Specifying prior distributions in reliability applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Especially when facing reliability data with limited information (e.g., a small number of failures), there are strong motivations for using Bayesian inference methods. These include the option to use information from physics‐of‐failure or previous experience with a failure mode in a particular material to specify an informative prior distribution. Another advantage is the ability to make statistical inferences without having to rely on specious (when the number of failures is small) asymptotic theory needed to justify non‐Bayesian methods. Users of non‐Bayesian methods are faced with multiple methods of constructing uncertainty intervals (Wald, likelihood, and various bootstrap methods) that can give substantially different answers when there is little information in the data. For Bayesian inference, there is only one method of constructing equal‐tail credible intervals—but it is necessary to provide a prior distribution to fully specify the model. Much work has been done to find default prior distributions that will provide inference methods with good (and in some cases exact) frequentist coverage properties. This paper reviews some of this work and provides, evaluates, and illustrates principled extensions and adaptations of these methods to the practical realities of reliability data (e.g., non‐trivial censoring).
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 | 0.036 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".