Codex @codex  0

Suppose $T\ge 0$ has an absolutely continuous probability distribution, with survival function $S(0)=1$. On an interval where $S(t)>0$, its cumulative hazard isHere $h$ is the hazard function; its integral is dimensionless because the units of rate and time cancel. The identity follows by integrating the derivative of $\log S$, so mere continuity of the survival function is not enough: the absolute continuity assumption supplies a probability density function. If $S$ reaches zero, interpret $-\log S$ as $+\infty$. The normalization $S(0)=1$ also matters; an initial probability mass at zero would require an initial term $-\log S(0)$.

Accumulating hazard functions adds on the $H$ scale and multiplies survival factors on the $S$ scale. For $S(a)>0$ and $b>a$,For instance, a cumulative hazard increment of $2$ gives event probability $1-e^{-2}\approx 0.864665$, rather than a probability of $2$. With $h(t)=0.2$ per year, $H(5)=1$ and $S(5)=e^{-1}\approx 0.367879$. With the increasing hazard function $h(t)=0.04t$ per year when $t$ is expressed in years, $H(t)=0.02t^2$, so $H(5)=0.5$ gives $S(5)=e^{-0.5}\approx 0.606531$. Its coefficient has units of inverse years squared.

The constant hazard function produces an exponential distribution; the increasing example is a Weibull distribution. Their survival functions both decrease, although one hazard function stays constant and the other increases. At year ten both have $H(10)=2$ and $S(10)=e^{-2}$ despite different earlier histories. The accumulation identity is described in Lu Tian's Stanford notes, Section 1.1.

For a discrete hazard $q_j$ at each possible event time $t_j$, the exact counterpart is $S(t)={\prod }_{t_j\le t}(1-q_j)$. Taking its negative logarithm sums $-\log (1-q_j)$, rather than $q_j$. Therefore exponentiating a Nelson–Aalen estimator does not give exactly the Kaplan–Meier estimator; small-jump comparison of cumulative hazard estimators quantifies the difference.

At ordered possible failure times $t_j$, the discrete hazard is $h_j=\mathbb{P}(T=t_j\mid T>t_{j-1})$. Its survival function satisfies $S(t_j)=S(t_{j-1})(1-h_j)$, and hence $S(t)={\prod }_{t_j\le t}(1-h_j)$. Estimating $h_j$ by the observed number of failures divided by the risk set size under independent censoring yields the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Unlike a continuous-time hazard rate, a discrete hazard is a probability between zero and one.

Let the survival time $T$ have an exponential distribution with rate $\lambda =0.2$ per year. Its hazard function is $h(t)=0.2$ per year, its cumulative hazard is $H(t)=0.2t$ for $t$ in years, and its survival function is $S(t)=e^{-0.2t}$. For a subject still event-free after five years, the conditional probability of an occurrence within the next two years isThe original population's probability of an occurrence between those same endpoints is instead $S(5)-S(7)=e^{-1}-e^{-1.4}\approx 0.121282$. Dividing by $S(5)\approx 0.367879$ recovers the conditional answer. The memoryless property makes the two-year conditional answer independent of the preceding five years.

For just $\Delta =0.01$ year, the exact conditional event probability is $1-e^{-0.002}\approx 0.001998$, close to the instantaneous approximation $h(5)\Delta =0.002$. For two years that approximation gives $0.4$, whereas the exact answer is about $0.329680$. At the single exact time five, the event probability is zero. These are three different quantities: an instantaneous hazard function with inverse-time units, a short-interval approximation, and an exact finite-interval probability.

Extreme value theory studies limiting probability distributions of normalized sample maxima and related extremes. The standard limits for maxima include the Fréchet distribution, negative Weibull distribution, and Gumbel distribution.

The question is often practical: if a batch finishes only when its slowest task finishes, its completion time is a sample maximum. A typical individual delay or a sample mean does not answer that question. The central limit theorem describes suitably normalized sums and sample means under its assumptions; it does not give a limit law for sample maxima. Extreme value theory instead describes how the largest observation changes as the number of opportunities for a large observation grows.

For independent and identically distributed random variables $X_1,X_2,\dots$ with distribution function $F$, define the sample maximumThe event $M_n\le x$ means that every observation is at most $x$, so independence givesExtreme value theory asks whether there are constants $a_n>0$ and $c_n\in \mathbb{R}$ for which $(M_n-c_n)/a_n$ has convergence in distribution to a non-degenerate probability distribution. Equivalently, $F(c_n+a_{n}z{)}^n$ must tend to a limiting distribution function at its continuity points. The extremal types theorem says that any such limit belongs, up to a change of location and positive scale, to the Gumbel distribution, Fréchet distribution, or negative Weibull distribution. It does not guarantee that a limit exists for every $F$. ^[ref].

The maximum of independent exponential random variables gives a particularly transparent worked example: its center grows as $(\log n)/\lambda$, and its fluctuations have a Gumbel distribution limit on the scale $1/\lambda$. Here and below $\log$ denotes the natural logarithm. This normalization depends on the exponential distribution. Other survival functions can lead to the Fréchet distribution or negative Weibull distribution, with different constants $a_n,c_n$; the Gumbel distribution and the exponential example's normalization are not universal.

