Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Online survival analysis with quantile regression

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An online updating scheme for censored quantile regression matches the asymptotic efficiency of refitting all raw data once.

desk verdict First online censored quantile regression, but the stated quadratic expansion is too weak for the efficiency theorem; send to review with the supplement required. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15696 v1 pith:7ASZTRGA submitted 2025-07-21 math.ST stat.TH

Yi Deng , Shuwei Li , Liuquan Sun , Baoxue Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62G0862N01
keywords CensoredquantileregressionOnlineupdatingRenewableestimatorsStreamingdataSurvivalanalysisMajorize-minimizealgorithmResamplingleastsquares
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantile regression for censored survival times asks how covariates shift different quantiles of the event-time distribution, but the standard estimation objective is unsmooth and, when data arrive in streams, cannot be updated without revisiting every past record. This paper constructs an online version of that estimator: it replaces the historical part of the unsmooth loss with a quadratic surrogate built from a second-order expansion, so that only the current batch plus a small set of summary statistics are needed. The central claim is that this online estimator is asymptotically equivalent to the oracle estimator computed from all raw data, in the sense of the same convergence rate and the same limiting Gaussian process. If true, large registry or cohort data that arrive in batches could be analyzed continuously at a fraction of the memory and computation time, with no loss of statistical efficiency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a local quadratic expansion of the unsmooth check-function loss: Proposition 2 states that for a historical batch, $l_{kn1}(\beta(\tau))-l_{kn1}(\hat\beta_{N1}(\tau)) = \{\beta(\tau)-\hat\beta_{N1}(\tau)\}^T \Gamma_{n1}(\tau)\{\beta(\tau)-\hat\beta_{N1}(\tau)\}+o_p(1)$, where $\Gamma_{nb}(\tau)$ is a conditional-density-weighted second-moment matrix of the covariates. Plugging this surrogate into the accumulated objective turns the online problem into minimizing a convex function of the current batch loss plus a quadratic term, which admits a closed-form update through a majorize-minimize algorithm with an isotropic quadratic majorizer. The weight matrix $\Gamma$ is estimated without density estimation by a resampling least-squares procedure, and the variance estimate is updated recursively from per-batch covariance matrices via the same $\Gamma$ matrices.

What would settle it

Simulate a known accelerated-failure-time model with right censoring, stream it in batches satisfying $m=o(\tilde n^{-1/2})$, and compare the online estimator with the full-data oracle estimator over many replications. If the online confidence intervals undercover while the oracle intervals are calibrated, or if the standardized difference $\sqrt{N_B}(\hat\beta_{N_B}-\beta_0)$ is visibly non-Gaussian or biased when the oracle is not, then Proposition 2's quadratic approximation or the consistency of $\hat\Gamma$ is the point to re-examine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under regularity conditions C1–C5, the paper establishes that $\sqrt{N_B}\{\hat\beta_{N_B}(\tau)-\beta_0(\tau)\}$ converges weakly to a mean-zero Gaussian process $A(\beta_0(\tau))^{-1}\Phi(\Omega(\tau))$, the same limiting process as the oracle estimator obtained by analyzing the entire accumulated data once. This equivalence is achieved through the online objective $G_{kB}(\beta(\tau_k))$, which combines the current batch's quantile-regression loss with a quadratic penalty $\frac{N_{B-1}}{N_B}\{\beta(\tau_k)-\hat\beta_{N_{B-1}}(\tau_k)\}^T\hat\Gamma_{N_{B-1}}(\tau_k)\{\beta(\tau_k)-\hat\beta_{N_{B-1}}(\tau_k)\}$ inherited from earlier batches. The paper also shows its quantile-grid condition is weaker than the oracle's: $m=o(\tilde n^{-1/2})$ rather than $m=o(N_B^{-1/2})$, because the local quadratic approximation only needs each batch to be large. Consequently the online estimates are claimed to match the oracle in convergence rate and efficiency while storing only the current batch and $O(K)$ summary matrices.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction leans on the assumption that the historical loss difference is exactly captured by a quadratic term with a consistently estimable weight matrix; if that second-order expansion fails or the resampling estimate of the weight matrix drifts, the claimed statistical equivalence to the oracle estimator breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After each new data batch arrives, quantile effect estimates and standard errors can be refreshed from the new batch plus stored summary statistics, without reprocessing earlier patient-level records.
  • The online estimator carries the same asymptotic distribution as the oracle estimator, so confidence bands and hypothesis tests built on that distribution retain their nominal properties.
  • Because the grid size assumption is relaxed from $o(N_B^{-1/2})$ to $o(\tilde n^{-1/2})$, practitioners can choose quantile grids according to the batch size rather than the total accumulated sample, lowering the number of parameters tracked.
  • The recursive variance formula means the extra cost of producing confidence intervals is a running sum of per-batch sandwich terms, so inference remains available at every accumulation point.
  • Storage drops from $O(N_B)$ patient records to $O(n_B+K)$ summary quantities, which keeps the method workable when memory is much smaller than total sample size.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same quadratic-surrogate pattern could convert other non-smooth estimating equations with martingale structure into online form, such as median regression for censored cost data or competing-risks quantiles, provided the required second-order expansion holds.
  • Beyond the paper: the resampling least-squares estimate of $\hat\Gamma$ is reused both for updates and for variance; a simulation with known conditional density could isolate whether ReLS error or the quadratic approximation is the dominant finite-sample source of coverage loss.
  • Beyond the paper: the weakened grid-size condition suggests that in a streaming pipeline one should set the quantile grid from the smallest expected batch size, not from the final sample size, and a formal rule for choosing the grid as batches grow could be developed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an online updating method for censored quantile regression under right censoring, building on the martingale-based estimating equations of Peng and Huang (2008). The key idea is to replace the historical-data contribution to the unsmooth objective by a quadratic surrogate involving a resampling-based weight matrix, yielding the renewable loss G_kB in Eq. (5); the authors then develop a majorize-minimize algorithm with closed-form parameter updates and give a computational complexity analysis. The main theoretical claim, stated as Theorem 2 under conditions C1-C5, is that the online estimator achieves the same sqrt(N_B) convergence rate and the same limiting Gaussian process as the oracle estimator computed from all raw data. The paper reports simulations across normal, skewed extreme-value, and heteroscedastic error settings and applies the method to a SEER colon cancer data set.

