Inference for the extreme value distribution under progressive Type-II censoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extreme value distribution has been extensively used to model natural phenomena such as rainfall and floods, and also in modeling lifetimes and material strengths. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) for the parameters of the extreme value distribution leads to likelihood equations that have to be solved numerically, even when the complete sample is available. In this paper, we discuss point and interval estimation based on progressively Type-II censored samples. Through an approximation in the likelihood equations, we obtain explicit estimators which are approximations to the MLEs. Using these approximate estimators as starting values, we obtain the MLEs using an iterative method and examine numerically their bias and mean squared error. The approximate estimators compare quite favorably to the MLEs in terms of both bias and efficiency. Results of the simulation study, however, show that the probability coverages of the pivotal quantities (for location and scale parameters) based on asymptotic normality are unsatisfactory for both these estimators and particularly so when the effective sample size is small. We, therefore, suggest the use of unconditional simulated percentage points of these pivotal quantities for the construction of confidence intervals. The results are presented for a wide range of sample sizes and different progressive censoring schemes. We conclude with an illustrative example.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".