Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 5 results · all verified · 5 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 5 also cleared it.

Cox PH and partial likelihood

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page specifies the Cox conditional event-intensity model, risk-set partial likelihood, and hazard-ratio interpretation. Its asymptotic result is conditional on independent subjects, bounded predictable covariates, positive limiting risk support, a nonsingular information matrix, a consistent score root. Integrated risk-set control is proved for arbitrary bounded predictable paths; stronger uniform-in-time control is separately qualified by its exact empirical-process hypotheses.

The estimator expansion is proved from local risk-set, Hessian, and score-martingale arguments. The counting-process martingale property is stated as a model contract. A terminal normal limit follows only after the expansion through the separate independent-subject result. Neither the model nor its fitted hazard ratio establishes empirical adequacy or causality.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood

Definition

Fix a finite horizon τ>0 and a fixed dimension p≥1. Work on a probability space with an increasing filtration (Ft)0≤t≤τ as in Continuous-time filtrations and all-pairs martingales. For subject i, let Ti be an event time, Ci a censoring time, and Zi(t)∈Rp a covariate process predictable relative to this filtration, in the sense of Progressively measurable and predictable processes. Use the right-censoring record convention of Event-time observation, censoring, and truncation schemes: Ui=min⁡(Ti,Ci) and δi=1{Ti≤Ci}. For this vector covariate process, predictability means coordinatewise predictability: each real-valued coordinate is predictable in the sense of Progressively measurable and predictable processes. Define the history sigma-algebra Gi:=σ{Zi(t):0≤t≤τ}. The conditional-independence assumption is Ti⊥ ⁣ ⁣ ⁣⊥Ci∣Gi, meaning that for all bounded measurable real functions a,b, E[a(Ti)b(Ci)∣Gi]=E[a(Ti)∣Gi]E[b(Ci)∣Gi] almost surely, as in Conditional independence given a sigma-algebra. This conditional-independence relation is a model assumption, not an empirical conclusion. No conditional-kernel representation given the entire covariate path is assumed here.

A Cox proportional-hazards specification fixes a coefficient β0∈Rp and a baseline hazard density λ0:[0,τ]→[0,∞) that is measurable and integrable. Its baseline cumulative hazard is the absolutely continuous function Λ0(t)=∫0tλ0(u) du. The conditional event intensity at time t for subject i, while that subject is at risk, is Yi(t)λ0(t)exp⁡{β0TZi(t)},Yi(t):=1{Ui≥t}. These specify the conditional event-intensity component. The law of the covariate paths and the censoring law subject to the stated conditional-independence assumption remain nuisance components and are not fixed here. Thus this is a semiparametric model specification; (β0,λ0) alone do not define a full parametric statistical experiment on the observed-data space. For the counting-process arguments below, require Yi to be predictable as well; this is part of the stated observation model and is not inferred from the hazard formula alone. For a constant covariate value z, the corresponding event survival function is S(t∣z)=exp⁡{−eβ0TzΛ0(t)}. For fixed covariate values z,z′∈Rp, at times with λ0(t)>0 the hazard ratio is λ0(t)eβTzλ0(t)eβTz′=eβT(z−z′). The relative hazard factor is eβT(z−z′) even at times when both baseline-scaled hazards vanish and their quotient is undefined. It is an instantaneous hazard ratio, not a ratio of cumulative event probabilities. For time-varying covariate paths z(t),z′(t) the instantaneous relative hazard factor is eβT(z(t)−z′(t)) and may vary with time.

For a sample of n subjects, put R(t)={j:Uj≥t}. When failures are untied, the Cox partial likelihood on [0,τ] is Lp(β)=∏i: δi=1, Ui≤τexp⁡{βTZi(Ui)}∑j∈R(Ui)exp⁡{βTZj(Ui)}. An empty product is 1. This partial likelihood is built from risk-set contributions; it is not asserted to be the full likelihood of the censored observations.

