arXiv:1605.04059v1 [math.ST] 13 May 2016

The lq consistency of the Dantzig Selector for
Cox’s Proportional Hazards Model
Kou Fujimori and Yoichi Nishiyama
Waseda University

Abstract
The Dantzig selector for the proportional hazards model proposed by
D.R. Cox is studied in a high-dimensional and sparse setting. We prove the
lq consistency for all q ≥ 1 of some estimators based on the compatibility
factor, the weak cone invertibility factor, and the restricted eigenvalue for
certain deterministic matrix which approximates the Hessian matrix of
log partial likelihood. Our matrix conditions for these three factors are
weaker than those of previous researches.

1

Introduction

The proportional hazards model proposed by Cox (1972) is widely used in survival analysis. Using the counting process approach, Andersen and Gill (1982)
proved that the maximum partial likelihood estimator satisfies the consistency
and the asymptotic normality when the number of covariates p is fixed. In this
paper, we deal with a high-dimensional and sparse setting, i.e., the case where
p is much larger than n and the number S of non-zero components of the true
parameter is relatively small. In this setting, the maximum partial likelihood
estimator may not behave well, so we need to consider other estimation procedures. For example, the penalized methods such as LASSO (Tibshirani (1997),
Huang et al. (2013), Bradic et al. (2013), among others) and SCAD (Fan and
Li (2002) and Bradic et al. (2011)) are studied by many researchers. Instead of
the penalized methods, in this paper we apply a relatively new method called
the Dantzig selector for the proportional hazards model.
The Dantzig selector (DS) was proposed by Candés and Tao (2007) in a
high-dimensional and sparse setting for the linear regression model:
Y = Zβ + ǫ.
The Dantzig selector returns the estimator β̂ for β defined as follows:
β̂ := arg min kβk1 ,
β∈C

C := {β ∈ Rp : |Z j T (Y − Zβ)| ≤ λ},
1

where k · k1 is l1 -norm, Z j denotes the j-th column of the design matrix Z
and λ ≥ 0 is a suitable constant. Assume that ǫ is a Gaussian error term for
simplicity. When λ = 0, the DS returns to the MLE. For λ > 0, the DS searches
for the sparsest β within the given distance of the MLE. Notice that this method
has a good potential to be applied for other models. Antoniadis et al. (2010)
proposed the Survival Dantzig selector (SDS), which is an application of the DS
for the proportional hazards model, and studied the l2 consistency of the SDS
under the UUP condition which is the matrix condition used by Candés and Tao
(2007). The purpose of this paper is to prove the lq consistency for q ≥ 1 under
some weaker matrix conditions. Our way of proofs are similar to those of Huang
et al. (2013) for LASSO in the proportional hazards model. They introduced the
compatibility factor, the weak invertibility factor, and the restricted eigenvalue
for Hessian matrix of log partial likelihood. Since the Hessian is a random
matrix, these factors are random variables. They also derived some conditions
to treat them as deterministic constants. In contrast, we will define these factors
for a deterministic matrix, which approximates the Hessian matrix to clarify the
proofs.
This paper is organized as follows. The settings for the proportional hazards
model and an estimation procedure are given in Section 2. In Section 3, we
introduce some matrix conditions to derive the consistency. Main results are
presented in Section 4.
Throughout this paper, for every q ∈ [1, ∞], we denote by k · kq the lq -norm
of Rp -vector, which is defined as follows:


kvkq = 

p
X
j=1

 q1

|vj |q  ,

q < ∞;

kvk∞ = sup |vj |.
1≤j≤p

Moreover, for a given m × n matrix A, where m, n ∈ N, we define kAk∞ by
kAk∞ := sup

sup |Aji |,

1≤i≤m 1≤j≤n

where Aji denotes the (i, j)-component of the matrix A.

