Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Collaborative System Failure Prognostics via Federated Longitudinal-Survival Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Switching to a discrete-time complementary log-log hazard makes survival models client-separable, so federated training beats isolated local training on every C-MAPSS subset without pooling raw data.

desk verdict The federated survival idea is sound but the training objective is undefined after sliding-window construction; the paper needs a careful re-derivation before its empirical claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26038 v1 pith:76FYIQBY submitted 2026-07-28 cs.OH

Fan Yang , Madelyn Weller , Dimuthu Fernando , Hila Livneh , Yuxin Wen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.OH
keywords federatedlearningsurvivalanalysisdiscrete-timeCoxmodelcomplementarylog-loglinkremainingusefullifeprognosticsandhealthmanagementC-MAPSSlongitudinalsensordata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that the reason survival models are hard to federate—the Cox partial likelihood's global risk sets—can be removed by switching to a discrete-time formulation with a complementary log-log link, whose interval-level likelihood splits into a sum of client-local terms. It then attaches an LSTM-with-attention encoder so that sliding windows of multivariate sensor readings produce the time-dependent risk representation, and a Kaplan-Meier-adaptive time grid provides stable interval baselines. The authors' empirical claim, on the four C-MAPSS turbofan subsets with ten simulated clients, is that this federated framework consistently improves C-index, integrated Brier score, MAE, and RMSE over isolated local training and remains close to—sometimes better than—centralized training. A sympathetic reader should care because it offers a concrete route to collaborative failure prognostics across organizations that cannot pool sensor or failure data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interval-level discrete-time hazard h_j(z_i)=1−exp{−exp(α_j+g_ω(z_i))}, whose complementary log-log link preserves the proportional-hazards interpretation of the Cox model. Because the binary cross-entropy loss over system–interval labels decomposes as a sum over local observations, the global objective is client-separable; the LSTM-attention encoder provides the time-dependent representation z_i, and the KM-adaptive grid supplies interval baselines α_j that allocate failures evenly across intervals.

What would settle it

Train the same federated model on C-MAPSS with a single non-overlapping window per engine (targets from the engine's true remaining life) versus the paper's overlapping sliding windows. If the overlapping version is sharply better, the reported federated gains are an artifact of duplicate supervision; if both behave similarly, the independence assumption is harmless.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the continuous-time Cox partial likelihood—whose risk sets couple observations across clients—can be replaced by a discrete-time complementary log-log hazard model whose interval-level likelihood is a sum of client-local terms, so federated averaging optimizes a well-defined global survival objective without any client seeing another's data. The framework couples this client-separable objective to an LSTM-with-attention encoder that turns sliding windows of multivariate sensor readings into risk representations, and a Kaplan-Meier-based adaptive time grid that stabilizes interval baseline estimates. On the four C-MAPSS subsets with ten simulated clients, the

Load-bearing premise

The likelihood assumes one independent survival observation per system, but training feeds overlapping sliding windows per engine; the paper never defines a window's interval labels or why overlapping windows are independent, so the objective being optimized is not pinned down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A federated network of maintenance sites can train a shared failure-risk and RUL model without transmitting raw sensor streams or individual failure records; only model updates and binned event counts for grid construction are exchanged.
  • The discrete-time cloglog formulation removes the need for global risk sets, so the per-client loss equals the global loss under FedAvg-style weighted averaging, making standard federated optimization directly applicable to survival objectives.
  • The Kaplan–Meier-based grid improves calibration and RUL error relative to equidistant bins on FD001, reducing IBS by about 5.5% and RMSE by about 4.1%.
  • Collaborative training reduces the worst-case outcome of isolated local training: on FD001, federated C-index is 0.787 versus 0.574 for the worst local client, and RMSE improves from 36.54 to 17.70 cycles.
  • On the more heterogeneous FD003/FD004 subsets, federated training still beats local-only training on all metrics, though it does not fully close the gap to centralized training.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same client-separability argument should extend to other discrete-time survival variants—proportional-odds, competing risks, or recurrent events—since any likelihood that factors over system–interval Bernoulli trials will be federatable; the paper only demonstrates the cloglog case.
  • Because only aggregated binned counts are sent to build the grid, a privacy analysis is still owed: bin width controls how much failure-time information is disclosed, and the paper does not quantify the resulting privacy–utility trade-off.
  • A direct check of the observation-unit assumption would be to train on one non-overlapping window per engine (labels from the engine's true remaining life) and compare with the overlapping-window version; if performance collapses, the reported gains partly reflect duplicated windows rather than genuine survival learning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a federated longitudinal-survival framework for system failure prognostics. To avoid the nonseparable global risk sets of the continuous-time Cox partial likelihood, it reformulates survival learning with a discrete-time complementary-log-log hazard model whose interval-level negative log-likelihood is client-separable. An LSTM-attention encoder maps sliding-window sensor sequences to representations that feed interval-specific hazards; survival curves and expected RUL are then derived. Experiments on the four C-MAPSS subsets, with engines partitioned across ten simulated clients, report that federated training consistently improves over isolated local training and is competitive with centralized training on several metrics.

