Efficient Poisson Subsampling for the Partially Linear Additive Cox Model

With the rapid growth of data volume in modern application scenarios, traditional statistical methods frequently face computationally infeasible challenges, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Subsampling has emerged as a powerful and widely adopted technique in statistical and computational research. By carefully selecting a representative subset from the full dataset, subsampling allows for parameter estimation with reduced resource consumption while preserving the statistical validity of the resulting estimates. This makes it a practical solution for modern large-scale data challenges.

Extensive research efforts have been devoted to the development of subsampling strategies for various statistical models. Specifically, 11 and 10 introduced L-optimality based methods for logistic and quantile regression, respectively; 15 studied the softmax regression via Poisson subsampling; 7 investigated A-optimality methods for the functional generalized linear model; Shao et al. (9) studied the partially linear model by constructing an unbiased Neyman-orthogonal score function; 20, Zuo et al. (24); 16 proposed optimal subsample selection approaches in distributed computing environments, and 18 developed an online strategy for the streaming multinomial logistic model. In high-dimensional settings, 21 provided a cross-validation procedure for selecting optimal subsamples. Comprehensive reviews of this field can be found in 14 (14) and Yu et al. (17) and the references therein.

Survival data arise frequently in many fields, such as biomedicine 2, engineering 13, and social sciences (Lee et al., 5). Although recent years have seen the development of subsampling methods for such data, these methods are limited to settings where covariates have parametric effects. For instance, Zuo et al. (23) investigated the additive hazards model 6, and Zhang et al. (22) and Shao et al. (8) studied the Cox model 1, with all these studies employing L-optimality subsampling; In distributed settings, Zhang et al. (19) further proposed a divide-and-conquer based subsampling approach for the Cox model. The partially linear additive Cox (PLA-Cox; 4, 4) model, which includes the Cox model as a special case, integrates both parametric and nonparametric covariate effects. Given its wide applicability, there is an urgent need for subsampling methods to alleviate the computational burden of fitting this model to large-scale data.

In this article, we propose an efficient Poisson subsampling method tailored for the PLA-Cox model. Our approach approximates nonparametric components using B-spline basis functions, constructs Poisson subsampling-based estimation equations via the decorrelated score technique, and derives the optimal subsampling probabilities based on the L-optimality criterion. For practical implementation, we design a two-stage adaptive algorithm. In the first stage, a pilot subsample is drawn via uniform Poisson subsampling to obtain pilot estimators. These estimators are then used to determine the optimal subsampling probabilities for selecting the final subsample and estimating the target parameters in the second stage. The differences between our work and prior studies on subsampling in survival analysis are as follows: First, as mentioned above, existing subsampling methods are designed for models with fully parametric covariate effects (e.g., the additive hazards model and the Cox model), whereas our method targets the PLA-Cox model, which includes both parametric and nonparametric covariate effects. Second, we develop an efficient Poisson subsampling scheme for the PLA-Cox model, which implements sampling without replacement (thus avoiding duplicate observations), distinguishing it from existing with-replacement subsampling strategies. Third, to address the nonparametric components of covariate effects, we adopt B-spline basis functions for approximation and employ the decorrelated score technique to eliminate the confounding influence of nuisance parameters. This distinguishes our estimation strategy from existing subsampling methods. Moreover, the introduction of this nonparametric component substantially complicates the theoretical development, as it necessitates validating the B-spline approximation and adjusting for the decorrelation procedure.

The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows: In Section 2, we develop a Poisson subsampling method for the PLA-Cox model, along with the asymptotic normality of the corresponding estimator. In Section 3, we focus on determining the optimal subsampling probabilities, and propose a two-stage algorithm that enables the adaptive implementation of the optimal subsampling method. In Section 4, we conduct simulation studies to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed method. An application to a real dataset is provided in Section 5. Concluding remarks are presented in Section 6. All proofs are deferred to the Supplementary Material.

