Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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 convergence of the empirical right-censoring risk set

Statement

Let U1,U2,… be IID real-valued observed times. For every positive integer n, define Yˉn(u)=n−1∑i=1n1{Ui≥u} and s0(u)=P(Ui≥u). For every finite t≥0, sup⁡0≤u≤t∣Yˉn(u)−s0(u)∣→P0,E[sup⁡0≤u≤t∣Yˉn(u)−s0(u)∣2]→0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The observed times Ui are IID real random variables; Yi(u)=1{Ui≥u}.

[F1]

The at-risk process is Yi(u)=1{Ui≥u}. (Nelson–Aalen, Kaplan–Meier, and Greenwood estimators)

[F2]

IID means a common law and mutual independence across the whole subject family. (Identical distribution and IID families)

Proof

1.1F1F2algebra

Put Vi=−Ui, let F(x)=P(Vi≤x), and let Fn(x)=n−1∑i=1n1{Vi≤x}. Then Yˉn(u)=Fn(−u) and s0(u)=F(−u). Both CDFs are right-continuous, so their supremum error over R is the supremum over rational x; over [−t,0] it is the supremum over (Q∩[−t,0))∪{0} (with {0} alone when t=0). Thus both suprema are measurable. Fix 0<ε<1. Choose the finitely many distinct quantiles xk=inf⁡{x:F(x)≥kε} for 1≤k<1/ε, together with x0=−∞ and xm+1=+∞, where m is the number of distinct finite cutpoints. Between consecutive distinct quantiles xj<xj+1, the quantile construction gives F(xj+1−)−F(xj)≤ε; any jump at a cutpoint is isolated as its singleton point. At each finite cutpoint, both Fn(xj) and Fn(xj−) converge in probability to their expectations by Chebyshev's inequality applied to the IID indicators 1{Vi≤xj} and 1{Vi<xj}. For x∈(xj,xj+1), monotonicity gives Fn(xj)≤Fn(x)≤Fn(xj+1−) and F(xj)≤F(x)≤F(xj+1−); hence ∣Fn(x)−F(x)∣ is at most the largest one-sided endpoint error plus ε. At singleton cutpoints, direct endpoint convergence applies. Taking the maximum over the finite partition, then n→∞ and ε↓0, proves the first convergence.

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

Let Zn=sup⁡0≤u≤t∣Yˉn(u)−s0(u)∣. Since Zn≤1, for every η>0, E[Zn2]≤η2+P(Zn>η). Step 1.1 makes the second term tend to zero; then letting η↓0 proves the expected-square convergence.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

6 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