and [F1] assigns variance zero. Thus V^n,wnn=1n∫0τwn(t)2pn(t)(1−pn(t)) dNn(t).

2.1F1F3givenstep 1.1algebra

Uniform convergence of wn to w and of pn to zˉ, together with their uniform bounds, gives sup⁡t≤τ∣wn(t)2pn(t)(1−pn(t))−w(t)2zˉ(t)(1−zˉ(t))∣→P0. Because Nn(τ)≤n, replacing the integrand in step 1.1 by h(t):=w(t)2zˉ(t)(1−zˉ(t)) changes the normalized integral by at most this supremum, hence by oP(1).

3.1A1F4F5F6givenstep 2.1

The aggregate process Nn is simple because no two subjects jump simultaneously, and An(τ)≤nΛ(τ). The deterministic h is bounded and predictable, so [F4]-[F6] give E[{1n∫0τh(t) dMn(t)}2]=1n2E∫0τh(t)2 dAn(t)≤∥h∥∞2Λ(τ)n⟶0. Hence the martingale part of the normalized variance sum tends to zero in probability.

4.1F3givenstep 1.1step 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

The compensator part of that sum is 1n∫0τh(t) dAn(t)=∫0τh(t)Yn(t)nλ(t) dt. Uniform convergence of Yn/n to y and ∫0τλ(t) dt<∞ make this converge in probability to ∫0τh(t)y(t)λ(t) dt. Since zˉ=y1/y, the limit is ∫0τw(t)2y0(t)y1(t)y(t)−1λ(t) dt=σw2. Combining this with steps 2.1 and 3.1 proves the assertion.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

31 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