Let $T$ and $C$ be the failure time and censoring time, respectively. Denote $\bm{X}=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{p})^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$ as the covariate vector for the parametric components, and $\bm{Z}=(Z_{1},\ldots,Z_{q})^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}^{q}$ as the covariates for the nonparametric components. Conditional on $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$, we assume that $T$ and $C$ are independent. The observed time is defined as $Y=\min(T,C)$, with event indicator $\Delta=I(T\leq C)$, where $I(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator function. The full dataset consists of $n$ independent and identically distributed observations from the population, denoted as $\mathcal{D}_{n}=\left\{\left(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Z}_{i},\Delta_{i},Y_{i}\right):i=1,\dots,n\right\}$. The PLA-Cox model assumes

$\displaystyle\lambda(t\mid\bm{X},\bm{Z})=\lambda_{0}(t)\exp\{\bm{\beta}_{0}^{\prime}\bm{X}+g(\bm{Z})\},$

(1)

where $\lambda(t\mid\bm{X},\bm{Z})$ is the conditional hazard function given $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$, $\lambda_{0}(t)$ is an unspecified baseline hazard function, $\bm{\beta}_{0}$ is a $p$-dimensional regression parameter vector, and the nonparametric components $g(\mathbf{Z})=\sum_{j=1}^{q}g_{j}(Z_{j})$ consists of smooth functions of $Z_{j}$, the $j$th component of $\mathbf{Z}$, satisfying ${E}\{g_{j}(Z_{j})\}=0$ for $j=1,\ldots,q$.

We approximate each $g_{j}(\cdot)$ by using B-spline basis functions. Suppose that each $Z_{j}$ takes values in $[a,b]$, where $a$ and $b$ are finite numbers. Define $\mathcal{S}_{\varrho}$ as the space of polynomial splines of degree $\varrho\geq 1$. Consider a knot sequence with $J$ interior knots

$$a=t_{-\varrho}=\ldots=t_{-1}=t_{0}<t_{1}<\ldots<t_{J}=t_{J+1}=\ldots=t_{J+\varrho+1}=b,$$

where $J$ may increase with sample size $n$. For each $j=1,\ldots,q$, we approximate $g_{j}(Z_{j})$ by a linear combination of B-spline basis functions $\{B_{s,j}(Z_{j})\}_{s=-\varrho}^{J}$ of order $\varrho+1$. The nonparametric components in model (1) can be approximated as $\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}\bm{B}(\bm{Z})$, where $\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z})=\{B_{s,j}(Z_{j}),s=-\varrho,\ldots,J;j=1,\ldots,q\}^{\prime}$ is the B-spline basis vector, and $\bm{\alpha}=\{\alpha_{s,j},s=-\varrho,\ldots,J;j=1,\ldots,q\}^{\prime}$ is the corresponding coefficient vector.

The negative log pseudo-partial likelihood function for the full data is

$\displaystyle\ell(\bm{\theta})$

$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{0}^{\tau}\left[\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}_{i}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})-\log\left\{n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}I(Y_{j}\geq t)\exp\{\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}_{j}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}_{j})\}\right\}\right]dN_{i}(t),$