2
2.1

Model set up and estimation procedure
Model set up

Let T be a survival time, and C a censoring time, which are positive real-valued
random variables on a probability space (Ω, F , P ). The survival time T is assumed to be conditionally independent of a censoring time C given the multidimensional covariate Z. For every n ∈ N, we observe the data {(Xi , Di , Zi )}ni=1 ,
which are i.i.d. copies of (X, D, Z), where D = 1{T ≤C} . Assume that the dimension of covariates p = pn depends on n. In particular, we assume that
2

pn ≫ n. Let Ni (t) = 1{Xi ≤t, Di =1} be counting processes based on these data,
and Yi (t) = 1{Xi ≥t} at risk processes for every i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Assume that
the sample paths t ❀ Ni (t), i = 1, 2, . . . , n, have no simultaneous jumps. We
introduce the filtration {Ft }t≥0 defined by
Ft := σ{Ni (u), Yi (u), 0 ≤ u ≤ t, Zi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n}.
Assume that Ni has the intensity λi of the form
λi (t, Zi ) = Yi (t)α0 (t) exp(ZiT β0 ),
where α0 is a baseline hazard function which is regarded as a nuisance parameter, and β0 ∈ Rpn is the unknown true parameter. We are interested in
the estimation problem of β0 in a high dimensional and sparse setting, i.e., in
the case where β0 ∈ Rpn has S non-zero components. Using the Doob-Meyer
decomposition theorem, we have that the processes
Z t
Mi (t) := Ni (t) −
λi (u, Zi )du, i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
0

are independent {Ft }t≥0 square-integrable martingales. Their predictable quadratic
variations are given by
Z t
hMi , Mi i(t) =
λi (u, Zi )du.
0

We fix the time interval [0, τ ]. Following Cox (1972), we introduce the log partial
likelihood defined by
Cn (β) :=

n Z
X
i=1

where Sn0 (β, u) :=

n
P

i=1

0

τ

{ZiT β − log(Sn0 (β, u))}dNi (u),

Yi (u) exp(ZiT β). Furthermore, we define the pn dimen-

sional vector Un (β), and the pn × pn matrix Jn (β) as


n Z
1X τ
Sn1
˙
Un (β) := ln (β) =
Zi − 0 (β, u) dNi (u),
n i=1 0
Sn
"
#
 1 ⊗2
Z
Sn
1 τ Sn2
(β, u) −
(β, u) dN̄ (u),
Jn (β) := −l̈n (β) =
n 0 Sn0
Sn0
where N̄ (u) :=

n
P

i=1

and Sn2 (β, u) :=

Ni (u), ln (β) := Cn (β)/n, Sn1 (β, u) :=

n
P

i=1

n
P

i=1

Yi (u) exp(ZiT β)Zi ,

Yi (u) exp(ZiT β)Zi⊗2 . Note that Jn (β0 ) is a nonnegative

definite matrix. In particular, for the true parameter β = β0 and for all j =
3

1, 2, . . . , pn , we can see that Unj (β0 ), j = 1, 2, . . . , pn are the terminal values of
martingales {Unj (β0 , t)}t∈[0,τ ] given by:
n

Unj (β0 , t)

1X
=
n i=1

Z t
0

Zij


Sn1j
− 0 (β0 , u) dMi (u).
Sn

Hereafter, we assume the following conditions.
Assumption 2.1. (i) There exists a positive constant K1 such that
sup |Zij | < K1 .
i,j

(ii) The baseline hazard function α0 is integrable on [0, τ ], i.e.,
Z τ
α0 (t)dt < ∞.
0

(iii) There exist R-valued function s0n (β, t), Rpn -valued function s1n (β, t), and
pn × pn matrix-valued function s2n (β, t) such that for l = 0, 1, 2,
sup

sup

β∈Rpn t∈[0,τ ]

1 l
S (β, t) − sln (β, t)
n n

∞

→p 0.

