Exact likelihood inference for the exponential distribution under generalized Type‐I and Type‐II hybrid censoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chen and Bhattacharyya [Exact confidence bounds for an exponential parameter under hybrid censoring, Commun Statist Theory Methods 17 (1988), 1857–1870] considered a hybrid censoring scheme and obtained the exact distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator of the mean of an exponential distribution along with an exact lower confidence bound. Childs et al. [Exact likelihood inference based on Type‐I and Type‐II hybrid censored samples from the exponential distribution, Ann Inst Statist Math 55 (2003), 319–330] recently derived an alternative simpler expression for the distribution of the MLE. These authors also proposed a new hybrid censoring scheme and derived similar results for the exponential model. In this paper, we propose two generalized hybrid censoring schemes which have some advantages over the hybrid censoring schemes already discussed in the literature. We then derive the exact distribution of the maximum likelihood estimator as well as exact confidence intervals for the mean of the exponential distribution under these generalized hybrid censoring schemes. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics, 2004
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 | 0.017 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".