Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2406.11216

Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling of Noisy Gamma Processes: Model Formulation, Identifiability, Model Fitting, and Extensions to Unit-to-Unit Variability

Ryan Leadbetter·Gabriel Gonzalez Caceres·Aloke Phatak
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The gamma process is a natural model for monotonic degradation processes. In practice, it is desirable to extend the single gamma process to incorporate measurement error and to construct models for the degradation of several nominally identical units. In this paper, we show how these extensions are easily facilitated through the Bayesian hierarchical modelling framework. Following the precepts of the Bayesian statistical workflow, we show the principled construction of a noisy gamma process model. We also reparameterise the gamma process to simplify the specification of priors and make it obvious how the single gamma process model can be extended to include unit-to-unit variability or covariates. We first fit the noisy gamma process model to a single simulated degradation trace. In doing so, we find an identifiability problem between the volatility of the gamma process and the measurement error when there are only a few noisy degradation observations. However, this lack of identifiability can be resolved by including extra information in the analysis through a stronger prior or extra data that informs one of the non-identifiable parameters, or by borrowing information from multiple units. We then explore extensions of the model to account for unit-to-unit variability and demonstrate them using a crack-propagation data set with added measurement error. Lastly, we perform model selection in a fully Bayesian framework by using cross-validation to approximate the expected log probability density of new observation. We also show how failure time distributions with uncertainty intervals can be calculated for new units or units that are currently under test but are yet to fail.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEstat.AP

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ryan Leadbetter, Gabriel Gonzalez Caceres, Aloke Phatak. 2024-06-17. Bayesian Hierarchical Modelling of Noisy Gamma Processes: Model Formulation, Identifiability, Model Fitting, and Extensions to Unit-to-Unit Variability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11216

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