where $\bm{\theta}=(\bm{\beta}^{\prime},\bm{\alpha}^{\prime})^{\prime}$, $\tau$ is a prespecified positive constant, and $N_{i}(t)=I(\Delta_{i}=1,Y_{i}\leq t)$ is a counting process, $i=1,\ldots,n$. However, when the full dataset is large, minimizing $\ell(\bm{\theta})$ brings an enormous computational burden, severely limiting the practical application of the PLA-Cox model in massive data scenarios. We employ the Possion subsampling method to address this challenge. Specifically, the $i$th observation is assigned a sampling probability $\pi_{i}$ satisfying $0<\pi_{i}\leq r^{-1}$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\pi_{i}=1$, where $r$ represents the expected subsample size. Let $u_{1},\ldots,u_{n}$ be independent uniform random variables on $(0,1)$ that are independent of the observed data. For each individual $i$, we include the tuple $(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Z}_{i},\Delta_{i},Y_{i})$ in the subsample if $u_{i}\leq r\pi_{i}$. This yields the subsampled dataset $\mathcal{D}_{r^{*}}=\{(\mathbf{X}_{i}^{*},\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{*},\Delta_{i}^{*},Y_{i}^{*},\pi_{i}^{*})\}_{i=1}^{r^{*}}$, where for each observation $i$, $\mathbf{X}_{i}^{*}$ are the linear-effect covariates, $\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{*}$ are the nonparametric confounders, $\Delta_{i}^{*}$ is the event indicator, $\mathbf{Y}_{i}^{*}$ is the response variable, and $\pi_{i}^{*}$ is the sampling probability. The realized subsample size $r^{*}$ satisfies $\mathbb{E}(r^{*})=r$. Based on $\mathcal{D}_{r^{*}}$, a negative weighted log pseudo-partial likelihood is given as follows:

	$\displaystyle\ell^{*}(\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{r\pi_{i}^{*}}\int_{0}^{\tau}\Big[\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}^{*}_{i}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}^{*}_{i})$
			$\displaystyle-\log\Big\{n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{r^{*}}(r\pi_{j}^{*})^{-1}I(Y^{*}_{j}\geq t)\exp\{\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}^{*}_{j}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}^{*}_{j})\}\Big\}\Big]dN_{i}^{*}(t),$

where $N_{i}^{*}(t)=I(\Delta_{i}^{*}=1,Y^{*}_{i}\leq t)$, $i=1,\ldots,r^{*}$.

In the PLA-Cox model, $\bm{\beta}$ is the target parameter requiring rigorous inference, whereas $\bm{\alpha}$ is nuisance parameter which merely capture nonparametric confounding effects. As a result, we adopt the decorrelated score technique to eliminate the influence of $\bm{\alpha}$ on $\bm{\beta}$. Let

$\displaystyle\nabla_{\bm{\beta}}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})={\partial\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})}/{\partial\bm{\beta}},~~\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})={\partial\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})}/{\partial\bm{\alpha}},$

$\displaystyle\nabla_{\bm{\beta}\bm{\alpha}}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})={\partial^{2}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})}/{\partial\bm{\beta}\partial\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}},~~\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\alpha}}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})={\partial^{2}\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})}/{\partial\bm{\alpha}\partial\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}},$

and

$$\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}=(\hat{\bm{\beta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}^{\prime},\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}^{\prime})^{\prime}=\arg\min\limits_{\bm{\theta}}\ell(\bm{\theta}).$$

If $\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}$ is available, we propose the following decorrelated score function

$\displaystyle U^{*}(\bm{\beta};\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})=\nabla_{\bm{\beta}}{\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},{\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}})}-\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}}{\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},{\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}})},$

where $\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}=\nabla^{2}_{\bm{\beta}\bm{\alpha}}\ell(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})\{{\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\alpha}}^{2}\ell(\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})}\}^{-1}$ is the projection matrix of $\nabla_{\bm{\beta}}{\ell^{*}(\hat{\bm{\beta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},{\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}})}$ onto $\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}}{\ell^{*}(\hat{\bm{\beta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},{\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}})}$. Nevertheless, since $\hat{\bm{\alpha}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}$ are unavailable, we replace them with pilot estimators obtained from a pilot subsample. Given the expected pilot subsample size $r_{0}$, we draw a pilot subsample $\mathcal{D}_{r_{0}^{*}}=\left\{(\mathbf{X}_{i}^{0*},\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{0*},\Delta_{i}^{0*},Y_{i}^{0*},\pi_{i}^{0*})\right\}_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}$ via uniform Poisson subsampling with $\pi_{i}^{0*}=1/n$, $i=1,\ldots,r_{0}^{*}$. Based on this subsample, we compute $(\tilde{\bm{\beta}_{0}},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})=\arg\min\ell^{0*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0}=\nabla^{2}_{\bm{\beta}\bm{\alpha}}\ell^{0*}(\tilde{\bm{\beta}}_{0},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})\big\{\nabla_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\alpha}}^{2}\ell^{0*}(\tilde{\bm{\beta}}_{0},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})\big\}^{-1}$, where