Tied-event likelihoods require an explicit time-recording convention. Put D(t)={i:Ui=t,δi=1} and dt=∣D(t)∣. If a discrete or grouped-time model conditions on exactly dt failures from D(t)⊆R(t) at recorded time t with the risk set fixed for that time, additionally assume that, conditional on that risk set, its covariate weights, and dt=d, the failure subset law assigns each size-d set A⊆R(t) probability proportional to ∏j∈Awj(t). Under this explicit subset-law assumption, its exact conditional tie contribution is ∏i∈D(t)wi(t)∑A⊆R(t)∣A∣=dt ∏j∈Awj(t),wj(t):=exp⁡{βTZj(t)}. For the separate exact Cox tied-partial-likelihood convention obtained by coarsening a continuous-time ordering into one recorded tie interval, assume the risk set at the interval start is R(t), its only within-interval departures are the dt failures in D(t), and the covariates are fixed at the recorded time. Conditional on each successive failure, the next failure label is chosen from the remaining risk set with probability proportional to its weight. Summing these order contributions gives the ordered-risk-set conditional partial-likelihood contribution ∑π∈Perm⁡(D(t))∏k=1dtwπk(t)∑j∈R(t)wj(t)−∑ℓ<kwπℓ(t). Here Perm⁡(D(t)) is the set of bijections from {1,…,dt} to D(t). The discrete subset expression is exact under its explicit subset-law convention, and the permutation expression is exact for its stated partial-likelihood ordering convention; the latter is not generally the full likelihood of interval-coarsened censored observations. These conventions are not interchangeable without a model relating them. The Breslow and Efron tie formulas are approximations, respectively LB(β)=∏t:dt>0∏i∈D(t)wi(t)(∑j∈R(t)wj(t))dt and LE(β)=∏t:dt>0∏i∈D(t)wi(t)∏k=0dt−1(∑j∈R(t)wj(t)−kdt∑i∈D(t)wi(t)). With an absolutely continuous event hazard and independent subjects, exact event-time ties have probability zero; grouped-time tie formulas describe additional observation/model conventions.

For a discrete event-time law, the survival relation S(t∣z)=S0(t)eβTz describes proportional integrated hazards and is not equivalent in general to a hazard-ratio model. The proportional-hazards and proportional-integrated-hazards formulations agree under the continuity condition on the baseline survival; the hazard-density model above uses the absolutely continuous convention.

The counting-process martingale property used for inference is a separate model-contract assumption in the estimator theorem below. The hazard formula by itself does not assert that a compensated event count is a martingale. The Axiom of Choice is inherited from the cited event-observation and predictability interfaces; this definition makes no further choice.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums

Statement

Let Oi=(Ti,Ci,Zi(⋅)), i≥1, be IID subject records with law P, with jointly measurable predictable covariates, p<∞, and ∥Zi(t)∥2≤K for all i,t outside one null event. Let B⊂Rp be compact and contain β0. With Yi(t)=1{Ui≥t}, define, for r=0,1,2, Sn(r)(t,β)=1n∑i=1nYi(t)Zi(t)⊗reβTZi(t),s(r)(t,β)=EP[Yi(t)Zi(t)⊗reβTZi(t)], where Z⊗0=1, Z⊗1=Z, and Z⊗2=ZZT. Suppose c0:=inf⁡t≤τs(0)(t,β0)>0. For every finite deterministic measure ν(dt)=w(t) dt with nonnegative integrable density w, put Dn(t)=max⁡r=0,1,2sup⁡β∈B∥Sn(r)(t,β)−s(r)(t,β)∥max⁡. Then for each fixed t, E[Dn(t)2]→0, and E∫0τDn(t)2 ν(dt)⟶0. There are measurable events En with P(En)→1 and a constant c>0 such that on En, Sn(0)(t,β)≥cfor every t≤τ, β∈B. Define Zˉn=Sn(1)/Sn(0) and Vn=Sn(2)/Sn(0)−ZˉnZˉnT, setting each to zero at a zero denominator, and define zˉ=s(1)/s(0), V=s(2)/s(0)−zˉzˉT. Their fixed-time and integrated parameter-uniform errors satisfy Esup⁡β∈B∥Zˉn(t,β)−zˉ(t,β)∥22→0,Esup⁡β∈B∥Vn(t,β)−V(t,β)∥max⁡2→0, E∫0τsup⁡β∈B ⁣{∥Zˉn−zˉ∥22+∥Vn−V∥max⁡2}ν(dt)⟶0. These conclusions require no regularity of the time-indexed covariate class beyond bounded predictability. In particular take ν(dt)=λ0(t) dt.

