MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408096879 · doi:10.1080/03610926.2025.2464079

Reliability inference for dual stress factors accelerated degradation test based on the nonlinear Wiener process with three-source variability

2025· article· en· W4408096879 on OpenAlexaff
Xuefeng Feng, Jiayin Tang, N. Balakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and Methods · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Social Science Fund of China
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Degradation (telecommunications)InferenceStress (linguistics)Reliability engineeringNonlinear systemComputer scienceDual (grammatical number)Process (computing)Wiener processEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

.Accelerated degradation test plays a prominent role in reliability assessment and lifetime prediction for highly reliable products. The literature on accelerated degradation modeling primarily focuses on single stress factor situations. Therefore, this article proposes a nonlinear Wiener process-based dual stress factors accelerated degradation model with interaction, which simultaneously accounts for temporal variability, individual variability, and measurement variability. The maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of the model parameters are obtained using the profile likelihood approach and the Nelder-Mead algorithm, along with the MLEs for the reliability metrics of interest under normal operating conditions. We then provide bootstrap confidence intervals of the model parameters using the parametric percentile bootstrap method. The performance of the proposed method is assessed through the Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, a real-world example is presented to illustrate the application of our method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication in Statistics- Theory and MethodsSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207