Robust inference for nondestructive one‐shot device testing under step‐stress model with exponential lifetimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One‐shot devices analysis involves an extreme case of interval censoring, wherein one can only know whether the failure time is either before or after the test time. Some kind of one‐shot devices do not get destroyed when tested, and so can continue within the experiment, providing extra information for inference, if they did not fail before an inspection time. In addition, their reliability can be rapidly estimated via accelerated life tests (ALTs) by running the tests at varying and higher stress levels than working conditions. In particular, step‐stress tests allow the experimenter to increase the stress levels at prefixed times gradually during the life‐testing experiment. The cumulative exposure model is commonly assumed for step‐stress models, relating the lifetime distribution of units at one stress level to the lifetime distributions at preceding stress levels. In this paper, we develop robust estimators and Z‐type test statistics based on the density power divergence (DPD) for testing linear null hypothesis for nondestructive one‐shot devices under the step‐stress ALTs with exponential lifetime distribution. We study asymptotic and robustness properties of the estimators and test statistics, yielding point estimation and confidence intervals for different lifetime characteristic such as reliability, distribution quantiles, and mean lifetime of the devices. A simulation study is carried out to assess the performance of the methods of inference developed here and some real‐life data sets are analyzed finally for illustrative purpose.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".