	$\displaystyle\ell^{0*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}\frac{1}{r_{0}}\int_{0}^{\tau}\Big[\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}^{0*}_{i}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}^{0*}_{i})$
			$\displaystyle-\log\Big\{\sum_{j=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}(r_{0})^{-1}I(Y^{0*}_{j}\geq t)\exp\{\bm{\beta}^{\prime}\mathbf{X}^{0*}_{j}+\bm{\alpha}^{\prime}{\mathbf{B}}(\mathbf{Z}^{0*}_{j})\}\Big\}\Big]dN_{i}^{0*}(t),$

and $N_{i}^{0*}(t)=I(\Delta_{i}^{0*}=1,Y^{0*}_{i}\leq t)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$. Finally, we obtain the subsampling estimator $\tilde{\bm{\beta}}$ by solving $U^{*}(\bm{\beta};\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0},\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0})=0$.

Our method inherits two core statistical advantages. First, from the computational perspective, the proposed method significantly reduces the computational burden by only utilizing a small fraction of the full dataset, avoiding the high computational cost of full-data optimization. Second, in terms of statistical inference, the orthogonality between the decorrelated score function and the gradient vector of the nuisance parameter $\bm{\alpha}$ eliminates the interference of $\bm{\alpha}$ on $\tilde{\bm{\beta}}$, ensuring valid inference for the target parameter $\bm{\beta}_{0}$ in the presence of nonparametric covariate effects. Our approach differs from existing subsampling methods in survival analysis, which are designed exclusively for models with fully parametric covariate effects and thus cannot be directly extended to our setting involving both parametric and nonparametric covariate components.

For any vector $\mathbf{u}$, define $\mathbf{u}^{\otimes 0}=1$, $\mathbf{u}^{\otimes 1}=\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{u}^{\otimes 2}=\mathbf{u}\mathbf{u}^{\prime}$. Let

	$\displaystyle S^{(k)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\geq t)\mathbf{V}_{i}^{\otimes k}\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}),$
	$\displaystyle S_{X}^{(k)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\geq t)\mathbf{X}^{\otimes k}_{i}\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}),$
	$\displaystyle S_{Z}^{(k)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\geq t)\mathbf{B}^{\otimes k}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}),$
	$\displaystyle S_{W}^{(k)}(t,\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}I(Y_{i}\geq t)\{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})\}(\mathbf{X}^{\otimes k}_{i})^{\prime}\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}),$
and
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{\Psi}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{0}^{\tau}\left[\frac{S_{W}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})}{S^{(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})}-\frac{S_{X}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})S_{W}^{(0)}(t,\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}},\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})^{\prime}}{\{S^{(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})\}^{2}}\right]dN_{i}(t),$

where $\mathbf{V}_{i}=(\mathbf{X}_{i}^{\prime},\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})^{\prime})^{\prime}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $k$ = 0, 1. The following conditions are required for establishing the asymptotic properties of $\tilde{\bm{\beta}}$.

• (C1)

  $\int_{0}^{\tau}\lambda_{0}(t)dt<\infty$, and $P(T\geq\tau)>0$.

• (C2)

  The covariate vector $\mathbf{X}$ is bounded.

• (C3)

  The limit of $\mathbf{\Psi}$ is nonsingular.

• (C4)

  $\max_{1\leq i\leq n}(n\pi_{i})^{-1}=O_{P}(1)$, $r_{0}=o(n)$ and $r=o(n)$.

