1
$\begingroup$

A colleague and I have tried two different approaches to this problem, both of which seem to make sense but are resulting in very different answers.

Suppose we have some units undergoing B hours of testing and are interested in the probability of failure in the next hour (or a generic next time t) given successful completion of B. We have some data showing that about 15% of the units failed in the B hours of testing at various times, and have tried fitting various models to estimate the answer.

A favored approach by both of us is to use a defective subpopulation distribution: We estimate the distribution parameters (call the distribution CDF) and the proportion defective p; no problem there. The problem is how to use the model to estimate the “next time t” probability of failure.

My approach is based on conditional reliability: R(t|survived B)=R(B+t)/R(B). I set R(t)=1-p*CDF(t), plug into the conditional reliability equation, and take one minus the answer to convert back to probability of failure.

My colleague takes a different approach: He says the probability of failure is equal to p*Prob(failure in next hour|member of defective subpopulation)=p(CDF(B+t)-CDF(B))/(1-CDF(B))

Both approaches seem to make sense but the answers are off by about an order of magnitude. I of course think mine is correct but can’t clearly explain why his isn’t. Any ideas?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Your approach makes sense to me. Do you know where your colleague is getting their idea from? Your colleague's answer seems strange to me, but it might be based on a method I'm not familiar with. It looks like they're fitting a Cure Model (some observations will never be defective), but they would be missing a term in their model. $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Aug 4, 2021 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ If you add (1-p) to your colleague's answer, do you get a similar answer to your approach? $\endgroup$
    – Eli
    Commented Aug 4, 2021 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Eli my colleague's approach follows from this line of reasoning: If we want to estimate the probability of failure, first assume we're dealing with a member of the defective subpopulation, then calculate the probability of failure given membership in that subpopulation. I.e. P(DS)*P(failure | DS) $\endgroup$
    – user2613562
    Commented Aug 4, 2021 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ Adding (1-p) does not give a similar answer, but if you replace my colleague's denominator with (1-p*CDF(B)) the answer is the same. $\endgroup$
    – user2613562
    Commented Aug 4, 2021 at 17:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

After thinking through this a bit more I was able to confirm that my approach is correct and identify where my colleague's approach went wrong: His use of 'p' (the probability of being in the defective subpopulation) in p*Prob(failure in next hour|member of defective subpopulation) should be replaced with Prob(member of defective subpopulation | survived B).

That probability can be computed with a fairly straightforward application of Bayes' rule and a bit of algebra (or a calculator) then shows that our answers are the same.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.