The stronger uniform-in-time conclusion remains valid under the following additional, sufficient condition: every scalar coordinate class Fr,k={O↦[Y(t)Z(t)⊗reβTZ(t)]k:t≤τ,β∈B} is pointwise measurable and has finite L1(P) bracketing number at every positive width. Under that condition, sup⁡tDn(t)→P0, and both ratio errors converge uniformly on [0,τ]×B in probability. This optional condition is not imposed by the Cox inference consumers.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The IID bounded predictable subject records, compact B, positive population risk support, and finite deterministic measure ν of the Statement. Only the final conditional conclusion assumes pointwise measurability and finite bracketing.

[F1]

Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood: Ui=min⁡(Ti,Ci) and Yi(t)=1{Ui≥t}.

[F2]

Empirical, centered, and Rademacher processes: Pnf=n−1∑if(Oi) and Pf=EPf.

[F3]

Covering, packing, bracketing numbers, and metric entropy: finite L1(P) brackets have measurable endpoints and the specified positive widths.

[F4]

Glivenko–Cantelli classes: pointwise-measurable classes have measurable suprema and their GC law is convergence in probability.

[F5]

Glivenko–Cantelli theorem by bracketing entropy: an IID pointwise-measurable class with integrable envelope and finite L1(P) bracketing numbers is GC in probability.

[F6]

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

[F7]

Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product: nonnegative product-measurable functions can be integrated in either order.

[F8]

Dominated convergence: pointwise convergence under an integrable majorant gives convergence of integrals.

[A1]

Only for the final conditional conclusion, the classes Fr,k have pointwise-measurable versions and finite bracketing numbers at every positive width.

[A2]

AC is inherited through the Cox predictability interface; finite nets and probability bounds below add no further choice assumption. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

technique · Use bounded IID coordinate variances and finite parameter nets at each time, integrate their errors, and protect denominators by the monotone unweighted risk count. Retain the bracketing law as an optional stronger conclusion
1.1givenA2F1F6F7algebra

Put R=sup⁡β∈B∥β∥2 and C=eKRmax⁡(1,K,K2). Each risk coordinate is bounded by C and is Lipschitz in β with constant at most KC, since the segment between two points of B lies in the radius-R ball. By [F6]–[F7], the expectations are jointly measurable in time and parameter. Both empirical and population functions are continuous in parameter, so each parameter supremum equals the supremum over a fixed countable dense subset of B and is measurable. Population ratios are deterministic Borel time functions and hence predictable.

2.1F2F7F8step 1.1constructalgebra

For each fixed t,β and coordinate f, independence and centering give E[(Pnf−Pf)2]=Var⁡(f)/n≤C2/n: the cross terms vanish by independence. On a finite ε-net of B, the squared maximum over its mε points and the d=1+p+p2 coordinates has expectation at most dmεC2/n. Between a point and its nearest net point, the empirical-minus-population Lipschitz bound is 2KCε. Thus lim sup⁡nEDn(t)2≤8K2C2ε2; let ε↓0. The uniform bound Dn≤2C and [F8] applied to t↦EDn(t)2, followed by [F7], prove E∫Dn2dν→0.

2.2givenF1step 1.1algebra

Write q=P(Ui≥τ). Since c0≤s(0)(τ,β0)≤eK∥β0∥2q, q>0. For Qn=n−1∑i1{Ui≥τ}, independence gives E(Qn−q)2=q(1−q)/n, so P(Qn<q/2)≤4(1−q)/(nq)→0. Monotonicity of Yi and the weight bound give Sn(0)(t,β)≥e−KRQn for every t,β. Hence on the event En={Qn≥q/2} all sample denominators are at least c=e−KRq/2, while all population denominators are at least e−KRq.

