Table 7.

Simulation results: empirical mean (standard error) of ${\widehat{\Lambda }}_0^c\left(t\right)$

	${\Lambda }_0^c\left(0.05\right)=0.05$	${\Lambda }_0^c\left(0.1\right)=0.1$	${\Lambda }_0^c\left(0.15\right)=0.15$	${\Lambda }_0^c\left(0.2\right)=0.2$
60% – 80% censoring rate
True frailty distribution: inverse Gaussian (IG)
Used: IG	0.055(0.012)	0.110(0.022)	0.164(0.033)	0.218(0.044)
Used: gamma	0.045(0.009)	0.082(0.015)	0.116(0.022)	0.149(0.028)
True frailty distribution: positive stable (PS)
Used: PS	0.057(0.013)	0.113(0.023)	0.168(0.033)	0.221(0.041)
Used: gamma	0.278(0.047)	0.505(0.090)	0.743(0.141)	0.998(0.203)
True frailty distribution: discrete (Disc)
Used: Disc	0.052(0.007)	0.106(0.012)	0.159(0.017)	0.212(0.023)
Used: gamma	0.051(0.007)	0.105(0.014)	0.161(0.020)	0.219(0.027)
30% – 40% censoring rate
True frailty distribution: inverse Gaussian (IG)
Used: IG	0.067(0.041)	0.137(0.085)	0.208(0.130)	0.279(0.176)
Used: gamma	0.035(0.006)	0.062(0.010)	0.087(0.013)	0.110(0.016)
True frailty distribution: positive stable (PS)
Used: PS	0.050(0.010)	0.101(0.018)	0.151(0.025)	0.201(0.032)
Used: gamma	0.192(0.031)	0.326(0.054)	0.452(0.078)	0.578(0.105)
True frailty distribution: discrete (Disc)
Used: Disc	0.050(0.006)	0.100(0.011)	0.151(0.015)	0.201(0.019)
Used: gamma	0.055(0.008)	0.114(0.015)	0.176(0.022)	0.241(0.023)