(iv) For l = 0, 1, 2, the functions (β, t) 7→ sln (β, t) are uniformly continuous.
Moreover, they satisfy the following conditions:
lim sup sup

sup ksln (β, t)k∞ < ∞,

n→∞ β∈Rpn t∈[0,τ ]

lim inf infp
n→∞ β∈R

n

inf s0n (β, t) > 0.

t∈[0,τ ]

(v) Assume that S is a constant not depending on n. Define the pn × pn matrix
In (β) of rank S by
#
 1 ⊗2
Z τ" 2
sn
sn
In (β) :=
(β, u) −
(β, u) s0n (β0 , u)α0 (u)du.
s0n
s0n
0
When we compute s0n , s1n , s2n only with respect to the components of the
true S dimensional vector β0 , we have the S × S sub-matrix In (β0 ) of
In (β0 ). We assume that In (β0 ) is positive definite, and In (β) for all
β ∈ Rpn are nonnegative definite matrices.

4

2.2

Estimation procedure

We define the estimator β̂n of β0 as
β̂n := arg min kβk1 ,

(1)

β∈Bn

where Bn := {β ∈ Rpn : kUn (β)k∞ ≤ γ}, and γ ≥ 0 is a suitable constant.
We call the estimator β̂n the Dantzig Selector for Proportional Hazards model
(DSfPH). Note that this estimator is called the Survival Dantzig Selector (SDS)
by Antoniadis et al. (2010).

3

Matrix conditions

In this section, we will discuss some matrix conditions to derive the theoretical
results for DSfPH β̂n . Hereafter, we write T0 for the support of β0 , i.e.,
T0 := {j : β0j 6= 0}.
To begin with, we introduce the following three factors (A), (B) and (C), all of
which are used by Huang et al. (2013) for LASSO in Cox’s proportional hazards
model.
Definition 3.1. For every index set T ⊂ {1, 2, · · · , pn } and h ∈ Rpn , hT is
a R|T | dimensional sub-vector of h constructed by extracting the components of
h corresponding to the indices in T . Define the set CT by
CT := {h ∈ Rpn : khT c k1 ≤ khT k1 }.
We introduce the following three factors.
(A) Compatibility factor
1

κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) :=

inf

06=h∈CT0

1

S 2 (hT In (β0 )h) 2
.
khT0 k1

(B) Weak cone invertibility factor
1

Fq (T0 ; In (β0 )) :=

inf

06=h∈CT0

1

S q (hT In (β0 )h) 2
,
khT0 k1 khkq

q ≥ 1.

(C) Restricted eigenvalue
1

RE(T0 ; In (β0 )) :=

5

inf

06=h∈CT0

(hT In (β0 )h) 2
.
khk2

As mentioned in the Introduction, Huang et al. (2013) defined these factors
for the random matrix Jn (β0 ), and derived some conditions to treat them as
deterministic constants. On the other hand, we define them not for Jn (β0 ),
but for the deterministic matrix In (β0 ), since we will prove that kIn (β0 ) −
Jn (β0 )k∞ = op (1) in Section 4 of this paper.
There exist other matrix conditions for DSfPH such as the UUP condition,
which is used in Candés and Tao (2007) and Antoniadis et al. (2010). To discuss
the relationship between the UUP condition and our conditions, let us introduce
some objects.
Note that there exists a matrix A such that AT A = In (β), because In (β) is a
nonnegative definite matrix. Given a index set T ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , pn }, we write AT
for the pn ×|T | matrix constructed by extracting the columns of A corresponding
to the indices in T . The restricted isometry constant δN (In (β0 )) is the smallest
quantity such that
(1 − δN (In (β0 )))khk22 ≤ kAT hk22 ≤ (1 + δN (In (β0 )))khk22 ,
for all T ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , pn } with |T | ≤ N , where N ≤ pn is an integer, and all
h ∈ R|T | . The restricted orthogonality constant θS,S ′ (In (β0 )) is the smallest
quantity such that
|(AT h)T AT ′ h′ | ≤ θS,S ′ (In (β0 ))khk2 kh′ k2
for all disjoint sets T, T ′ ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , pn } with |T | ≤ S, |T ′ | ≤ S ′ , where S+S ′ ≤
′
pn and all vectors h ∈ R|T | and h′ ∈ R|T | . For δ2S (In (β0 )) and θS,2S (In (β0 )),
the UUP condition is described that 0 < 1 − δ2S (In (β0 )) − θS,2S (In (β0 )).
In addition, we introduce another factor φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )) by
1

φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )) :=
where
DT0 ,T :=



inf

T ⊃T0 , |T |≤2S, h∈DT0 ,T

(hT In (β0 )h) 2
,
khT k2


h ∈ CT0 : khT c k∞ ≤ min |hj | ,
j∈T \T0

T ⊃ T0 .

