Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2004/iii/paper-38/3/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2004 iii Paper 38 3 Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
For subject , write , and define the counting process and pre-event at-risk process byUnder independent censoring and a common hazard, each observed event-free subject has conditional event probability in a short interval. Therefore to first order. Equivalently the compensator of a counting process is . Dividing the observed increments by current exposure gives the estimating equation , henceHere are distinct event times, the number of events at that time, and the number at risk immediately before it. One can also obtain the same increment by maximizing the local multiplicative-intensity likelihood : differentiation gives . This derives the Nelson–Aalen estimator, rather than merely naming it.
A censored observation contributes to the denominator while under observation, and then leaves the risk set; it contributes no event jump. For tied events, use the single increment , not successive one-event increments with shrinking denominators. If censoring and events share a recorded time, a convention is needed; counting the event before removing same-time censored subjects uses the pre-time risk set above. Rounded or interval-censored data may require a model suited to their observation mechanism.
For the distinct ordered observations in the question, let indicate whether is an event. The risk set at contains precisely the subjects whose recorded time is at least . ThusTherefore the sum of the fitted integrated hazards at all observation times equals the observed number of events, the event-count identity for Nelson–Aalen cumulative hazards. The grouped Nelson–Aalen event-count identity extends the same argument to tied observations with their multiplicities and the stated risk-set convention.
New to topics? Read the docs here!