Optimal burn‐in policy based on a set of cutoff points using mixture inverse Gaussian degradation process and copulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Burn‐in tests have been discussed extensively in the reliability literature, wherein we operate items until high degradation values are observed, which could separate the weak units from the normal ones before they get to the market. This concept is often referred to as a screening procedure, and it involves misclassification errors. Commonly, the underlying degradation process is assumed to be a Wiener or a gamma process, based on which several optimal burn‐in policies have been developed in the literature. In this article, we consider the mixture inverse Gaussian process, which possesses monotone degradation paths and some interesting properties. Under this process, we present a decision rule for classifying a unit under test as normal or weak based on burn‐in time and a set of cutoff points. Then, an economic cost model is used to find the optimal burn‐in time and the optimal cutoff points, when the estimation of model parameters is based on an analytical method or an approximate method involving copula theory. Finally, an example of a real dataset on light amplification by stimulated emission of radiations, well known in the reliability literature, is used to illustrate the model and the inferential approach proposed here.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".