Significance. If the theoretical claims hold, this is a useful contribution to online survival analysis: it extends renewable estimation to a nonsmooth censored quantile regression setting, relaxes the quantile-grid-size condition from o(N_B^{-1/2}) to o(tilde-n^{-1/2}), and provides a storage-bounded online procedure supported by a detailed computational complexity analysis. The simulation study is extensive, with multiple batch sizes and error distributions, and the reported SD/ASE ratios and coverage probabilities are mostly close to nominal; the SEER application demonstrates feasibility on a large data set. However, the theoretical core is not yet verifiable from the posted manuscript because the proofs are deferred to an unavailable supplement and, as discussed below, one stated proposition is too weak for the oracle-efficiency conclusion. The strengths of the paper are the explicit online objective, the resampling-based weight matrix estimator, and the practical emphasis on memory and time savings; the main weakness is the gap between the stated propositions and the asymptotic theorem.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Proposition 2; Section 4.1, Theorem 2] As stated, Proposition 2 gives l_{kn1}(β) - l_{kn1}(bβ_N1) = (β - bβ_N1)^T Γ_{n1}(τ)(β - bβ_N1) + o_p(1). This remainder is not small enough for the local analysis needed in Theorem 2. At the local scale β = bβ_{N_B-1}(τ) + u/sqrt(N_B), the quadratic term is O_p(1/N_B), and the current-batch term in G_kB is also O_p(1/N_B), whereas the stated o_p(1) remainder is larger by a factor of N_B. To obtain the claimed sqrt(N_B) oracle equivalence, the proof must supply a locally uniform expansion with remainder o_p(||β - bβ_N1||^2 + n_1^{-1/2}||β - bβ_N1||), and it also needs a rate for bΓ_N1 - Γ_N1 at this local scale. Neither is stated or proved in the posted text; Lemma S2, cited for consistency of bΓ_NB, is not available and in any case consistency alone does not provide the required local rate. This gap is load-bearing for Theorem 2.
  2. [Section 2.2, Proposition 1] Proposition 1 imposes the condition ||β(τ_k)|| ≤ c(N_B^{-1} Σ_{b=1}^B sqrt(n_b))^{-1} on the point at which the oracle loss is approximated by the weighted batch losses. Since this approximation is subsequently used to define the global objective G_kB, the condition must hold on the domain over which G_kB is minimized, at least with high probability; otherwise the decomposition (4) is not justified. As written, the condition is not derived from the model or from consistency of bβ_NB, and its right-hand side depends on the batch-size configuration in a way that is not interpreted. The authors should either prove the condition for the relevant domain or replace it with a standard boundedness/uniformity condition.
  3. [Section 4.1, Conditions C5 and Theorem 2] The asymptotic regime is not fully specified. Conditions C5 only say n_b → ∞ for each b = 1,...,B and m = o(tilde-n^{-1/2}), but Theorem 2's statement that sqrt(N_B){bβ_NB(τ) - β0(τ)} converges weakly needs a precise statement about whether B is fixed or grows with the n_b, and if B grows, what relation between B and the batch sizes is required. This matters for the claim that the online estimator maintains oracle efficiency as the stream continues; otherwise the result covers only a single final cumulative point, not the streaming asymptotics suggested by the paper.
  4. [Section 4.2, variance estimation] The variance derivation contains a dimensionally inconsistent display: the text reads bβ_NB(τ) = β0(τ)/sqrt(N_B) + Γ_NB^{-1}(τ) (1/N_B) Σ Φ{...} + o_p(1/sqrt(N_B)), which would imply bβ_NB(τ) tends to 0 rather than β0(τ). Presumably the left-hand side should be sqrt(N_B){bβ_NB(τ) - β0(τ)}. Since the resampling covariance estimator is built on this formula, the authors should correct the display and verify the algebra in the subsequent lines.
  5. [General: supplementary material] Propositions 1 and 2 and Theorems 1 and 2 are all proved in a Supplementary Material that is not included with the arXiv posting; Sections A and B are referenced but absent. The central claims of the paper, especially Theorem 2's oracle-efficiency statement, therefore cannot be verified from the posted manuscript. The supplement should be provided to reviewers before a final recommendation is made.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'independent of the steaming data' should read 'independent of the streaming data'.
  2. [Section 1] The phrase 'time-dependent covaraites' contains a typo; it should be 'time-dependent covariates'.
  3. [Section 3.2] The word 'quadartic' in 'a simple quadartic surrogate function' should be 'quadratic'.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Chu and Sit with different years but the same title, and the Hjort and Pollard entry has a typo in 'Asmptotics'.
  5. [Section 5, Tables 1-2] At B = 40 the oracle coverage probabilities in Tables 1 and 2 are sometimes substantially below 95% (e.g., 0.887 and 0.890), and the text's statement that coverage probabilities are all around the nominal level does not address this; the authors should comment on these oracle CPs when comparing the online and oracle methods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the online objective is an explicit local quadratic surrogate, and oracle efficiency is derived from standard asymptotically linear expansions rather than fitted or assumed.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The online loss in equation (5) is constructed by substituting Proposition 2's quadratic approximation for the historical batch objective and retaining the current batch objective; this is a surrogate design, not a fit to the oracle estimator. The oracle-efficiency claim in Theorem 2 is a derived result: the limiting process A(beta0(tau))^{-1}Phi(Omega(tau)) is obtained from the martingale expansion of the online estimating equation, the same influence-function calculation as in Peng and Huang (2008), rather than being imposed as an input. Proposition 1 is an approximation theorem proved in the supplement, not an assumption that online and oracle estimators coincide. The nuisance matrix Gamma is estimated by resampling least squares from perturbations of the score equation, and its consistency is stated as a separate lemma; this is standard derivative estimation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only apparent weakness is that Proposition 2 states a remainder o_p(1) rather than a local o_p(||beta-hat-beta||^2 + n^{-1/2}||beta-hat-beta||) bound, which is a rate/regularity gap relevant to the proof of Theorem 2, not a circularity: the target limit is not assumed in the expansion. Citations to Peng and Huang (2008) and Zeng and Lin (2008) are external methodological baselines; no load-bearing step rests on a self-citation. Simulations benchmark against the oracle on independent data, so the empirical agreement is not forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new statistical entities. It relies on the standard censored quantile regression model, independent censoring, regularity conditions C1-C5, the batch-homogeneity assumption, and a technical bound in Proposition 1. The only user-specified tuning value is the quantile grid resolution m.