Define that minj∈T \T0 |hj | = ∞ when T = T0 . The next lemma provides
the asymptotic relationship between the UUP condition and a condition for
φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )). The proof is an adaptation of that in van de Geer and Bühlmann
(2007), so it is omitted.
Lemma 3.2. If lim inf n→∞ {1 − δ2S (In (β0 )) − θS,2S (In (β0 ))} > 0, then it holds
that lim inf n→∞ φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0.
Noting that khT0 k21 ≤ SkhT0 k22 , we have that
κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) ≥ φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )),
which implies that
lim inf κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) ≥ lim inf φ2S (T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0.
n→∞

n→∞

6

Noting also that khT0 kq1 ≥ khT0 kqq for all q ≥ 1, we can see that κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) ≤
√
2 SRE(T0 ; In (β0 )), and κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) ≤ Fq (T0 ; In (β0 )). We thus have that the
factors (A), (B) and (C) are strictly positive when n is large if lim inf n→∞ {1 −
δ2S (In (β0 )) − θS,2S (In (β0 ))} > 0. So we will assume in our main theorems that
these three factors are “asymptotically positive”, in the sense that
lim inf κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0,
n→∞

lim inf Fq (T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0
n→∞

or
lim inf RE(T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0,
n→∞

to prove the consistency of DSfPH.

4

Main result

In this section, we will prove the consistency of DSfPH β̂n . To do this, we will
prepare three lemmas. Lemma 4.1 below states that the true parameter β0 is
an element of Bn appearing in (1) with large probability when the sample size
n is large.
Lemma 4.1. Put γ = γn,pn = K2 log(1 + pn )/nα , where 0 < α ≤ 1/2 and
K2 > 0 are constants. If pn = O(nξ ) for some ξ > 1 or if log pn = O(nζ ) for
some 0 < ζ < α, then it hold that
lim P (kUn (β0 )k∞ ≥ γn,pn ) = 0

n→∞

and that γn,pn → 0 as n → ∞.

Proof. Note that

n

Unj (β0 , τ )
where

1X
=
n i=1

Z

0

τ

"

n
X

{Zij
k=1

−

#

Zkj }wk (β0 , u)

exp(ZkT β0 )Yk (u)
.
wk (β0 , u) = P
n
exp(ZlT β0 )Yl (u)

dMi (u),

l=1

We use Lemma 2.1 from van de Geer (1995). To do this, we shall evaluate
∆Unj (β0 , u), u ∈ [0, τ ], and hUnj (β0 , ·), Unj (β0 , ·)iτ . Since the jumps of Mi do not
occur at the same time and are all of magnitude 1, it holds that
" n
#
n Z
1X u X j
j
j
|∆Un (β0 , u)| =
{Zi − Zk }wk (β0 , u) dMi (u)
n i=1 u−
k=1

n

≤

X
1
sup |Zij − Zij |
wk (β0 , u)
n i,j,k
k=1

2K1
.
≤
n

7

On the other hand, we have
" n
#2
n Z
1 X τ X j
j
= 2
{Zi − Zk }wk (β0 , u) dhMi iu
n i=1 0
k=1
" n
#2
n Z
1 X τ X j
j
{Zi − Zk }wk (β0 , u) exp(ZiT β0 )Yi (u)α0 (u)du
n2 i=1 0
k=1
n Z τ
X
1
j
j 2
sup
|Z
−
Z
|
exp(ZiT β0 )Yi (u)α0 (u)du
k
n2 i,j,k i
0
i=1
Z τ
4K12
j
n exp(S sup |Zi |kβ0 k∞ |)
α0 (u)du
n2
i,j
0
K3
,
n
is a positive constant. We now use the Lemma 2.1 from van de Geer

hUnj (β0 , ·), Unj (β0 , ·)iτ
=
≤
≤
≤
where K3
(1995):