3.1F7F8step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2algebra

On En, ratio subtraction and the bounds of steps 1.1 and 2.2 bound both sup⁡B∥Zˉn−zˉ∥2 and sup⁡B∥Vn−V∥max⁡ by a constant times Dn(t). Off En, the weighted means have norm at most K and the second-moment matrices have entries at most K2, including the zero convention, so both errors remain bounded by constants depending only on K,p. Their expected squared errors are therefore at most C1EDn(t)2+C2P(Enc). Steps 2.1–3.1 prove the fixed-time conclusions; integration against finite ν, or [F7]–[F8], proves their integrated versions.

4.1A1F3F4F5step 1.1step 2.2step 3.1∎

Under [A1], each coordinate class has the envelope from step 1.1 and the hypotheses of [F3]–[F5]. Apply only the probability branch of [F5] and take the finite union over coordinates to obtain sup⁡tDn(t)→P0. Step 3.1's ratio bound on En, whose probability tends to one, gives both uniform-in-time ratio conclusions. No such time-indexed class hypothesis was used in steps 1.1–4.1.

Remarks

Bounded predictability alone does not imply the optional uniform-in-time law. The controlling-plan reconciliation and an explicit IID predictable counterexample with positive information are recorded in research/statistical-models-experiments-62-owner-cox-uniform-resolution.json. The integrated law above preserves arbitrary bounded predictable covariates in the estimator expansion.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Pathwise identity for bounded predictable counting-process integrals

Statement

Under Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract, for every nonnegative predictable G, E∫(0,T]Gt dNt=E∫0TGt dAt. For every bounded real predictable H, the L²-completed stochastic integral equals the pathwise finite-variation expression almost surely: ∫0THt dMt=∑0<t≤THtΔNt−∫0THt dAt,M=N−A. The identity holds at every fixed terminal time and coordinatewise for vector or matrix integrands. No left continuity of H is assumed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite-horizon square-integrable counting-process contract, N0=A0=0, continuous predictable A, and EAT<∞; G is nonnegative predictable and H is bounded predictable.

[F1]

Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract: M=N−A is a square-integrable martingale, N has finitely many unit jumps, and A is continuous with finite expectation.

[F2]

Progressively measurable and predictable processes: time-zero sets and rectangles (s,t]×B, B∈Fs, generate the predictable sigma-algebra and, with the whole space, form a pi-system.

[F3]

Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem: two finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and the whole space agree on its generated sigma-algebra.

[F4]

Monotone convergence for the integral: nonnegative increasing integrals converge to the integral of the limit.

[F5]

Predictable step processes are dense for the compensator L² norm: bounded predictable steps are dense for E∫H2dA.

[F6]

Elementary predictable integral against a counting-process martingale: a step integral is the finite sum of measurable coefficients times increments of M.

[F7]

L² extension of the predictable counting-process integral: step approximation in compensator L² gives the unique completed integral and its isometry.

[F8]

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 martingale and density interfaces. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F4givenconstruct

The martingale property gives ENT=EAT<∞. For a predictable set E, define μN(E)=E∫1EdN and μA(E)=E∫1EdA. Measurability of the section integrals holds first for the generators in [F2] (their integrals are 1B(Nt−Ns) and 1B(At−As)), then for all predictable sets: the sets with measurable section integrals form a lambda-system, using subtraction from finite terminal masses and increasing partial sums for disjoint unions. Apply [F3] to this generating pi-system. Pathwise countable additivity and [F4] now make μN,μA finite measures. For an interval generator, E[1B(Mt−Ms)]=0 by the martingale property, so their masses agree; time-zero masses are both zero and whole-space masses agree. [F3] gives μN=μA. Simple functions and [F4] yield the compensation identity for every nonnegative predictable G.