Significance. If the formulation is made rigorous, the paper addresses a real obstacle: continuous-time Cox partial likelihood is not client-separable, and the discrete-time cloglog likelihood does decompose across clients. The empirical study is broad, uses held-out test engines, fixes hyperparameters chosen on FD001 across all datasets, and reports mean ± std over five seeds with comparisons to centralized and local baselines. This is a substantive contribution to federated PHM, provided the training objective is actually well-defined.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II-C.1, II-C.2, and Algorithm 1] The statistical unit is inconsistent. Eq. (7)–(16) define the likelihood at the level of a system i with a single event/censoring time T_i and interval index J_i. Algorithm 1 line 4 constructs sliding-window sensor sequences of length L from each system, and Section II-C.2 says the model input is a single L-step window. The manuscript never defines the per-window target sequence, how a window's intervals relate to T_i, or why overlapping windows from the same engine can be treated as independent terms in Eq. (16). If every window inherits the engine's full T_i, then all windows of one engine receive the same label sequence and the model has no supervision at different prediction horizons; if each window is a pseudo-subject, the likelihood must be re-derived with left-truncation, which is absent. Either way, the objective actually optimized in Algorithm 1 is not the likelihood in Eq. (16)
  2. [Section III-C, Eq. (35)] The C-index is one of the primary metrics supporting the central empirical claim, but the 'aggregate risk score r_i' is never defined. It is not stated whether r_i is a predicted hazard at a fixed horizon, a negative expected RUL, a linear predictor, or something else. Without this definition, the reader cannot verify the discrimination results or compare them with standard survival-analysis practice. Please specify the score and the handling of ties and censoring.
  3. [Eq. (16), Eq. (28), and Algorithm 1] Even after clarifying the window-level unit, the aggregation weights in Eq. (30) must match the local objective. Eq. (16) normalizes by N_k, the number of systems per client, and Eq. (28) weights clients by N_k/N. If the actual training data are sliding windows, the effective sample size per client is larger and depends on the number of windows. The paper should state whether the loss is averaged over systems or over windows, and adjust the FedAvg weighting accordingly; otherwise the global objective being minimized is ambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18)–(22)] Eq. (18) defines pooled counts over all systems i∈N, but in the federated setting these counts are obtained by aggregating local counts in Eq. (21). Clarify that N here denotes the union over all clients, and note that the KM grid construction is part of a preliminary communication round.
  2. [Table I and Section III-B] Test trajectories with 40 or fewer cycles are excluded. Please report the number of excluded engines per subset and comment on the potential selection bias this introduces, since short trajectories are likely those with the earliest truncation.
  3. [Table V and Fig. 5] The definitions of Local-avg, Local-best, and Local-worst are given in the table caption only as 'summaries computed across ten clients.' Clarify how seed variation is combined with client variation: are the means computed over five seeds and ten clients, or over clients within a single seed and then averaged over seeds?
  4. [Section II-C.2, Eq. (27)] With a learned nonlinear g_ω(z_i), the formula hj(z_i)=1−exp{−exp(α_j+g_ω(z_i))} does not correspond to a standard proportional-hazards model in the strict sense unless g_ω is linear. The paper should soften the claim that the cloglog link 'preserves the proportional-hazards interpretation of the original Cox model' when the predictor is an arbitrary neural-network function.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the discrete-time objective is derived, the C-MAPSS comparisons are held-out, and self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Section II-C.1 starts from the Cox continuous-time hazard and, through the grouped-data complementary log-log transformation (Eqs. (10)-(14)), obtains a Bernoulli product likelihood (Eq. (15)) that is a sum of client-local terms (Eq. (16)). The client-separability claim is therefore an explicit mathematical consequence of the discrete-time formulation, not an assumption fitted to the result. The empirical claim that federated training beats isolated local training is evaluated on held-out C-MAPSS test engines (Table V), with the reconstruction of test-cycle RUL based only on the provided final RUL and elapsed cycles; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Hyperparameters (window length, KM grid, cloglog link) are selected on FD001 and then fixed across subsets, which is model selection, not circularity. Self-citations ([3], [5], [10], [11]) occur only in the literature review and do not supply the target result; the key methodological antecedent [25] is external. The main weakness identified by a careful reading is a correctness/well-posedness concern: Eq. (7) defines interval labels at the system level with one event/censoring time per engine, while Algorithm 1 trains on many overlapping sliding windows per engine and the paper does not specify how window-level labels or observation units are defined. However, that is a missing specification or potential data-leakage/independence issue, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The free parameters are the usual hyperparameters of a deep survival model plus the discretization choices; the more serious issue is that the observation-unit assumption (window vs. system) is left implicit. The axioms listed are standard survival-analysis assumptions, with the window-independence assumption being ad hoc to this paper's training procedure.