Condition (C1) is a regularity assumption in survival analysis. Condition (C2) is a boundedness constraint on $\mathbf{X}$, which is a conventional requirement in the literature 3. This assumption maintains practical relevance for biomedical survival data, where typical covariates, such as treatment indicators, blood pressure measurements, age, and gender, are naturally bounded. Condition (C3) is imposed to guarantee the invertibility of the matrix $\mathbf{\Psi}$. Condition (C4) specifies that the minimal subsampling probability scales at order 1/n, which is consistent with Assumption 5 in Wang et al. (12). Moreover, $r_{0}=o(n)$ and $r=o(n)$ ensure that the subsample sizes are much smaller than the full data size, a natural requirement to alleviate the computational burden. Theorem 1 below develops the asymptotic normality of $\tilde{\bm{\beta}}$.

Next, we aim to find the optimal probabilities that minimize the covariance matrix in Theorem 1. Because $\bm{\Psi}^{-1}\bm{\Gamma}_{1}\bm{\Psi}^{-1}\preceq\bm{\Psi}^{-1}\bm{\Gamma}_{2}\bm{\Psi}^{-1}$ is equivalent to $\bm{\Gamma}_{1}\preceq\bm{\Gamma}_{2}$ in the Loewner ordering, this objective reduces to minimizing $\bm{\Gamma}$. However, since two positive definite matrices are not necessarily comparable, we instead minimize $\operatorname{tr}(\mathbf{\Gamma})$, a criterion justified by the fact that $\mathbf{\Gamma}_{1}\preceq\mathbf{\Gamma}_{2}$ implies $\operatorname{tr}(\mathbf{\Gamma}_{1})\leq\operatorname{tr}(\mathbf{\Gamma}_{2})$. This strategy is known as the L-optimality criterion, which has been widely adopted in the field of subsampling 10. We denote these optimal probabilities as $\{\pi_{i}^{\text{Lopt}}\}_{i=1}^{n}$, and their closed-form expressions are presented in Theorem 2.

As shown in Section 2, the L-optimal subsampling probabilities depend on several unobservable quantities: the full data estimator $\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}$, the projection matrix $\hat{\mathbf{W}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}}$, $\Lambda_{0}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\lambda_{0}(s)ds$, $S_{X}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$, $S_{Z}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$, and $S^{(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$. To overcome the unavailability of these quantities in advance, we propose the following two-step subsampling algorithm.

Step 1: Pilot Subsampling and Hybrid Probability Calculation. A pilot subsample $\mathcal{D}_{r_{0}^{*}}$ of expected size $r_{0}\ll n$ is drawn from $\mathcal{D}_{n}$ via uniform Poisson subsampling. Based on this pilot subsample, we compute pilot estimators $\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}=(\tilde{\bm{\beta}_{0}},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0}$. We estimate the cumulative baseline hazard $\Lambda_{0}(t)$ by the following Breslow estimator computed on the pilot subsample,

$$\hat{\Lambda}_{0}^{\text{UNIF}}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})=\sum_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}\int_{0}^{t}\frac{dN_{i}^{0*}(u)}{\sum_{j=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}I(Y_{j}^{0*}\geq u)\exp(\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{j}^{0*})},$$

where $\mathbf{V}_{i}^{0*}=(\mathbf{X}_{i}^{0*\prime},\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{0*})^{\prime})^{\prime}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$. In addition, we replace $S_{X}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$, $S_{Z}^{(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$, and $S^{(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}}_{\mbox{\tiny\rm F}})$ with their pilot subsample counterparts:

