An Adaptive Bayesian Melding Method for Reliability Evaluation Via Limited Failure Data: An Application to the Servo Turret
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early stage of product development, reliability evaluation is an indispensable step before launching a product onto the market. It is not realistic to evaluate the reliability of a new product by a host of reliability tests due to the limiting factors of time and test costs. Evaluating the reliability of products in a short time is a challenging problem. In this paper, an approach is proposed that combines a group of experts’ judgments and limited failure data. Novel features of this approach are that it can reflect various kinds of information without considering the individual weight and reduces aggregation error in the uncertainty quantification of multiple inconsistent pieces of information. First, an expert system is established by the Bayesian best–worst method and fuzzy logic inference, which collects and aggregates a group of expert opinions to estimate the reliability improvement factor. Then, an adaptive Bayesian melding method is investigated to generate a posterior by inaccurate prior knowledge and limited test data; this method is made more computationally efficient by implementing an improved sampling importance resampling algorithm. Finally, an application for the reliability evaluation of a subsystem of a CNC lathe is discussed to illustrate the framework, which is shown to validate the reasonability and robustness of our proposal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".