MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162337456 · doi:10.1080/03610920903009418

Exact Likelihood Inference for Two Exponential Populations Under Joint Progressive Type-II Censoring

2010· article· en· W2162337456 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversity of ZanjanMcMaster University
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Confidence intervalStatisticsMathematicsInferenceEstimatorBayes' theoremExponential distributionApplied mathematicsBayesian probabilityEconometricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Comparative lifetime experiments are of great importance when the interest is in ascertaining the relative merits of two competing products with regard to their reliability. In this article, we consider two exponential populations and when joint progressive Type-II censoring is implemented on the two samples. We then derive the moment generating functions and the exact distributions of the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of the mean lifetimes of the two exponential populations under such a joint progressive Type-II censoring. We then discuss the exact lower confidence bounds, exact confidence intervals, and simultaneous confidence regions. Next, we discuss the corresponding approximate results based on the asymptotic normality of the MLEs as well as those based on the Bayesian method. All these confidence intervals and regions are then compared by means of Monte Carlo simulations with those obtained from bootstrap methods. Finally, an illustrative example is presented in order to illustrate all the methods of inference discussed here. Keywords: Bayes inferenceBootstrap confidence intervalsConfidence boundsCoverage probabilitiesExponential distributionJoint progressive Type-II censoringLife-testingLikelihood inferenceSimultaneous confidence intervalsMathematics Subject Classification: Primary 62E15, 62F10, 62F2 FSecondary 62N05 Acknowledgments The first author expresses his sincere thanks to Zanjan University (Iran) for supporting his visit to McMaster University (Canada), during which time this research was carried out. The second author acknowledges the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada for conducting this research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it