arXiv:1710.10416v1 [math.ST] 28 Oct 2017

Cox’s proportional hazards model with a
high-dimensional and sparse regression parameter
Kou Fujimori
Waseda University
Abstract
This paper deals with the proportional hazards model proposed by
D. R. Cox in a high-dimensional and sparse setting for a regression parameter. To estimate the regression parameter, the Dantzig selector is
applied. The variable selection consistency of the Dantzig selector for the
model will be proved. This property enables us to reduce the dimension
of the parameter and to construct asymptotically normal estimators for
the regression parameter and the cumulative baseline hazard function.

1

Introduction

The proportional hazards model, which was proposed by Cox (1972) is one of the
most commonly used models for survival analysis. In a fixed dimensional setting,
i.e., the case where the number of covariates p is fixed, Andersen and Gill (1982)
proved that the maximum partial likelihood estimator for regression parameter
has the consistency and the asymptotic normality. Besides, they discussed the
asymptotic property of the Breslow estimator for cumulative baseline hazard
function.
Recently, many researchers are interested in a high-dimensional and sparse
setting for a regression parameter, that is, the case where p ≫ n and the number
S of nonzero components in the true value is relatively small. In this setting, several kinds of estimation methods have been proposed for various regression-type
models. Especially, the penalized methods such as Lasso (Tibshirani (1997),
Huang et al. (2013), Bradic et al. (2011) and others) have been well studied.
In particular, Huang et al. (2013) derived oracle inequalities of the Lasso estimator for the proportional hazards model, which means the Lasso estimator
satisfies the consistency even in a high-dimensional setting. Bradic et al. (2011)
considered the general penalized estimators including Lasso, SCAD and others and proved that the estimators satisfies the consistency and the asymptotic
normality. On the other hand, the Dantzig selector, which was proposed by
Candés and Tao (2007) for the linear regression model, is also applied to the
proportional hazards model by Antoniadis et al. (2010), who dealt with the l2

1

consistency of the estimator. Fujimori and Nishiyama (2017) extended the consistency results of the Dantzig selector for the model to the lq consistency for
every q ∈ [1, ∞] by a method similar to that of Huang et al. (2013). However,
the asymptotic normalities of estimators for high-dimensional regression parameter and the Breslow estimator have not yet been studied up to our knowledge.
In this paper, we will focus on the asymptotic normalities of estimators in
a high-dimensional setting. To discuss this problem, we need to consider the
dimension reduction of the regression parameter. We will show that the Dantzig
selector has variable selection consistency, which enables us to reduce the dimension. Then, we will construct a new maximum partial likelihood estimator
by using the variable selection consistency result and show that this estimator
has the asymptotic normality. In addition, we will prove that a Breslow type
estimator, which is obtained by using the maximum partial likelihood estimator
after dimension reduction, satisfies the asymptotic normality.
This paper is organized as follows. The model setup, some regularity conditions and matrix conditions to deal with a high-dimensional and sparse setting
are introduced in Section 2. In Section 3, we prove the asymptotic properties of
the high-dimensional regression parameter, that is, the variable selection consistency of the Dantzig selector and the asymptotic normality of the maximum
partial likelihood estimator after dimension reduction. The asymptotic property
of the Breslow type estimator is established in Section 4.
Throughout this paper, we denote by k · kq the lq norm of vector for every
q ∈ [1, ∞], i.e. for v = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vp )T ∈ Rp we denote:


kvkq = 

p
X
j=1

 q1

|vj |q  ,

q < ∞;

kvk∞ = sup |vj |.
1≤j≤p

In addition, for a 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. For a vector v ∈ Rp ,
and an index set T ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , p}, we write vT for the |T |-dimensional subvector of v restricted by the index set T , where |T | is the number of elements in
the set T . Similarly, for a p × p matrix A and index sets T, T ′ ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , p},
we define the |T | × |T ′ | sub-matrix AT,T ′ by
AT,T ′ := (Aji )i∈T,j∈T ′ .

