Parametric inference for component distributions from lifetimes of systems with dependent components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In system reliability analysis, for an n ‐component system, the estimation of the performance of the components in the system is not straightforward in practice, especially when the components are dependent. Here, by assuming the n components in the system to be identically distributed with a common distribution belonging to a scale‐family and the dependence structure between the components being known, we discuss the estimation of the lifetime distributions of the components in the system based on the lifetimes of systems with the same structure. We develop a general framework for inference on the scale parameter of the component lifetime distribution. Specifically, the method of moments estimator (MME) and the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) are derived for the scale parameter, and the conditions for the existence of the MLE are also discussed. The asymptotic confidence intervals for the scale parameter are also developed based on the MME and the MLE. General simulation procedures for the system lifetime under this model are described. Finally, some examples of two‐ and three‐component systems are presented to illustrate all the inferential procedures developed here. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2012
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 | 0.009 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".