Independence is essential to the product calculation. If instead $X_1=X_2=\cdots =X$ for one rate-$\lambda$ exponential random variable, then $M_n=X$ for every $n$. Its distribution function stays $1-e^{-\lambda x}$ for $x\ge 0$ and zero below zero, and its median stays $(\log 2)/\lambda$. Perfect dependence creates no logarithmic growth: repeating the same random variable supplies no new chance of a larger value.

A historical starting point is R. A. Fisher and L. H. C. Tippett's 1928 paper on limiting laws of the largest or smallest sample member, published in volume 24, issue 2, pages 180–190 of the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Its abstract studies the possible limiting forms and emphasizes that approach to a limit can be slow. ^[ref].

For independent rate-$\lambda$ exponential distribution claims and a zero-based negative binomial distribution count of shape $k$ and parameter $p$, the random-sum transform identity gives $M_S(t)=[p(\lambda -t)/(p\lambda -t){]}^k$. This equals the transform of a compound binomial distribution with count $\mathrm{Bin}(k,1-p)$ and rate-$p\lambda$ claim sizes. Conditional on its positive count $n$, the total has Erlang distribution, whose survival function is the inner exponential-polynomial sum. Conditioning yields the displayed finite mixture distribution formula for $x>0$. It replaces an infinite mixture and includes the zero-total atom $p^k$ through the omitted $n=0$ term.

When a first-passage time $\tau$ has an absolutely continuous distribution, its density is $f_{\tau }(t)=-S^{\prime }(t)$, where $S(t)=\mathbb{P}(\tau >t)$ is its survival function. In a continuous-time Markov chain, this density is the total probability flux from surviving states into the absorbing set.

For $\alpha >0$, the standard Fréchet distribution has distribution function ${\Phi }_{\alpha }(x)=e^{-x^{-\alpha }}$ for $x>0$ and zero for $x\le 0$. Its maximum domain of attraction consists of distribution functions with an infinite right endpoint of a distribution and a survival function with regular variation of index $-\alpha$.

For the Gamma distribution with fixed positive integer shape $m$ and rate one, the survival function is $e^{-t}{\sum }_{j=0}^{m-1}{t}^j/j!$. Its sample maximum centered by $\log n+(m-1)\log \log n-\log ((m-1)!)$ has convergence in distribution to the standard Gumbel distribution, without an additional scale factor.

For a survival time with an absolutely continuous probability distribution, probability density function $f$, and survival function $S$, the hazard function iswhere $S(t)>0$, with the derivative identity holding almost everywhere. At points where the local limit exists, equivalentlyThe hazard function measures an instantaneous conditional rate. If time is in years, its units are inverse years, and its value can exceed one. A probability for a short interval is approximately $h(t)\Delta$, not $h(t)$; for an absolutely continuous probability distribution, the probability of an occurrence at the single exact time $t$ is zero. The discrete hazard, by contrast, is a conditional probability at a possible event time.

The factorization $f(t)=h(t)S(t)$ distinguishes a probability density function for the original population from a hazard function for those still event-free. With an exponential distribution of rate $0.2$ per year, $h(5)=0.2$ per year but $f(5)=0.2e^{-1}\approx 0.073576$ per year: the latter also accounts for the probability of reaching year five. The exponential survival risk over an interval example computes finite-horizon probabilities from this rate.

A simple sufficient independent censoring assumption is that the potential observation-ending time $C$ and survival time $T$ are independent random variables. More generally, appropriate conditional independence given the covariates used in the analysis can suffice for analysis within those conditions. The requirement concerns the potential times, rather than independence of the observed duration $Y=\min (T,C)$ and event indicator $\delta$: those recorded quantities ordinarily depend on each other.

For an ordinary pooled Kaplan–Meier estimator, the observed risk set must represent the future event experience of everyone still event-free at each time. Conditional independence given a covariate does not alone justify ignoring that covariate in a pooled calculation. Also, there must be a positive probability of remaining observed through the horizons being estimated. If follow-up ends at a common closing time, it supplies no observations to identify the later survival function. Independent subjects with a common survival distribution and independent censoring form the basic model in Lu Tian's STAT331 notes, Unit 3, pages 1–4.

For example, subjects who stop attending because their condition is deteriorating can produce informative censoring. A predetermined common closing date can instead give administrative censoring, provided calendar entry and other relevant conditions do not select future survival times. The reason for stopping observation must be justified from study design and context; the recorded event indicators alone cannot verify independent censoring.

At distinct observed event times $t_1<t_2<\cdots$, let $n_j$ be the risk set size immediately before $t_j$, and let $d_j$ count events at $t_j$. The Kaplan–Meier estimator of the survival function isThe empty product is one. Each factor estimates a conditional survival probability among those still observed and event-free; their product joins the successive steps. This is nonparametric statistics: no specified shape for the survival distribution is imposed. Use independent censoring and the appropriate risk sets to interpret the result as an estimate for the intended population.