2

2
2.1

Preliminaries
Model setup

Let Ti be a survival time and Ci a censoring time of i-th individual for every
i = 1, 2, . . . , n, which are positive real valued random variables on a probability
space (Ω, F , P ). Assume that each i-th individual has an Rp -valued covariate
process {Zi (t)}t∈[0,1] , and that the survival time Ti is conditionally independent
of the censoring time Ci given Zi (t). Moreover, we assume that Ti ’s never occur
simultaneously. For every n ∈ N and t ∈ [0, 1], we observe {(Xi , Di , Zi (t))}ni=1 ,
where Xi := Ti ∧ Ci and Di := 1{Ti ≤Ci } . We define the counting process
{Ni (t)}t∈[0,1] and {Yi (t)}t∈[0,1] for every i = 1, 2, . . . , n as follows:
Ni (t) := 1{t≤Xi ,Di =1} ,

Yi (t) := 1{Xi ≥t} ,

t ∈ [0, 1]

Let {Ft }t∈[0,1] be the filtration defined as follows:
Ft := σ{Ni (u), Yi (u), Zi (u); 0 ≤ u ≤ t, i = 1, 2, . . . , n}.
Suppose that {Zi (t)}t∈[0,1] , i = 1, 2, . . . , n are predictable processes. In Cox’s
proportional hazards model, it is assumed that each {Ni (t)}t∈[0,1] for every
i = 1, 2, . . . , n has the following intensity:
λi (t) := Yi (t)λ0 (t) exp(β0T Zi (t)),

t ∈ [0, 1],

where λ0 (t) is the unknown deterministic baseline hazard function and β0 ∈ Rp
is the unknown regression parameter. Then, we have that the following process
{Mi (t)}t∈[0,1] for every i = 1, 2, . . . , n is a square integrable martingale:
Mi (t) := Ni (t) −

Z

t

λi (s)ds,

0

t ∈ [0, 1].

Note that predictable variation process of {Mi (t)}t∈[0,1] is given by:
hMi , Mi i(t) =

Z

t

λi (s)ds,

0

t ∈ [0, 1]

and
hMi , Mj i(t) = 0,

i 6= j, t ∈ [0, 1].

Hereafter, we write Λ0 for the cumulative baseline hazard function, i.e.,
Z t
Λ0 (t) :=
λ0 (s)ds, t ∈ [0, 1].
0

The aim of this paper is to estimate the regression parameter β0 and the cumulative baseline hazard Λ0 in a high-dimensional and sparse setting for β0 ,
i.e.,
p = pn ≫ n, S := |T0 | ≪ n,
3

where T0 := {j; β0j 6= 0} is the support index set of the true value. To estimate
β0 , we use Cox’s log-partial likelihood which is given by;
Cn (β) :=

n Z
X
i=1

0

1

{β T Zi (t) − log Sn(0) (β, t)}dNi (t),

where
Sn(0) (β, t) :=

n
X

Yi (t) exp(β T Zi (t)).

i=1

Put ln (β) = Cn (β)/n. We write Un (β) for the gradient of ln (β) and Jn (β) for
the Hessian of −ln (β), i.e.,
)
(
n Z
(1)
1X 1
Sn
Un (β) =
Zi (t) − (0) (β, t) dNi (t)
n i=1 0
Sn
and
n

1X
Jn (β) =
n i=1
where

Z

1


 S (2)

n
(β, t)
(0)

0
Sn

Sn(1) (β, t) :=

n
X

(1)

−

Sn

(0)

Sn

!⊗2



(β, t) dNi (t),


Zi (t)Yi (t) exp(β T Zi (t))

i=1

and
Sn(2) (β, t) :=

n
X

Zi (t)⊗2 Yi (t) exp(β T Zi (t)).

i=1

Note that Un (β0 ) is a terminal value of the following square integrable martingale:
)
(
n Z
(1)
1X t
Sn
Un (β0 , t) :=
Zi (s) − (0) (β, s) dMi (s).
n i=1 0
Sn

2.2

Regularity conditions and matrix conditions

We assume the following conditions.
Assumption 2.1. (i) The true value β0 satisfies that kβ0 k1 < ∞. Moreover,
there exists a global constant C > 0 such that
inf |β0j | > C.

j∈T0

(ii) The covariate processes {Zi (t)}t∈[0,1] , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are uniformly bounded,
i.e., there exists global constant K1 > 0 such that
sup sup kZi (t)k∞ < K1 .

t∈[0,1]

i

4

(iii) The baseline hazard function λ0 is integrable, i.e.,
Z 1
λ0 (t)dt < ∞.
0

(0)

(iv) For every n ∈ N, there exist deterministic R-valued function sn (β, t),
(2)
(1)
Rpn valued function sn (β, t) and Rpn ×pn - valued function sn (β, t) which
satisfy the following conditions:
sup sup
β

t∈[0,1]

as n → ∞.