	$\displaystyle S_{X}^{0*(1)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{r_{0}^{*}}\sum_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}I(Y_{i}^{0*}\geq t)\mathbf{X}_{i}^{0*}\exp(\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}^{0*}),$
	$\displaystyle S_{Z}^{0*(1)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{r_{0}^{*}}\sum_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}I(Y_{i}^{0*}\geq t)\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{0*})\exp(\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}^{0*}),$
and
	$\displaystyle S^{0*(0)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{r_{0}^{*}}\sum_{i=1}^{r_{0}^{*}}I(Y_{i}^{0*}\geq t)\exp(\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i}^{0*}),$

which are computed by using the pilot subsample. Apply these substitutions to (2), yielding the implementable optimal subsampling probabilities,

$\displaystyle\pi_{i}^{\text{app}}=\frac{\|\bm{\Gamma}_{i}(\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0},\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})\|}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\|\bm{\Gamma}_{j}(\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0},\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})\|},~\ \textrm{$i=1,\ldots,n$},$

where

$\displaystyle\bm{\Gamma}_{i}(\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0},\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})$

$\displaystyle=$

$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\tau}\left\{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\frac{S_{X}^{0*(1)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})}{S^{0*(0)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})}-\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0}\left[\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}_{i}^{0*})-\frac{S_{Z}^{0*(1)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})}{S^{0*(0)}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})}\right]\right\}d\hat{M}_{i}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}),$

with $\hat{M}_{i}(t,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})=N_{i}(t)-\int_{0}^{t}I(Y_{i}\geq u)\exp(\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}_{i})d\hat{\Lambda}_{0}^{\mbox{\tiny\rm UNIF}}(u,\tilde{\bm{\theta}}_{0})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$.

To address numerical instability caused by near-zero $\pi_{i}^{\text{app}}$, we introduce a hybrid subsampling scheme: $\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}}=(1-\delta)\pi_{i}^{\text{app}}+{\delta}/{n}$, where $\delta\in(0,1)$ (e.g., $\delta=0.1$) controls the proportion of mixture. This scheme balances optimality and stability, where the term $(1-\delta)\pi_{i}^{\text{app}}$ retains the optimal subsampling feature (selecting informative observations) and ${\delta}/{n}$ guarantees a non-zero subsampling probability for all observations.

Step 2: Final Subsampling and Estimator Computation. We generate independent uniform random variables $u_{i}\sim U(0,1)$ for each observation $i$ in $\mathcal{D}_{n}$, and include observation $i$ in the final subsample $\mathcal{D}_{r^{*}}$ if $u_{i}\leq r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}}$, where $r$ is the expected final subsample size. The two-step Poisson subsampling estimator $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ is then computed by solving the decorrelated score equation

$\displaystyle U_{\delta}^{*}(\bm{\beta};\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0},\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0})=\frac{\partial\ell_{\delta}^{*}(\bm{\beta},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})}{\partial\bm{\beta}}-\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0}\frac{\partial\ell_{\delta}^{*}(\bm{\beta},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0})}{\partial\bm{\alpha}}=0,$

where $\ell_{\delta}^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})$ has the same expression as $\ell^{*}(\bm{\beta},\bm{\alpha})$ except that $r\pi_{i}^{*}$ is replaced with $\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}$. Our proposed two-step subsampling method is summarized in the following Algorithm 1.

We establish the asymptotic normality of $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ in the next Theorem 3.

For the purposes of conducting statistical inference, we estimate the covariance matrix of $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ by

$\displaystyle\hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}=\hat{\mathbf{\Psi}}^{-1}\hat{\mathbf{\Gamma}}\hat{\mathbf{\Psi}}^{-1},$

where

$\displaystyle\hat{\mathbf{\Psi}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{\Delta_{i}^{*}}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}}\left[\frac{S_{W}^{*(1)}(t,\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0},\hat{\bm{\theta}})}{S^{*(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}-\frac{S_{W}^{*(0)}(t,\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0},\hat{\bm{\theta}})S_{X}^{*(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}{\{S^{*(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})\}^{2}}\right],$