2.1A1F5F6F7F8step 1.1choosealgebra∎

By [F5] choose bounded predictable steps Hm with E∫∣Hm−H∣2dA→0. Step 1.1 and [F8] give E∫∣Hm−H∣ d(N+A)=2E∫∣Hm−H∣ dA≤2(EAT)1/2(E∫∣Hm−H∣2dA)1/2⟶0. For steps, [F6] identifies the integral with the difference of its pathwise N and A integrals. The displayed bound makes those differences converge in L¹ to the stated pathwise expression. By [F7] the same step integrals converge in L², hence L¹ on the probability space, to the completed stochastic integral. Uniqueness of L¹ limits proves equality almost surely. Apply this argument separately to each fixed terminal time and each of the finitely many coordinates.

Source notes

Bass uses a predictable monotone-class argument for finite-variation jump integrals and defines stochastic integrals by step approximation in L². The local proof above supplies the compensation measure and the L¹ identification needed for arbitrary bounded predictable Cox covariates; it does not import a semimartingale existence theorem.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

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).

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Cox score martingale representation and random-risk-mean replacement

Statement

Use the IID bounded-covariate model, risk-support hypotheses of Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums, the no-tie event process, and the per-subject counting-process contracts of Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract. Let zˉ(t)=s(1)(t,β0)s(0)(t,β0),I=∫0τ{s(2)(t,β0)−s(1)(t,β0)s(1)(t,β0)Ts(0)(t,β0)}λ0(t) dt,ξi=∫0τ{Zi(t)−zˉ(t)} dMi(t), where each vector integral is defined coordinatewise in L². If Un(β)=∂βlog⁡Lp(β) is the partial-likelihood score, then n−1/2Un(β0)=n−1/2∑i=1nξi+oP(1). The ξi are IID, centered, square-integrable vectors with covariance matrix I. In particular, n−1/2∑iξi=OP(1). The replacement of the random risk-set mean by zˉ is part of the conclusion.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The model and integrated risk-set conditions stated above, plus the finite-horizon square-integrable counting-process contracts with continuous compensators, no tied failures, and λ0∈L1[0,τ].

[F1]

Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood: the no-tie partial likelihood is the product of event weights divided by their risk-set weight sums, with Yi(t)=1{Ui≥t}.

[F2]

Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums: defines the empirical and population weighted risk means, sets each to zero at a zero denominator, and proves expected squared-error convergence integrated against λ0(t)dt, with positive empirical denominators uniformly with probability tending to one.

[L1]

Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract: Mi=Ni−Ai is a square-integrable martingale with continuous compensator Ai(t)=∫0tYi(u)eβ0TZi(u)λ0(u) du under the stated model contract.

[L2]

Elementary predictable integral against a counting-process martingale: for predictable step integrands the stochastic integral is the finite sum of coefficients times martingale increments.

[L3]

Brackets of a compensated simple counting process: Mi2−Ai is a martingale and ⟨Mi⟩=Ai.

[L4]

L² extension of the predictable counting-process integral: a predictable integrand with finite compensator L2 energy has a square-integrable martingale integral with the bracket isometry.

[L5]

Stochastic order and convergence notation for finite-dimensional random vectors: a sequence is OP(1) when it is bounded in probability.

[F3]

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

[F4]

Pathwise identity for bounded predictable counting-process integrals: bounded predictable completed stochastic integrals equal their pathwise dN−dA expressions.

[A1]

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

Proof

technique · Decompose the score using the compensator, cancel its finite-variation part, and bound the random-mean correction by the aggregate counting-process isometry
1.1A1F1F4L1given

Differentiating the finite product in Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood gives Un(β0)=∑i∫0τ{Zi(t)−Zˉn(t,β0)} dNi(t). By [F4], this pathwise integral can be decomposed as the L² stochastic integral and its compensator integral. Writing dNi=dMi+Yieβ0TZiλ0 dt, the compensator contribution is zero because ∑iYi(t)eβ0TZi(t){Zi(t)−Zˉn(t,β0)}=0 whenever the risk denominator is positive; outside the risk set every summand is zero.