free parameters (1)
  • Quantile grid size m = 0.01 in simulations and application
    User-selected resolution of the sequential quantile grid; theory requires m = o(ñ^{-1/2}), and the reported numerical results use m = 0.01.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Censoring is conditionally independent: C is independent of T given Z.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to define the observed data model and the martingale property used in equation (2).
  • domain assumption Quantile regression model QT(tau|Z) = exp{Z^T beta(tau)}.
    Global log-linear quantile model (1); all estimation and theory target beta(tau) under this model.
  • domain assumption Regularity conditions C1-C5.
    Stated in Section 4.1; needed for consistency of per-batch estimators and of Gamma estimates, invertibility of A(beta0(tau)), and the grid-size condition m = o(ñ^{-1/2}).
  • domain assumption All data batches arise from the same regression model.
    Required for online accumulation of summary statistics; explicitly acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 1 technical bound: ||beta(tau_k)|| <= c(N_B^{-1} sum_b sqrt(n_b))^{-1}.
    Technical condition in Proposition 1 (Section 2.2) used to justify replacing oracle estimators by per-batch estimators in the objective decomposition.
  • domain assumption Proposition 2 local boundedness: ||beta(tau) - beta0(tau)|| is bounded for tau in (0, tau_K].
    Assumed in Proposition 2 to control the quadratic approximation of the historical loss.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Online survival analysis with quantile regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ASZTRGA