1 (l)
S (β, t) − s(l)
n (β, t)
n n

∞

→p 0,

l = 0, 1, 2

(l)

(v) The functions sn (β, t), l = 0, 1, 2, satisfy the following conditions:
lim sup sup sup ks(l)
n (β, t)k∞ < ∞,
n→∞

β

l = 0, 1, 2.

t∈[0,1]

lim inf inf inf s(l)
n (β, t) > 0.
n→∞

β t∈[0,1]

(vi) For every β, the following pn × pn matrix In (β) is nonnegative definite:


!
Z 1 (2)
(1) ⊗2
s
s
n
n

(β, t) s(0)
(β, t) −
In (β) :=
n (β0 , t)λ0 (t)dt.
(0)
(0)
0
sn
sn
(vii) For every ǫ > 0, it holds that
n Z
X
i=1

0

1

2

kξnT0 ,i k2 1{kξnT0 ,i k2 }>ǫ Yi (t) exp(β0T Zi (t))λ0 (t)dt →p 0,

where
ξnT0 ,i

1
:= √
n

(

(1)

ZiT0 (t) −

SnT0
(0)

Sn

)

(β0T0 , t) .

Note that the condition (vii) ensures that Lindeberg’s condition holds. Recalling that T0 = {j; β0j 6= 0} is the support index set of the true value β0 , we
introduce the following factor for the matrix In (β0 ).
Definition 2.2. Define the set CT0 ⊂ Rpn as follows:
CT0 := {h ∈ Rpn ; khT0c k1 ≤ khT0 k1 }.
Compatibility factor:
1

κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) :=

inf

06=h∈CT0

5

1

S 2 (hT In (β0 )h) 2
.
khT0 k1

The matrix factor like this can be seen in many papers which deal with highdimensional and sparse setting. See, e.g., Bickel et al. (2009), van de Geer and Bühlmann
(2009) and Huang et al. (2013) for the details. We assume the following condition for In (β0 ).
Assumption 2.3. The compatibility factor κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) is asymptotically positive, i.e.,
lim inf κ(T0 ; In (β0 )) > 0.
n→∞

3

The estimator for the regression parameter

3.1

The Dantzig selector for the proportional hazards model

Now, we define the estimator for the regression parameter β0 by the Dantzig
selector for the proportional hazards model given by:
β̂n := arg min kβk1 ,
β∈Bn

Bn := {β ∈ Rpn ; kUn (β0 )k∞ ≤ γ},

(1)

where γ is a tuning parameter. This type of estimator was proposed by Antoniadis et al.
(2010) and was further discussed by Fujimori and Nishiyama (2017).

3.2

The lq consistency of the Dantzig selector

In this subsection, we discuss the consistency of the estimator β̂n in the sense of
lq -norm for every q ∈ [1, ∞]. Assume that pn and γ = γn,pn satisfy the following
conditions:
log pn = O(nζ ), γn,pn = O(n−α log pn ),
where 0 < ζ < α ≤ 1/2 are constants. Suppose that the sparsity S is fixed
constant which does not depend on n. Moreover, we define the random sequence
ǫn by:
ǫn := kIn (β0 ) − Jn (β0 )k∞ .
Then, we can show that ǫn →p 0 (see Fujimori and Nishiyama (2017)).

Theorem 3.1. Under the Assumption 2.1 and 2.3, the it holds for global positive
constants K2 that


4K2 Sγn,pn
lim P kβ̂n − β0 k1 ≥ 2
= 0.
n→∞
κ (T0 ; In (β0 )) − 4Sǫn
In particular, it holds for every q ∈ [1, ∞] that kβ̂n − β0 kq →p 0 as n → ∞.
The proof of Theorem 3.1 can be seen in Fujimori and Nishiyama (2017).