2.1A1F1F2F3L1L2L4step 1.1

Set M=∑iMi and Hn(t)=Zˉn(t,β0)−zˉ(t). The process Hn is predictable by [F1]–[F3] and the deterministic measurability of zˉ. For bounded predictable step approximations, the finite-sum definition [L2] is linear in the integrator; the isometry [L4] and A⋅=∑iAi pass that identity to the L² limits. Thus n−1/2Un(β0)=n−1/2∑iξi−n−1/2∫0τHn(t) dM(t). No simultaneous failures make N⋅=∑iNi a simple counting process, and the sum of the subject contracts is a square-integrable martingale contract with compensator A⋅=∑iAi.

3.1F2L1L4step 2.1algebra

The predictable aggregate integrand Hn is bounded by 2K. Its compensator energy satisfies n−1E∫0τ∥Hn(t)∥22 dA⋅(t)=E∫0τ∥Hn(t)∥22Sn(0)(t,β0)λ0(t)dt≤eK∥β0∥2E∫0τ∥Hn(t)∥22λ0(t)dt⟶0 by [F2]'s integrated squared-error conclusion, without a time supremum. Thus [L4] shows the aggregate correction in step 2.1 tends to zero in L² after division by n, and therefore is oP(1).

4.1F1F2F4L3L4L5step 3.1algebra∎

By [F4], ξi equals the event sum minus the compensator Lebesgue integral with integrand Zi−zˉ. Both are measurable functions of the ith subject record and the deterministic function zˉ, so the ξi are IID. The integral isometry gives mean zero. Applying its scalar form to each coordinate and polarizing the identity gives the cross-coordinate isometry, hence E[ξiξiT]=∫0τE[Yi(t)eβ0TZi(t){Zi(t)−zˉ(t)}⊗2]λ0(t) dt=I. The equality follows by expanding the outer product and using zˉ=s(1)/s(0). Independence and centering give E∥n−1/2∑iξi∥22=tr⁡(I). For M>0, nonnegativity gives M2P(∥n−1/2∑iξi∥2>M)≤E∥n−1/2∑iξi∥22=tr⁡(I), so the normalized sum is OP(1) by [L5]. Combining this with step 3.1 proves the representation and the stated moment properties.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Cox partial-likelihood score expansion and estimator linearization

Statement

Assume AC. Let p<∞, τ>0, and β0∈Rp. Let subjects Oi=(Ti,Ci,Zi(⋅)) be IID and independent. Assume the Cox model of Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood with bounded predictable covariates ∥Zi(t)∥2≤K, baseline λ0∈L1[0,τ], and no tied failures. Assume the positive population risk denominators of Integrated and conditional uniform convergence of Cox risk-set sums on a compact neighborhood B of β0. In one common filtration, assume the observed event counts Ni(t)=1{Ui≤t,δi=1} have compensators Ai(t)=∫0tYi(u)eβ0TZi(u)λ0(u) du and that Mi=Ni−Ai satisfies the square-integrable counting-process contract of Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract. This martingale contract is an explicit model assumption. No bracketing or time-class regularity is required: the risk-set lemma supplies the integrated parameter-uniform laws for these bounded predictable paths.

Let I be the matrix in Uniform Cox partial-likelihood Hessian convergence and assume I is positive definite. Let β^n be a measurable Rp-valued estimator such that, with probability tending to one, it solves the partial-likelihood score equation Un(β^n)=0, and suppose β^n→Pβ0. Then n(β^n−β0)=I−11n∑i=1n∫0τ{Zi(t)−zˉ(t)} dMi(t)+oP(1),zˉ(t)=s(1)(t,β0)s(0)(t,β0). The proof establishes the partial-likelihood score representation locally; it does not treat the score summands with the random risk-set mean as IID.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; the IID Cox model and risk-process conventions; the stated risk-support condition; the square-integrable common-filtration counting-process contracts; no tied failures; I≻0; and a measurable consistent score root.

[F1]

Cox proportional-hazards model and partial likelihood: Lp(β) is the product of untied event weights divided by the risk-set weight sums, with Yi(t)=1{Ui≥t}.

[F2]

Statistics and estimators: an estimator is a measurable statistic with the stated target space.