@misc{pith2026250715696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Online survival analysis with quantile regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ASZTRGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15696}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an online inference method for censored quantile regression with streaming data sets. A key strategy is to approximate the martingale-based unsmooth objective function with a quadratic loss function involving a well-justified second-order expansion. This enables us to derive a new online convex function based on the current data batch and summary statistics of historical data, thereby achieving online updating and occupying low storage space. To estimate the regression parameters, we design a novel majorize-minimize algorithm by reasonably constructing a quadratic surrogate objective function, which renders a closed-form parameter update and thus reduces the computational burden notably. Theoretically, compared to the oracle estimators derived from analyzing the entire raw data once, we posit a weaker assumption on the quantile grid size and show that the proposed online estimators can maintain the same convergence rate and statistical efficiency. Simulation studies and an application demonstrate the satisfactory empirical performance and practical utilities of the proposed online method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The analysis results of the colon cancer data, including the estimated covariate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Koenker, R., Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46 (4), 33--50

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    Powell, J. L. (1986). Censored regression quantiles. Journal of Econometrics 32 (1), 143--155

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    H., Wei, L

    Ying, Z., Jung, S. H., Wei, L. J. (1995). Survival Analysis with median regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (429), 178--184

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Portnoy, S. (2003). Censored regression quantiles. Journal of the American Statistical Association 98 (464), 1001--1012

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    M., Huang, Y

    Peng, L. M., Huang, Y. J. (2008). Survival analysis with quantile regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103 (482), 637--649

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    M., Fine, J

    Peng, L. M., Fine, J. P. (2009). Competing risks quantile regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104 (488), 1440--1453

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    J., Wang, L

    Wang, H. J., Wang, L. (2009). Locally weighted censored quantile regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association 104 (487), 1117--1128

    work page 2009

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    L., Tong, X

    Leng, C. L., Tong, X. W. (2013). A quantile regression estimator for censored data. Bernoulli 19 (1), 344--361

    2013

  2. [10]

    S., Peng, L

    Li, R. S., Peng, L. M. (2015). Quantile regression adjusting for dependent censoring from semicompeting risks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Statistical Methodology 77 (1), 107--130

    2015

  3. [11]

    Gorfine, M., Goldberg, Y., Ritov, Y. (2017). A quantile regression model for failure-time data with time-dependent covariates. Biostatistics 18 (1), 132--146

    2017

  4. [12]

    Sit, T., Xing, Y. (2023). Distributed censored quantile regression. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 32 (4), 1685--1697

    2023

  5. [13]

    Chu, C, W., Sit, T. (2024). Censored interquantile regression model with time-dependent covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 (546), 1592--1603

    2024

  6. [14]

    K., Kumar, M., Rath, S

    Das, S., Behera, R. K., Kumar, M., Rath, S. K. (2019). Real-time sentiment analysis of twitter streaming data for stock prediction. Procedia Computer Science 132 (4), 956--964

    2019

  7. [15]

    Jiang, R., Yu, K. M. (2022). Renewable quantile regression for streaming data sets. Neurocomputing 580 , 208--224

    2022

  8. [16]

    R., Yuan, S

    Chen, X. R., Yuan, S. L. (2024). Renewable quantile regression with heterogeneous streaming datasets. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 33 (4), 1185--1201

    2024

  9. [17]

    D., Wu, J., Wang, C., Yan, J., Chen, M.-H

    Schifano, E. D., Wu, J., Wang, C., Yan, J., Chen, M.-H. (2016). Online updating of statistical inference in the big data setting. Technometrics 58 (3), 393--403

    2016

  10. [18]