free parameters (6)
  • Window length L = 40
    Selected on FD001 by sweeping L in {15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50} (Table II), then fixed for all subsets; a model-selection choice that leaks FD001 information into the other datasets.
  • Number of event-time intervals (target M) = 50 target; 37 effective with KM grid
    Chosen as 'a target of 50 intervals' for both discretization schemes (Section III-D.2); affects the number of baseline parameters and temporal resolution.
  • Grid horizon t_M = not reported
    The upper boundary of the discretization grid must exceed all event times but is never specified; it determines whether early-life windows with remaining life > 125 are included or truncated.
  • RUL cap R_max = 125
    Standard C-MAPSS piecewise-linear target clipping; imposes the modeling assumption that early degradation is uninformative and caps the regression target.
  • KM reference grid B = not reported
    The fine reference grid used for binned Kaplan-Meier counts; bin width controls both approximation accuracy and the granularity of disclosed event counts.
  • Optimizer hyperparameters (eta, E, R, batch size, LSTM/attention dims) = not reported
    Required to reproduce the federated training procedure; absent from the paper, making re-implementation dependent on guesswork.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Conditional independence of interval-level Bernoulli indicators given covariates and survival
    The likelihood in Eqs. (15)-(16) assumes that within a trajectory the interval outcomes are independent once hazards are conditioned; standard in discrete-time survival but testable.
  • domain assumption The cloglog link preserves the proportional-hazards interpretation after discretization
    Eqs. (13)-(14) assume the discrete-time hazard follows the complementary log-log form; if hazards cross or intervals are coarse, the PH structure is misspecified.
  • ad hoc to paper Sliding windows from the same engine are independent observations
    Algorithm 1 creates many overlapping windows per engine, but Eq. (16) sums over i as if they were independent; this is not justified and is likely violated.
  • domain assumption The binned federated Kaplan-Meier estimate approximates the pooled KM estimator
    Eq. (22) treats failures and at-risk counts as if uniformly distributed within reference bins; approximation error is controlled only by bin width.
  • domain assumption Reconstructed test RUL is valid ground truth at every observed cycle
    The paper computes RULtest_i(t) = min(RULend_i + (Tobs_i - t), Rmax); this assumes a deterministic linear countdown from the supplied final RUL, which is standard but ignores trajectory uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collaborative System Failure Prognostics via Federated Longitudinal-Survival Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76FYIQBY

@misc{pith2026260726038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collaborative System Failure Prognostics via Federated Longitudinal-Survival Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76FYIQBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26038}
}
read the original abstract

