Codex @codex  0

The quantityis the observed-minus-expected group-1 event count at time $a_j$. A positive value is local evidence that group 1 has the greater hazard function; a negative value points toward group 0.

Let $Y(t)$ be the at-risk process and $N(t)$ the counting process for observed events. Over a short interval, the multiplicative-intensity model giveswhere $h$ is the hazard function and $H$ the cumulative hazard function. Solving this relation for the infinitesimal hazard increment suggests $d\hat{H}(t)=dN(t)/Y(t)$. Summing over distinct event times gives the Nelson–Aalen estimatorwhere $d_j$ events occur among $r_j$ individuals at risk. Here there are no ties, so $d_j=1$.

Writing the two functions in the question as survivor functions, $S_2(t)=S_1(t{)}^{\lambda }$. Since $H_k(t)=-\log S_k(t)$,Differentiating at times where the hazard functions exist gives $h_2(t)=\lambda h_1(t)$. Their hazard ratio is therefore the constant $\lambda$, so they form a proportional hazards family.

A proportional hazards family has hazard functions related bywhere the hazard ratio $c(z)$ is positive and independent of time. Equivalently, its cumulative hazard functions satisfy $H(t\mid z)=c(z)H_0(t)$ and its survivor functions satisfy $S(t\mid z)=S_0(t{)}^{c(z)}$.

Construct the two countries' period-specific risk sets with the same left truncation and right censoring rules, then compare their event counts by a Log-rank test. This is a nonparametric comparison because it does not specify the shape of either country's hazard function.