命中/未命中数据检测概率的置信区间比较

IF 0.5 4区 材料科学 Q4 MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING
Christine E. Knott, C. S. Kabban
{"title":"命中/未命中数据检测概率的置信区间比较","authors":"Christine E. Knott, C. S. Kabban","doi":"10.32548/2022.me-04273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Probability of detection (POD) studies for evaluating the capabilities of an inspection system for Air Force aircraft structural components commonly use a Logistic Regression model with a Wald 95% confidence interval. However, hit/miss POD data is distributed as a Binomial, and the sample sizes are commonly too small for Wald’s identically and independently normality distributed assumption to be true. This paper uses a large set of simulated representative hit/miss data to compare and contrast the performance of the four confidence intervals methods: Standard Wald, Modified Wald, Profile Likelihood Ratio, and Profile Modified Likelihood Ratio. Performance is measured in terms of bias and existence of a90/95 with respect to data distribution, sample size, overlap, and evenness. This paper provides guidance and methodology on new POD methods that more reliably and accurately estimate a90/95.","PeriodicalId":49876,"journal":{"name":"Materials Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confidence Interval Comparisons For Probability of Detection On Hit/Miss Data\",\"authors\":\"Christine E. Knott, C. S. Kabban\",\"doi\":\"10.32548/2022.me-04273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Probability of detection (POD) studies for evaluating the capabilities of an inspection system for Air Force aircraft structural components commonly use a Logistic Regression model with a Wald 95% confidence interval. However, hit/miss POD data is distributed as a Binomial, and the sample sizes are commonly too small for Wald’s identically and independently normality distributed assumption to be true. This paper uses a large set of simulated representative hit/miss data to compare and contrast the performance of the four confidence intervals methods: Standard Wald, Modified Wald, Profile Likelihood Ratio, and Profile Modified Likelihood Ratio. Performance is measured in terms of bias and existence of a90/95 with respect to data distribution, sample size, overlap, and evenness. This paper provides guidance and methodology on new POD methods that more reliably and accurately estimate a90/95.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Materials Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Materials Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32548/2022.me-04273\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materials Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32548/2022.me-04273","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

用于评估空军飞机结构部件检测系统能力的检测概率(POD)研究通常使用具有Wald 95%置信区间的逻辑回归模型。然而,命中/不命中POD数据以二项分布,并且样本量通常太小,使得Wald的相同和独立正态分布假设不成立。本文使用大量模拟的代表性命中/未命中数据,对标准Wald、修正Wald、轮廓似然比和轮廓修正似然比四种置信区间方法的性能进行了比较和对比。性能是根据数据分布、样本量、重叠和均匀性方面的偏差和a90/95的存在性来衡量的。本文提供了新的POD方法的指导和方法,以更可靠和准确地估计a90/95。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confidence Interval Comparisons For Probability of Detection On Hit/Miss Data
Probability of detection (POD) studies for evaluating the capabilities of an inspection system for Air Force aircraft structural components commonly use a Logistic Regression model with a Wald 95% confidence interval. However, hit/miss POD data is distributed as a Binomial, and the sample sizes are commonly too small for Wald’s identically and independently normality distributed assumption to be true. This paper uses a large set of simulated representative hit/miss data to compare and contrast the performance of the four confidence intervals methods: Standard Wald, Modified Wald, Profile Likelihood Ratio, and Profile Modified Likelihood Ratio. Performance is measured in terms of bias and existence of a90/95 with respect to data distribution, sample size, overlap, and evenness. This paper provides guidance and methodology on new POD methods that more reliably and accurately estimate a90/95.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Materials Evaluation
Materials Evaluation 工程技术-材料科学:表征与测试
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
35
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Materials Evaluation publishes articles, news and features intended to increase the NDT practitioner’s knowledge of the science and technology involved in the field, bringing informative articles to the NDT public while highlighting the ongoing efforts of ASNT to fulfill its mission. M.E. is a peer-reviewed journal, relying on technicians and researchers to help grow and educate its members by providing relevant, cutting-edge and exclusive content containing technical details and discussions. The only periodical of its kind, M.E. is circulated to members and nonmember paid subscribers. The magazine is truly international in scope, with readers in over 90 nations. The journal’s history and archive reaches back to the earliest formative days of the Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信