Time-to-event modeling provides a systematic framework for estimating time-dependent failure risk, reliability, and remaining useful life (RUL) from longitudinal condition monitoring data. However, applying these models to distributed prognostics remains challenging because sensor trajectories and failure-time records are often stored across organizations or operational sites and cannot be centrally pooled due to privacy or proprietary constraints. Moreover, the classical Cox proportional hazards model relies on a nonseparable partial likelihood involving global risk sets, making direct optimization difficult under standard federated learning protocols. This paper presents a federated longitudinal-survival modeling framework for collaborative system failure prognostics. The proposed framework combines longitudinal sensor representation learning with a client-separable discrete-time hazard objective, enabling multiple clients to collaboratively train a prognostic model without sharing raw sensor measurements or individual failure records. Time-dependent representations extracted from multivariate sensor histories are used to estimate interval-specific failure hazards, reliability curves, and system RUL. Experiments on the four C-MAPSS turbofan engine degradation subsets under simulated decentralized settings demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently improves prognostic performance over isolated local training while maintaining performance comparable to centralized training across heterogeneous operating conditions and failure modes. These results demonstrate the potential of federated longitudinal-survival modeling for collaborative, data-aware condition monitoring and system failure prognostics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the federated longitudinal–survival framework. A common event-time grid is used to construct interval labels over the locally observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Turbofan-engine structure represented in the C-MAPSS simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity of the proposed model to temporal window length on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of local-client C-index values across the ten clients, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of federated, centralized, and local-average training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted survival curves for four FD001 test engines selected to span the absolute RUL-error distribution of the federated model, from the best- to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to rul prediction,

    Y . Lei, N. Li, L. Guo, N. Li, T. Yan, and J. Lin, “Machinery health prognostics: A systematic review from data acquisition to rul prediction,” Mechanical systems and signal processing , vol. 104, pp. 799–834, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Prognostics and health management (phm): Where are we and where do we (need to) go in theory and practice,

    E. Zio, “Prognostics and health management (phm): Where are we and where do we (need to) go in theory and practice,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 218, p. 108119, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Recent advances and trends of predictive maintenance from data-driven machine prog- nostics perspective,

    Y . Wen, M. F. Rahman, H. Xu, and T.-L. B. Tseng, “Recent advances and trends of predictive maintenance from data-driven machine prog- nostics perspective,” Measurement, vol. 187, p. 110276, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    A survey of predictive maintenance: Systems, purposes and approaches,

    T. Zhu, Y . Ran, X. Zhou, and Y . Wen, “A survey of predictive maintenance: Systems, purposes and approaches,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.07383, 2019

    arXiv 1912

  5. [5]

    Degradation modeling and rul prediction using wiener process subject to multiple change points and unit heterogeneity,

    Y . Wen, J. Wu, D. Das, and T.-L. B. Tseng, “Degradation modeling and rul prediction using wiener process subject to multiple change points and unit heterogeneity,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 176, pp. 113–124, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Condition-based maintenance planning for systems subject to dependent soft and hard failures,

    J. Hu, Q. Sun, and Z.-S. Ye, “Condition-based maintenance planning for systems subject to dependent soft and hard failures,” ieee Trans- actions on Reliability , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 1468–1480, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Remaining useful life prediction of individual units subject to hard failure,

    Q. Zhou, J. Son, S. Zhou, X. Mao, and M. Salman, “Remaining useful life prediction of individual units subject to hard failure,” IIE transactions, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1017–1030, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    Functional principal components analysis on moving time windows of longitudinal data: dynamic prediction of times to event,

    F. Yan, X. Lin, R. Li, and X. Huang, “Functional principal components analysis on moving time windows of longitudinal data: dynamic prediction of times to event,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 961–978, 2018

    2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Joint models for event prediction from time series and survival data,

    X. Yue and R. A. Kontar, “Joint models for event prediction from time series and survival data,” Technometrics, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 477–486, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    A neural-network-based propor- tional hazard model for iot signal fusion and failure prediction,

    Y . Wen, X. Guo, J. Son, and J. Wu, “A neural-network-based propor- tional hazard model for iot signal fusion and failure prediction,” IISE Transactions, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 377–391, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Joint modeling of degradation signals and time-to-event data for the pre- diction of remaining useful life,

    S. Brumm, E. Linstead, J. Chen, N. Balakrishnan, and Y . Wen, “Joint modeling of degradation signals and time-to-event data for the pre- diction of remaining useful life,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 607–624, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Deepsurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a cox proportional hazards deep neural network,

    J. L. Katzman, U. Shaham, J. Bates, A. Cloninger, T. Jiang, and Y . Kluger, “Deepsurv: personalized treatment recommender system using a cox proportional hazards deep neural network,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 24, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Deephit: A deep learning approach to survival analysis with competing risks,

    C. Lee, W. R. Zame, J. Yoon, and M. van der Schaar, “Deephit: A deep learning approach to survival analysis with competing risks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Deep convolutional neural network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful life,

    G. Sateesh Babu, P. Zhao, and X.-L. Li, “Deep convolutional neural network based regression approach for estimation of remaining useful life,” in International conference on database systems for advanced applications. Springer, 2016, pp. 214–228

    2016

  7. [15]

    Remaining useful life estimation in prognostics using deep convolution neural networks,

    X. Li, Q. Ding, and J.-Q. Sun, “Remaining useful life estimation in prognostics using deep convolution neural networks,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , vol. 172, pp. 1–11, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Dual aspect self-attention based on transformer for remaining useful life prediction,

    Z. Zhang, W. Song, and Q. Li, “Dual aspect self-attention based on transformer for remaining useful life prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–11, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Privacy- preserving and sensor-fused framework for prognostic & health man- agement in leased manufacturing system,

    K. Zhang, T. Xia, D. Wang, G. Chen, E. Pan, and L. Xi, “Privacy- preserving and sensor-fused framework for prognostic & health man- agement in leased manufacturing system,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 184, p. 109666, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    H. B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning,

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings et al., “Advances and open problems in federated learning,” Foundations and trends® in machine learning , vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 1–210, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,

    T. Li, A. K. Sahu, M. Zaheer, M. Sanjabi, A. Talwalkar, and V . Smith, “Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems , vol. 2, 2020, pp. 429–450

    2020

  13. [21]

    Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,

    S. P. Karimireddy, S. Kale, M. Mohri, S. J. Reddi, S. U. Stich, and A. T. Suresh, “Scaffold: Stochastic controlled averaging for federated learning,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020, pp. 5132–5143

    2020

  14. [22]

    Empirical Convergence Analysis of Federated Averaging for Failure Prognosis *,

    M. Dhada, A. K. Jain, and A. K. Parlikad, “Empirical Convergence Analysis of Federated Averaging for Failure Prognosis *,” IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 53, pp. 360–365, Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896320302081

    2020

  15. [23]

    A federated learning-based industrial health prognostics for heterogeneous edge devices using matched feature extraction,

    A. Arunan, Y . Qin, X. Li, and C. Yuen, “A federated learning-based industrial health prognostics for heterogeneous edge devices using matched feature extraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07854 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Partial likelihood,

    D. R. Cox, “Partial likelihood,” Biometrika, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 269– 276, 1975

    1975

  17. [25]

    Feder- ated survival analysis with discrete-time cox models,

    M. Andreux, A. Manoel, A. Romagnoni, C. Wack et al. , “Feder- ated survival analysis with discrete-time cox models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08997, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A federated cox model with non-proportional hazards,

    D. K. Zhang, F. Toni, and M. Williams, “A federated cox model with non-proportional hazards,” in Multimodal AI in healthcare: A paradigm shift in health intelligence . Springer, 2022, pp. 171–185

    2022

  19. [27]

    Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study,

    P. K. Andersen and R. D. Gill, “Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study,” The annals of statistics , pp. 1100– 1120, 1982

    1982

  20. [28]

    Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data,

    R. L. Prentice and L. A. Gloeckler, “Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data,” Biometrics, pp. 57–67, 1978

    1978

  21. [29]

    J. D. Kalbfleisch and R. L. Prentice, The statistical analysis of failure time data. John Wiley & Sons, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories,

    P. D. Allison, “Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories,” Sociological methodology, vol. 13, pp. 61–98, 1982

    1982

  23. [31]

    A practical guide to understanding kaplan-meier curves,

    J. T. Rich, J. G. Neely, R. C. Paniello, C. C. V oelker, B. Nussenbaum, and E. W. Wang, “A practical guide to understanding kaplan-meier curves,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery , vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 331–336, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Degradation modeling and monitoring of truncated degradation signals,

    R. Zhou, N. Gebraeel, and N. Serban, “Degradation modeling and monitoring of truncated degradation signals,”IIE Transactions, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 793–803, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Neural machine trans- lation by jointly learning to align and translate,

    D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Neural machine trans- lation by jointly learning to align and translate,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for cmapss datasets

    E. Ramasso and A. Saxena, “Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for cmapss datasets.” International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems,

    T. Wang, J. Yu, D. Siegel, and J. Lee, “A similarity-based prognostics approach for remaining useful life estimation of engineered systems,” in 2008 international conference on prognostics and health manage- ment. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–6

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.