P (|Unj (β0 , τ )|



K3
j
j
j
≥ γn,pn ) = P |Un (β0 , τ )| ≥ γn,pn , hUn (β0 , ·), Un (β0 , ·)iτ ≤
n
!
2
γn,pn
 .
≤ 2 exp − 2K1
2 n γn,pn + Kn3

Write k · kψ for the Orlicz norm with respect to ψ(x) = ex − 1. We apply
Lemma 2.2.10 from van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) to deduce that there
exists a constant L > 0 depending only on ψ such that
!
r
K3
2K1
j
log(1 + pn ) +
log(1 + pn ) .
max |Un (β0 , τ )| ≤ L
1≤j≤pn
n
n
ψ
Using Markov’s inequality, we have that
P (kU (β0 )k∞ ≥ γn,pn ) = P ( max |Unj (β0 , τ )| ≥ γn,pn )
1≤j≤pn
 



j
max |Un (β0 , τ )|
γ
1≤j≤pn
n,pn
 ≥ ψ

≤ P ψ 
k max |Unj (β0 , τ )|kψ
k max |Unj (β0 , τ )|kψ
1≤j≤pn

≤

≤



ψ



γn,pn
k max |Unj (β0 , τ )|kψ
1≤j≤pn

1≤j≤pn

−1


−1



γn,pn

ψ
q
 

K3
1
L 2K
n log(1 + pn ) +
n log(1 + pn )

In our settings, the right-hand side of this inequality converges to 0.
8

✷

Next we will show that Jn (β0 ) is approximated by In (β0 ).
Lemma 4.2. The random sequence ǫn defined by
ǫn := kJn (β0 ) − In (β0 )k∞
converges in probability to 0.
Proof. Define the pn × pn matrices hn (β0 , t) and Hn (β0 , t) for t ∈ [0, τ ] by
⊗2
s1n
(β0 , t),
s0n
 1 ⊗2
S2
Sn
Hn (β0 , t) := n0 (β0 , t) −
(β0 , t).
Sn
Sn0
s2
hn (β0 , t) := n0 (β0 , t) −
sn



Note that the matrices In (β0 ) and Jn (β0 ) can be written in this form:
Z τ
hn (β0 , u)s0 (β0 , u)α0 (u)du,
In (β0 ) =
0
Z τ
dN̄ (u)
.
Hn (β0 , u)
Jn (β0 ) =
n
0
Pn
Put M̄ (u) =
i=1 Mi (u). Then, it holds that kJn (β0 ) − In (β0 )k∞ ≤ (I) +
(II) + (III), where
Z τ
dN̄ (u)
,
(I) =
kHn (β0 , u) − hn (β0 , u)k∞
n
0
 0

Z τ
Sn (β0 , u)
(II) =
hn (β0 , u)
− s0 (β0 , u)
α0 (u)du,
n
0
∞
Z
1 τ
(III) =
hn (β0 , u)dM̄ (u)
.
n 0
∞
Since the process t ❀ N̄ (t)/n has bounded variation uniformly in n, Assumption
2.1 implies that (I) = op (1) and (II) = op (1). Moreover, it follows from Assumption 2.1 that hn (β0 , u) is uniformly bounded. So we obtain that (III) = op (1)
by the same way as the proof of Lemma 4.1.
✷
The next lemma is used to control Un (β̂) − Un (β0 ) and Jn (β0 ). See Huang et
al. (2013) and Hjort and Pollard (1993) for the proofs.
Lemma 4.3. Define that ηh = maxi,j |hT Zi − hT Zj |, for h ∈ Rpn . Then for
all β ∈ Rpn , it holds that
e−ηh hT J(β)h ≤ hT [U (β + h) − U (β)] ≤ eηh hT J(β)h.
Now, we are ready to prove the main result of this paper. Theorem 4.4 below
provides the l2 consistency of DSfPH.
9

Theorem 4.4. Under the assumption of Lemma 4.1 and Assumption 2.1, if
lim inf n→∞ RE(T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0, then it holds that