[F3]

Uniform Cox partial-likelihood Hessian convergence: uniformly on B, n−1Hn(β)+J(β)→P0, and J(β0)=I.

[F4]

Cox score martingale representation and random-risk-mean replacement: n−1/2Un(β0)=n−1/2∑iξi+oP(1), with IID centered ξi of covariance I and normalized sum OP(1).

[F5]

Stochastic order and convergence notation for finite-dimensional random vectors: oP(1) is convergence in probability to zero and OP(1) is boundedness in probability.

[A1]

AC is inherited from the observation, predictability, and counting-process martingale interfaces. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

technique · Use the uniform Hessian limit along the consistent root's line segment and the separately established score representation
1.1A1F2F3F5given

Put Δn=β^n−β0 and Gn=∫01n−1Hn(β0+sΔn) ds. Since Δn→P0, the segment lies in B with probability tending to one. The Hessian lemma gives uniform convergence to −J(β), and J is continuous at β0 by bounded covariates, the positive risk denominator, and λ0∈L1. Therefore Gn→P−I.

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

Since I is positive definite, it is invertible. Matrix inversion is continuous at the nonsingular matrix −I, so Gn is invertible with probability tending to one and Gn−1→P−I−1.

2.2F1givenstep 1.1

On the event that β^n is a score root and the segment lies in B, the fundamental theorem of calculus applied to the continuously differentiable finite-sample score gives 0=Un(β^n)=Un(β0)+nGnΔn. Thus nΔn=−Gn−1{Un(β0)/n}.

3.1F4F5step 2.1step 2.2algebra∎

Substitute [F4]. Its normalized IID sum is OP(1), so the product of that sum with Gn−1+I−1=oP(1) is oP(1). Hence nΔn=I−1n−1/2∑i=1nξi+oP(1)=I−1n−1/2∑i=1n∫0τ{Zi(t)−zˉ(t)} dMi(t)+oP(1), which is the asserted expansion.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Asymptotic normality of the Cox partial-likelihood estimator

Statement

Assume the hypotheses of Cox partial-likelihood score expansion and estimator linearization and AC. Then n(β^n−β0) ⇒ Np(0,I−1). This terminal normal limit follows from the separately proved influence expansion; it is not used to prove that expansion.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The measurable consistent score root and the expansion from Cox partial-likelihood score expansion and estimator linearization, the IID subject influence variables from Cox score martingale representation and random-risk-mean replacement, and AC.

[F1]

Cox score martingale representation and random-risk-mean replacement: ξi are IID centered square-integrable vectors with covariance I.

[F2]

Cox partial-likelihood score expansion and estimator linearization: n(β^n−β0)=I−1n−1/2∑iξi+oP(1).

[F3]

IID terminal influence limit from a separately established expansion: under AC, an IID measurable estimator with centered finite-second-moment influence function and a separately established oP(n−1/2) expansion is asymptotically normal with influence-function covariance.

[F4]

Covariance matrix of a finite-dimensional random vector: covariance is E[(X−EX)(X−EX)T] for a square-integrable finite-dimensional random vector.

[A1]

AC is required by the terminal influence-limit theorem. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

technique · Identify the one-subject influence function and apply the terminal IID influence theorem only after the estimator expansion is established
1.1A1F1F4givenalgebra

Define ϕ(Oi)=I−1ξi. By [F1], Eϕ=0 and ϕ is square-integrable. Since I is symmetric positive definite, [F4] gives Cov⁡(ϕ)=I−1Cov⁡(ξi)(I−1)T=I−1II−1=I−1. The map is a measurable function of one subject record because Mi, Zi, and the compensator Ai are subject-specific and zˉ is deterministic.

2.1A1F2F3step 1.1∎

By [F2], the expansion is β^n−β0=n−1∑i=1nϕ(Oi)+rn with rn=oP(n−1/2). The sample records are IID, β^n is measurable, ϕ is centered with finite second moment, and AC holds. These are exactly the hypotheses of [F3]; applying it with covariance from step 1.1 proves the stated limit.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources