Predicting the Number of Future Events
未来事件数量的预测AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究删失事件过程的数量预测,应用为保修与产品失效,缺少所列经济计量领域的直接依据。
反馈分类问题未来事件数量的预测AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This article describes prediction methods for the number of future events from a population of units associated with an on-going time-to-event process. Examples include the prediction of warranty returns and the prediction of the number of future product failures that could cause serious threats to property or life. Important decisions such as whether a product recall should be mandated are often based on such predictions. Data, generally right-censored (and sometimes left truncated and right-censored), are used to estimate the parameters of a time-to-event distribution. This distribution can then be used to predict the number of events over future periods of time. Such predictions are sometimes called within-sample predictions and differ from other prediction problems considered in most of the prediction literature. This article shows that the plug-in (also known as estimative or naive) prediction method is not asymptotically correct (i.e., for large amounts of data, the coverage probability always fails to converge to the nominal confidence level). However, a commonly used prediction calibration method is shown to be asymptotically correct for within-sample predictions, and two alternative predictive-distribution-based methods that perform better than the calibration method are presented and justified. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.