MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W839119268

Exact Analysis of Exponential Two-Component System Failure Data

2009· article· en· W839119268 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xuan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Exponential functionComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survival distribution is developed for exponential two-component systems that can survive as long as at least one of the two components in the system function. It is assumed that the two components are initially independent and non-identical. If one of the two components fail (repair is impossible), the surviving component is subject to a different failure rate due to the stress caused by the failure of the other. In this paper, we consider such an exponential two-component system failure model when the observed failure time data are (1) complete, (2) Type-I censored, (3) Type-I censored with partial information on component failures, (4) Type-II censored and (5) Type-II censored with partial information on component failures. In these situations, we discuss the maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of the parameters by assuming the lifetimes to be exponentially distributed. The exact distributions (whenever possible) of the MLEs of the parameters are then derived by using the conditional moment generating function approach. Construction of confidence intervals for the model parameters are discussed by using the exact conditional distributions (when available), asymptotic distributions, and two parametric bootstrap methods. The performance of these four confidence intervals, in terms of coverage probabilities are then assessed through Monte Carlo simulation studies. Finally, some examples are presented to illustrate all the methods of inference developed here. In the case of Type-I and Type-II censored data, since there are no closed-form expressions for the MLEs, we present an iterative maximum likelihood estimation procedure for the determination of the MLEs of all the model parameters. We also carry out a Monte Carlo simulation study to examine the bias and variance of the MLEs. In the case of Type-II censored data, since the exact distributions of the MLEs depend on the data, we discuss the exact conditional confidence intervals and asymptotic confidence intervals for the unknown parameters by conditioning on the data observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207