K4 γn,pn
2
lim P kβ̂n − β0 k2 ≥
= 0,
n→∞
RE 2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) − ǫn
where K4 is a positive constant and ǫn = kIn (β0 ) − Jn (β0 )k∞ = op (1). In
particular, kβ̂n − β0 k2 →p 0.
Proof. It is sufficient to prove that kUn (β0 )k∞ ≤ γn,pn implies
kβ̂n − β0 k22 ≤

K4 γn,pn
.
RE 2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) − ǫn

By the construction of the estimator, we have kU (β̂n )k∞ ≤ γn,pn , which implies
that
kUn (β̂n ) − Un (β0 )k∞ ≤ kUn (β̂n )k∞ + kUn (β0 )k∞ ≤ 2γn,pn .
Note that h := β̂ − β0 ∈ CT0 , since it holds that
X
X
c | +
0 ≥ kβ0 + hk1 − kβ0 k1 =
|hT0j
(|β0j + hT0j | − |β0j |)
j∈T0c

≥

X

j∈T0c

j∈T0

|hT0c j | −

X

j∈T0

|hT0j |

= khT0c k1 − khT0 k1 .
Notice moreover that khk1 ≤ kβ̂n k1 + kβ0 k1 ≤ 2kβ0 k1 by the definition of β̂n .
Now, we use Lemma 4.3 for h to deduce that
hT Jn (β0 )h ≤ eηh hT [Un (β̂n ) − Un (β0 )]

≤ exp(max |hT Zi − hT Zj |) · 2γn,pn khk1
i,j

≤ exp(4K1 kβ0 k1 ) · 4γn,pn kβ0 k1
=: K4 γn,pn .
Thus it holds that
hT In (β0 )h ≤ |hT (In (β0 ) − Jn (β0 ))h| + hT Jn (β0 )h
≤ ǫn hT h + K4 γn,pn

= ǫn kβ̂n − β0 k22 + K4 γn,pn .
By the definition of the restricted eigenvalue, we have that
RE 2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) ≤
≤

hT In (β0 )h
kβ̂n − β0 k22

ǫn kβ̂n − β0 k22 + K4 γn,pn
kβ̂n − β0 k22

10

.

Noting that RE 2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0, we obtain that
kβ̂n − β0 k22 ≤

K4 γn,pn
.
0 ; In (β0 )) − ǫn

RE 2 (T

✷
To derive the l1 consistency and the lq consistency of DSfPH, we shall use the
compatibility factor and the weak cone invertibility factor, respectively.
Theorem 4.5. Under the assumptions of Lemma 4.1 and Assumption 2.1, if
lim inf n→∞ κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0, then the following (i) and (ii) hold true.
(i) It holds that

lim P kβ̂n − β0 k1 ≥

n→∞

4K5 Sγn,pn
κ2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) − 4Sǫn



= 0,

where K5 is a positive constant. In particular, kβ̂n − β0 k1 →p 0.
(ii) It holds for any q > 1 that
1

lim P

n→∞

1

2S q ǫn
2K5 S q γn,pn
2K5 Sγn,pn
kβ̂n − β0 kq ≥
+
· 2
Fq (T0 ; In (β0 )) κ (T0 ; In (β0 )) − 2Sǫn Fq (T0 ; In (β0 ))

In particular, kβ̂n − β0 kq →p 0.
Proof. It follows from the proof of Theorem 4.4 that
hT Jn (β0 )h ≤ K5 γn,pn kβ̂n − β0 k1 .
Noting that kbk22 ≤ kbk21 for all b ∈ Rpn , we have that
hT In (β0 )h ≤ ǫn kβ̂n − β0 k22 + K5 γn,pn kβ̂n − β0 k1

≤ ǫn kβ̂n − β0 k21 + K5 γn,pn kβ̂n − β0 k1 .