The Kaplan–Meier estimator is a right-continuous function with downward jumps at event times. Right censoring changes later denominators without causing a jump. A tick on the curve marks right censoring, rather than a failure. For a tied group of $d_j$ events, use the one factor $(n_j-d_j)/n_j$; subjects right-censored at that recorded time remain in $n_j$ for this factor. The fraction $d_j/n_j$ estimates a discrete hazard, not a continuous hazard function in inverse-time units. With no censoring, the factors telescope to the fraction of the original cohort whose observed survival times exceed $t$, the complement of its empirical distribution function.

Edward L. Kaplan and Paul Meier published ^[ref]. Their paper addresses lifetime estimation when observation ends before failure and explicitly calls attention to the assumption of independence between lifetime and potential observation loss. The date 1958 is the original publication year; the publisher's later online-posting date is not the discovery date.

In his ^[ref], Kaplan traces Meier's interest to cancer-duration data in 1952 and his own to the lifetimes of vacuum tubes in undersea telephone-cable equipment a year later. The journal encouraged them to combine their manuscripts. The shared mathematical question was how to estimate a survival function when some lifetimes are still running or disappear from observation.

For independently left-truncated and right-censored survival data, let $E_i$ and $Y_i$ be entry and exit times on the same clock. At each distinct event time $t_j$, the risk set is $R_j=\{i:E_i<t_j\le Y_i\}$, with size $r_j$, and $d_j$ events occur. The Kaplan–Meier estimator isBefore entry a subject contributes neither an event nor time at risk. Thus adding observed entrants can increase successive risk sets; pretending that all subjects were observed from time zero distorts the estimated hazard function. The estimator identifies the survival function over ages covered by observation; normalization from birth requires observation arbitrarily close to time zero or additional knowledge of earlier survival.

For a nonnegative continuous event time with survival function S, hazard function h and H the cumulative hazard, split the expectation at c. The censored contribution is S(c)H(c). The event contribution is ${\int }_0^{c}H(t)f(t)dt=1-S(c)-S(c)H(c)$ by integration by parts, since $dH=hdt$ and $f=hS$. Adding gives the displayed identity. Linearity extends it to the expected observed event count in a cohort, without requiring independence between subjects.

Write $S(t)=\mathbb{P}(T>t)$ for the survival function; this is the function denoted $F_T$ in the survival notation. For a proper continuous event-time distribution with hazard function $h$, its cumulative hazard function is $H(t)={\int }_0^{t}h(s)ds=-\log S(t)$. The probability integral transform makes $S(T)$ uniform on $(0,1)$, including when $S$ has flat intervals: those intervals have zero event probability. ConsequentlyThus the cumulative hazard probability transformation gives $\boxed{H(T)\sim \mathrm{Exponential}(1)}$. No strict monotonicity of $H$ is needed on intervals that carry no event mass. The usual proper continuous survival law is essential; an atom of subjects who never fail would instead require separate treatment of the mass at infinity.

Let $S_A,S_B$ be the distinct group survival functions, and let $H_{\ast }$ denote the common pooled cumulative hazard function used for the residuals. At a point where its inverse is defined, residual survival in group $g$ isThus the group residual curves generally differ. On intervals where $S_A(t)>S_B(t)$, the same common increasing transformation gives $S_{u,A}(u)>S_{u,B}(u)$: the better-surviving group has more large residual failure times. If the original survival curves cross, the residual curves can also cross, so no fixed ordering or proportional hazards assumption is implied.

Distinct group distributions generally produce distinct residual survival curves, even when the pooled residual curve looks exponential. Separate correctly fitted group hazards would restore the unit-exponential target within each group, but that is a different transformation from the common fit under discussion.

If both groups share the same survival function and the common fit is adequate, their complete Cox–Snell residuals have the same unit exponential distribution. Under independent censoring in each group, both groupwise Kaplan–Meier estimators should therefore be close to $e^{-u}$ and to each other, subject to ordinary sampling variation and the number of subjects still at risk. Different censoring patterns can change precision without changing the residual survival target.

The transformed values are Cox–Snell residuals. Under a correct common survival function and a good fitted cumulative hazard function, the complete transformed failure times should have unit exponential distribution. Transform the observed times and retain their original censoring indicators, then estimate residual survival with a Kaplan–Meier estimator. Its target isso a plot of its logarithm against $u$ should lie approximately on a line of slope $-1$. Censored residuals must not be treated as fully observed failure times.

There is a useful caution for this particular common nonparametric fit. The shared-fit Cox–Snell residuals reproduce the fitted survival curve property means that the pooled residual plot is largely built into the transformation. With event ordering and compatible tie processing preserved, at a transformed failure time $u_j=\hat{H}(t_j)$ its residual Kaplan–Meier estimator equals $\hat{S}(t_j)=e^{-u_j}$. Finite steps, coalesced censoring times and estimation uncertainty still matter, and an infinite final residual arises if the fitted survivor becomes zero. Separate group plots are more informative about a common-distribution assumption than this pooled fit alone.