    Y., Yan, J., Schifano, E

    Xue, Y., Wang, H. Y., Yan, J., Schifano, E. D. (2020). An online updating approach for testing the proportional hazards assumption with streams of survival data. Biometrics 76 (1), 171--182

    2020

  11. [19]

    Luo, L., Song, P. X.-K. (2020). Renewable estimation and incremental inference in generalized linear models with streaming data sets. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Statistical Methodology 82 (1), 69--97

    2020

  12. [20]

    Wang, Y., Palmer, N., Di, Q., Schwartz, J., Kohane, I., Cai, T. (2021). A fast divide-and-conquer sparse Cox regression. Biostatistics 22 (2), 381--401

    2021

  13. [21]

    D., Yan, J

    Wu, J., Chen, M.-H., Schifano, E. D., Yan, J. (2021). Online updating of survival analysis. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 30 (4), 1209--1223

    2021

  14. [22]

    F., Wang, H

    Sun, X. F., Wang, H. W., Cai, C., Yao, M., Wang, K. N. (2023). Online renewable smooth quantile regression. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 185 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2023.107781

    2023

  15. [23]

    J., Fygenson, M

    Wang, H. J., Fygenson, M. (2009). Inference for censored quantile regression models in longitudinal studies. The Annals of Statistics 37 (2), 756--781

    2009

  16. [24]

    Friedman, S., Negoita, S. (2024). History of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER Program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 2024 (65), 105--109

    2024

  17. [25]

    W., Sit, T

    Chu, C. W., Sit, T. (2023). Censored interquantile regression model with time-dependent covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 (546), 1592--1603

    2023

  18. [26]

    K., Liestol, K

    Andersen, P. K., Liestol, K. (2003). Attenuation caused by infrequently updated covariates in survival analysis. Biostatistics 4 (4), 633--649

    2003

  19. [27]

    Bang, H., Tsiatis, A. A. (2002). Median regression with censored cost data. Biometrics 58 (3), 643--649

    2002

  20. [28]

    Knight, K. (1998). Limiting distributions for L_1 regression estimators under ceneral conditions. The Annals of Statistics 26 (2), 755--770

    1998

  21. [29]

    W., Yu, B

    Ma, P., Mahoney, M. W., Yu, B. (2015). A statistical perspective on algorithmic leveraging. Journal of Machine Learning Research 16 (27), 861--911

    2015

  22. [30]

    L., Lin, D

    Zeng, D. L., Lin, D. Y. (2008). Efficient resampling methods for nonsmooth estimating functions. Biostatistics 9 (2), 355--363

    2008

  23. [31]

    L., Pollard, D

    Hjort, N. L., Pollard, D. (2011). Asmptotics for minimisers of convex processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.3806

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liang, W. B. (2007). Age, sex and the risk of grade-specific second primary colorectal cancer: evidence for the protective effect of female hormone. European Journal of Cance 43 (12), 1856--1861

    2007

  25. [33]

    Purim, O., Gordon, N., Brenner, B. (2013). Cancer of the colon and rectum: potential effects of sex-age interactions on incidence and outcome. Medical Science Monitor 19 , 203--209

    2013

  26. [34]

    T., Fong, S., Wong, R

    Wang, D. T., Fong, S., Wong, R. K., Mohammed, S., Fiaidhi, J., Wong, K. K. L. (2017). Robust high-dimensional bioinformatics data streams mining by ODR-ioVFDT. Scientific Reports 7 . https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43167

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Z., Han, K., Worth, R., Liu, Z

    Zhang, Y. Z., Han, K., Worth, R., Liu, Z. M. (2020). Connecting concepts in the brain by mapping cortical representations of semantic relations. Nature Communications 11 (1), 1877

    2020

  28. [36]

    Yang, Y., Yao, F., Zhao, P. (2024). Online smooth backfitting for generalized additive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 (546), 1215--1228

    2024

  29. [37]

    Barrodale, I., Roberts, F. D. K. (1974). Solution of an overdetermined system of equations in the l_1 norm. Communications of the ACM 17 (6), 319--320

    1974

  30. [38]

    M., He, X

    Zhang, Q., Peng, L. M., He, X. M. (2018). High dimensional censored quantile regression. Annals of Statistics 46 (1), 308--343

    2018

  31. [39]

    M., Pan, X

    He, X. M., Pan, X. O., Tan, K. M., Zhou, W. X. (2022). Scalable estimation and inference for censored quantile regression process. Annals of Statistics 50 (5), 2899--2924

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.