Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-28T01:18:00.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Sampling Inspection in the Presence of Inspection Errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2009

Cyrus Derman ,
Gerald J. Lieberman  and
Sheldon M. Ross
Cyrus Derman
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial EngineeringColumbia University New York, New York 10027
Gerald J. Lieberman
Affiliation:
Department of Operations Research Stanford University Stanford, California 94305
Sheldon M. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research University of California Berkeley, California 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A large lot is to be sampled by a number of inspectors for the purpose of ascertaining its number of defective units. However, instead of a defective unit always being detected if it is sampled, there are unknown probabilities, depending on the inspectors, that the unit will not be identified as a defective. We offer an approach to estimating the number of defective units in the lot.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 237 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Darroch, J. N. (1958). The multiple-recapture census 1. Estimation of a closed population. Biometrika 45: 343–359.Google Scholar
Derman, C., Lieberman, G. J., and Ross, S. M. (1983). Inspections with Unknown Detection Probabilities, Technical Report No. 211, Departments of Operations Research and Statistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Polya, G. (1986). Probabilities in proofreading. American Math. Monthly 83: 42.Google Scholar