6

3.3

The variable selection consistency of the Dantzig selector

The aim of this subsection is to show that β̂n selects non-zero components of
β0 correctly. To do this, we define the following estimator for the support index
set T0 of the true value β0 :
T̂n := {j; |β̂nj | > γn,pn }.
The estimator similar to T̂n can be seen in Fujimori (2017) which consider a
linear model of diffusion processes in a high-dimensional and sparse setting. The
following theorem states that β̂n has a variable selection consistency.
Theorem 3.2. Under the Assumption 2.1 and 2.3, it holds that
lim P (T̂n = T0 ) = 1.

n→∞

Proof. Note that kβ̂n − β0 k∞ ≤ kβ̂n − β0 k1 and that the sparsity S is assumed
to be fixed. We have that


lim P kβ̂n − β0 k∞ > γn,pn = 0
n→∞

by the l1 bound from Theorem 3.1 (i). Therefore, it is sufficient to show that
the next inequality
kβ̂n − β0 k∞ ≤ γn,pn
implies that
T̂n = T0 .
For every j ∈ T0 , it follows from the triangle inequality that
|β0j | − |β̂nj | ≤ |β̂nj − β0j | ≤ γn,pn .
Then, we have that

|β̂nj | ≥ |β0j | − γn,pn > γn,pn

for sufficiently large n, which implies that T0 ⊂ T̂n . On the other hand, for
every j ∈ T0c , we have that
|β̂nj − β0j | = |β̂nj | ≤ γn,pn
since it holds that β0j = 0. Then, we can see that j ∈ T̂nc which implies that
T̂n ⊂ T0 . We thus obtain the conclusion.
✷

3.4

The maximum partial likelihood estimator for the regression parameter after dimension reduction
(2)

Using the set T̂n , we construct a new estimator β̂n by the solution to the next
equation:
(2)
Un (βT̂n ) = 0, βT̂ c = 0.
n

7

(2)

We prove the asymptotic normality of β̂n . In this subsection, we assume that
the following S × S matrix I is positive definite:
#
 (1) ⊗2
Z 1 " (2)
s
s
(β0T0 , t) −
(β0T0 , t) λ0 (s)ds,
I :=
s(0)
s(0)
0
where
s(0) (β0T0 , t) := s(0)
n (β0T0 , t),
(1)

s(1) (β0T0 , t) := snT0 (β0T0 , t)
and

(2)

s(2) (β0T0 , t) := snT0 ,T0 (β0T0 , t).
(2)

The following theorem states that this estimator β̂n satisfies l1 consistency.
Theorem 3.3. Under Assumption 2.1 and 2.3, it holds that
kβ̂n(2) − β0 k1 →p 0
as n → ∞.
Proof. We have that
(2)

(2)

kβ̂n(2) − β0 k1 = kβ̂nT0 − β0T0 k1 + kβ̂nT c k1 .
0

It follows from Lemma 3.1 of Andersen and Gill (1982) that the first term of
right-hand side is op (1) since the sparsity S is assume to be fixed. Moreover,
we have that
(2)
kβ̂nT c k1 1{T̂n =T0 } = 0
0

(2)
β̂n .

by the definition of
Noting that 1{T̂n =T0 } →p 1, we obtain the conclusion
by using Slutsky’s theorem.
✷
(2)

To show the asymptotic normality of β̂n , we need to prove the next lemma.
Lemma 3.4. For every random sequence {βn∗ }n∈N which satisfies that
kβn∗ − β0 k1 →p 0
as n → ∞, it holds that
kJn (βn∗ ) − In (β0 )k∞ = op (1).
Proof. We have for every l = 0, 1, 2 and t ∈ [0, 1] that
1 (l) ∗
kS (β , t) − Sn(l) (β0 , t)k∞
n n n
n
1 X
Yi (t)Zi (t)⊗l (t) exp(β0T Zi (t)) {exp[kZi (t)k∞ kβn∗ − β0 k1 ] − 1}
≤
n i=1
≤ K1 exp(K1 kβ0 k1 )| exp(K1 kβn∗ − β0 k1 ) − 1|.
8

∞

The right-hand side of this inequality converges to 0 in probability when kβn∗ −
β0 k1 →p 0 as n → ∞. Then, we obtain the conclusion by a similar way to the
proof in Andersen and Gill (1982).
✷
Then, we can prove the asymptotic normality in the following sense by a similar
way to that in Andersen and Gill (1982).
Theorem 3.5. Under Assumption 2.1 and 2.3, it holds that
√
(2)
n(β̂nT̂ − β0T0 )1{T̂n =T0 } →d N (0, I −1 ).
n

