Researcher profile

William Q. Meeker

William Q. Meeker contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Reliability Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Systems Using Recurrent Events Data from Autonomous Vehicles

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have become increasingly common and the trend will continue. Examples of AI systems include autonomous vehicles (AV), computer vision, natural language processing, and AI medical experts. To allow for safe and effective deployment of AI systems, the reliability of such systems needs to be assessed. Traditionally, reliability assessment is based on reliability test data and the subsequent statistical modeling and analysis. The availability of reliability data for AI systems, however, is limited because such data are typically sensitive and proprietary. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) oversees and regulates an AV testing program, in which many AV manufacturers are conducting AV road tests. Manufacturers participating in the program are required to report recurrent disengagement events to California DMV. This information is being made available to the public. In this paper, we use recurrent disengagement events as a representation of the reliability of the AI system in AV, and propose a statistical framework for modeling and analyzing the recurrent events data from AV driving tests. We use traditional parametric models in software reliability and propose a new nonparametric model based on monotonic splines to describe the event process. We develop inference procedures for selecting the best models, quantifying uncertainty, and testing heterogeneity in the event process. We then analyze the recurrent events data from four AV manufacturers, and make inferences on the reliability of the AI systems in AV. We also describe how the proposed analysis can be applied to assess the reliability of other AI systems.

preprint2020arXiv

Predicting the Number of Future Events

This paper 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 paper 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-distributionbased methods that perform better than the calibration method are presented and justified.