and

$\displaystyle\hat{\mathbf{\Gamma}}$

$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}^{2}}\left[\int_{0}^{\tau}\left\{\mathbf{X}^{*}_{i}-\frac{S_{X}^{*(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}{S^{*(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}-\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_{0}\left[\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}^{*}_{i})-\frac{S_{Z}^{*(1)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}{S^{*(0)}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})}\right]\right\}d\hat{M}^{*}_{i}(t,\hat{\bm{\theta}})\right]^{\otimes 2},$

together with $\hat{\bm{\theta}}=(\hat{\bm{\beta}}^{\prime},\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{0}^{\prime})^{\prime}$, $d\hat{M}^{*}_{i}(t,\bm{\theta})=dN_{i}^{*}(t)-I(Y^{*}_{i}\geq t)\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}^{*}_{i})d\hat{\Lambda}_{0}^{\mbox{\tiny\rm UNIF}}(t,\bm{\theta})$,

	$\displaystyle S_{X}^{*(1)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}}I(Y^{*}_{i}\geq t)\mathbf{X}^{*}_{i}\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}^{*}_{i}),$
	$\displaystyle S_{Z}^{*(1)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}}I(Y^{*}_{i}\geq t)\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}^{*}_{i})\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}^{*}_{i}),$
	$\displaystyle S^{*(0)}(t,\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}}I(Y^{*}_{i}\geq t)\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}^{*}_{i}),$
and
	$\displaystyle S_{W}^{*(k)}(t,\mathbf{W},\bm{\theta})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{r^{*}}\frac{1}{\{(r\pi_{\delta i}^{\text{app}*})\wedge 1\}}I(Y^{*}_{i}\geq t)\{\mathbf{X}^{*}_{i}-\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{Z}^{*}_{i})\}(\mathbf{X}^{*\otimes k}_{i})^{\prime}\exp(\bm{\theta}^{\prime}\mathbf{V}^{*}_{i}),$

$k=0,1$.

The proposed two-step subsampling algorithm enables data-dependent sampling probabilities and adapts to the intrinsic features of complex large-scale survival datasets. Notably, the covariance estimator $\hat{\mathbf{\Omega}}$ is merely constructed from the final subsample, which effectively alleviates computational burden while providing reliable uncertainty quantification for $\hat{\bm{\beta}}$ to support statistical inference.

In this section, simulation studies were conducted to evaluate the estimation accuracy and computational efficiency of the proposed Poisson subsampling estimator. Let $\lambda_{0}(t)=0.5t$, $\bm{\beta}_{0}=(-1,-0.5,0,0.5,1)^{\prime}$ and $n=10^{6}$. We considered two distinct data-generating processes for covariate $\mathbf{X}$:

• Case I: $\mathbf{X}$ followed a multivariate normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\bm{\Upsilon})$, where $\Upsilon_{js}$ denotes the $(j,s)$ entry of $\bm{\Upsilon}$, with $\Upsilon_{js}=1$ if $j=s$ and $\Upsilon_{js}=0.3$ if $j\neq s$.

• Case II: $\mathbf{X}$ followed a mixed multivariate normal distribution $0.5\mathcal{N}(-\mathbf{1},\tilde{\bm{\Upsilon}})+0.5\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{1},\tilde{\bm{\Upsilon}})$, where $\tilde{\Upsilon}_{js}=0.5^{|j-s|}$.

Let $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_{1},Z_{2})^{\prime}$, with $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$ independently drawn from a uniform distribution on $(0,1)$. The nonparametric functions were specified as $g_{1}(z)=\sin(2\pi z)$ and $g_{2}(z)=5z^{4}+3z^{2}-2$. The interior knots were $\{0.2,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.8\}$. The censoring time $C$ was simulated from a uniform distribution on $(0,c_{0})$, where $c_{0}$ was selected to give a certain censoring rate (CR). We set CR at $20\%$ and $60\%$, respectively. All the simulation results presented below are based on 1000 replications.