Nonparametric evaluation of the first passage time of degradation processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper discusses a nonparametric method to approximate the first passage time (FPT) distribution of the degradation processes incorporating random effects if the process type is unknown. The FPT of a degradation process is unnecessarily observed since its density function can be approximated by inverting the empirical Laplace transform using the empirical saddlepoint method. The empirical Laplace transform is composed of the measured increments of the degradation processes. To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, the approximated FPT is compared with the theoretical FPT assuming a true underlying process. The nonparametric method discussed in this paper is shown to possess the comparatively small relative errors in the simulation study and performs well to capture the heterogeneity in the practical data analysis. To justify the fitting results, the goodness‐of‐fit tests including Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test and Cramér‐von Mises test are conducted, and subsequently, a bootstrap confidence interval is constructed in terms of the 90th percentile of the FPT distribution.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".