Proof. It follows from the Taylor expansion and Lemma 3.4 that
√
√
(2)
n(β̂nT̂ − β0T0 )1{T̂n =T0 } = I −1 nUnT0 (β0T0 )1{T̂n =T0 } + op (1).
n

Using the martingale central limit theorem, we can see that
√
nUnT0 (β0T0 ) →d N (0, I).
Since Theorem 3.2 implies that 1{T̂n =T0 } →p 1 as n → ∞, we obtain the conclusion by using Slutsky’s theorem.
✷

4

The estimator for the cumulative baseline hazard function

We define the estimator for Λ0 (t) by the following Breslow type estimator:
Λ̂(t) :=

Z

0

(2)

t

dN̄ (s)
(2)T

Pn

i=1

Yi (s) exp(β̂n

Zi (s))

,

t ∈ [0, 1],

where β̂n is defined by the equation (2). We discuss the asymptotic property
of Λ̂ in this section. For every t ∈ [0, 1], we have that
√
n{Λ̂(t) − Λ0 (t)} = (I) + (II) + (III),
where
√
(I) = n

Z t(
0

(II) =

√

n

(Z

t

0

and

√
(III) = n

1
(0)

(2)

Sn (β̂n , s)
dN̄ (s)
(0)

Sn (β0 , s)
Z

0

t

−

−
Z

1
(0)

Sn (β0 , s)

t

λ0 (s)1{

0

λ0 (s)1{Pni=1 Yi (s)>0}

9

)

Pn

i=1

dN̄ (s),

Yi (s)>0}


− Λ0 (t) .

)

The third term (III) is asymptotically negligible because it follows from Assumption 2.1 that
Z t


lim P
λ0 (s)1{Pni=1 Yi (s)>0} − Λ0 (t) = 0 = 1.
n→∞

0

Moreover, we have that (II) equals to the following process {Wn (t)}t∈[0,1] :
√
Wn (t) = n

Z

t

dM̄ (s)

(0)
0 Sn (β0 , s)

,

which is a square integrable martingale. Using the Taylor expansion, we have
that
(I) = Hn (βn∗ , t)T (β̂n(2) − β0 ),
where
Hn (βn∗ , t) := −

Z

(1)

t

Sn

(0)

{Sn }2

0

(2)

(βn∗ , s)dN̄ (s)

and βn∗ lies between β̂n and β0 . Since it holds that kβn∗ − β0 k1 = op (1) by
Theorem 3.3, we can see that
sup
t∈[0,1]

Hn (βn∗ , t) +

Z

0

t

(1)

sn

(0)

sn

= op (1)

(β0 , s)λ0 (s)ds
∞

by a similar way to the proof of Lemma 3.4. Therefore, we obtain the following
theorem, which is proved by using Slutsky’s theorem and a similar way to that
in Andersen and Gill (1982).
√
(2)
Theorem 4.1. Under Assumption 2.1 and 2.3, it holds that n(β̂nT̂ −β0T0 )1{T̂n =T0 }
n
and the process equal in the point t to


Z t
(1)
√
√
(2)
Ts
n{Λ̂(t) − Λ0 (t)} + n
(β̂nT̂ − β0T0 ) (0) (β0T0 , s)λ0 (s)ds 1{T̂n =T0 }
n
s
0
are asymptotically independent. The latter process is asymptotically distributed
as a Gaussian martingale with the variance function
Z t
λ0 (s)
ds.
(0) (β
s
0T0 , s)
0
Acknowledgements. The author would like to express the appreciation to
Prof. Y. Nishiyama of Waseda University and Dr. K. Tsukuda of the University
of Tokyo for long hours discussion about this work.

10

References
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.
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.
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.
Bradic, J. Fan, J. and Jiang, J. (2011). Regularization for Cox’s proportional
hazards model with NP-dimensionality. Ann. Statist. 39, no. 6, 3092-3120.
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.
Cox, D.R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J. Roy.
Statist. Soc. Ser B 34 187-220.
Fujimori, K. and Nishiyama, Y. (2017). The lq consistency of the Dantzig selector for Cox’s proportional hazards model. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 181,
62-70.
Fujimori, K. (2017). The Dantzig selector for a linear model of diffusion processes. arXiv:1709.00710
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, 1142-1165.
Tibshirani, R. (1997). The lasso method for variable selection in the Cox model.
Stat. Med. 16 385-395.
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.]
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.

11