The definition of κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) implies that
ShT In (β0 )h
khT0 k21
Sǫn khk21 + K5 Sγn,pn khk1
≤
.
khT0 k21

κ2 (T0 ; In (β0 )) ≤

Since khk1 ≤ 2khT0 k1 , this yields the conclusion in (i).
On the other hand, using the weak cone invertibility factor for every q ≥ 1,
we have that
1

1

S q ǫn khk21 + S q K5 γn,pn khk1
,
Fq (T0 ; In (β0 )) ≤
khT0 k1 khkq
11

!

= 0.

which implies that
1

1

2S q ǫn kβ̂ − β0 k1 + 2S q K5 γn,pn
kβ̂n − β0 kq ≤
.
Fq (T0 ; In (β0 ))
Using the l1 bound derived above, we obtain the conclusion in (ii).

✷

Acknowledgements. The second author’s work was supported by Grant-inAid for Scientific Research (C), 15K00062, from Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science.

References
[1] Andersen, P.K. and Gill, R.D. (1982). Cox’s regression model for counting
processes: a large sample study. Ann. Statist. 10,no.4, 1100-1120.
[2] Antoniadis, A., Fryzlewicz, P. and Letué, F. (2010). The Dantzig selector
in Cox’s proportional hazards model. Scand. J. Stat. 37, no.4, 531-552.
[3] Bickel, P.J., Ritov, Y. and Tsybakov, A.B. (2009). Simultaneous analysis
of lasso and Dantzig selector. Ann. Statist. 37 (2009), no. 4, 1705-1732.
[4] Bradic, J. Fan, J. and Jiang, J. (2011). Regularization for Cox’s proportional hazards model with NP-dimensionality. Ann. Statist. 39, no.6, 30923120.
[5] Candés, E.J. and Tao, T. (2005). Decoding by linear programming. IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory 51, no. 12, 4203-4215.
[6] Candés, E. and Tao, T. (2007). The Dantzig selector: statistical estimation
when p is much larger than n. Ann. Statist. 35, no.6, 2313-2351.
[7] Cox, D.R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J.
Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser B 34 187-220.
[8] Fan, J. and Li, R. (2002). Variable selection for Cox’s proportional hazards
model and frailty model. Ann. Statist. 30, no.1 74-99.
[9] Gautier, E. and Tsybakov, A.B. (2014). High-dimensional instrumental
variables regression and confidence sets. arXiv:1105.2454 [math.ST]
[10] Hjort, N.L. and Pollard, D. (1993). Asymptotics for minimisers of convex
processes. arXiv:1107.3806 [math.ST]
[11] Huang, J., Sun, T., Ying, Z., Yu, Y. and Zhang, C-H. (2013). Oracle inequalities for the LASSO in the Cox model. Ann. Statist. 41, no.3, 11421165.

12

[12] Koltchinskii, V. (2009). The Dantzig selector and sparsity oracle inequalities. Bernoulli 15, no. 3, 799-828.
[13] Rosembaum, M. and Tsybakov, A.B. (2013). Improved matrix uncertainty
selector. From probability to statistics and back: high-dimensional models
and processes, 276-290, Inst. Math. Stat. (IMS) Collect., 9, Inst. Math.
Statist., Beachwood, OH.
[14] Shorack, G.R. and Wellner, J.A. (1986). Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
[15] Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J.
Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser B. 58, no.1, 267-288.
[16] Tibshirani, R. (1997). The lasso method for variable selection in the Cox
model. Stat. Med. 16 385-395.
[17] van de Geer, S. (1995). Exponential inequalities for martingales, with application to maximum likelihood estimation for counting processes. Ann.
Statist. 23, no.5, 1779-1801.
[18] van de Geer, S.A. and Bühlmann, P. (2009). On the conditions used to
prove oracle results for the Lasso. Electron. J. Stat. 3, 1360-1392.
[19] van der Vaart, A.W. and Wellner, J.A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. With Applications to Statistics. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-verlag, New York.
[20] Ye, F. and Zhang, C-H. (2010). Rate minimaxity of the Lasso and Dantzig
selector for the lq loss in lr balls. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 3519-3540.
[21] Zhang, H.H. and Lu, W. (2007). Adaptive Lasso for Cox’s proportional
hazards model. Biometrika 94, no.3, 691-703.

13

