Hindawi

Journal of Mathematics
Volume 2021, Article ID 1944864, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1944864

Research Article
Properties and Applications of the Modified Kies–Lomax
Distribution with Estimation Methods

Abdelaziz Alsubie
Department of Basic Sciences, College of Science and Theoretical Studies, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh 11673, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence should be addressed to Abdelaziz Alsubie; a.alsubie@seu.edu.sa

Received 30 August 2021; Revised 15 October 2021; Accepted 25 October 2021; Published 28 November 2021

Academic Editor: Barbara Martinucci

Copyright © 2021 Abdelaziz Alsubie. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The present study introduces a new three-parameter model called the modified Kies–Lomax (MKL) distribution to extend
the Lomax distribution and increase its flexibility in modeling real-life data. The MKL distribution, due to its flexibility,
provides left-skewed, symmetrical, right-skewed, and reversed-J shaped densities and increasing, unimodal, decreasing, and
bathtub hazard rate shapes. The MKF density can be expressed as a linear mixture of Lomax densities. Some basic
mathematical properties of the MKF model are derived. Its parameters are estimated via six estimation algorithms. We
explore their performances using detailed simulation results, and the partial and overall ranks are provided for the measures
of absolute biases, mean square errors, and mean relative errors to determine the best estimation method. The results show
that the maximum product of spacings and maximum likelihood approaches are recommended to estimate the MKL
parameters. Finally, the flexibility of the MKL distribution is checked using two real datasets, showing that it can provide
close fit to both datasets as compared with other competing Lomax models. The three-parameter MKL model outperforms
some four-parameter and five-parameter rival models.

1. Introduction [5], Kumaraswamy–Lomax [6], Weibull–Lomax [7], expo-

The Lomax distribution has several applications in different
applied fields such as biological sciences, income and wealth
inequality, engineering, reliability, and actuarial sciences.
Chahkandi and Ganjali [1] showed that the Lomax model
belongs to decreasing failure rate family. Detailed information
about the Lomax distribution can be explored in [2, 3].
The procedure of expanding classical distributions by
adding new shape parameters is well-known technique in
statistical literature. Recently, various extensions of the
Lomax distribution have been constructed using well-known
generators to increase its flexibility in modeling various
types of data. The new added shape parameters are im-
portant to provide skewness and to increase tail weights as
well as to enhance the flexibility to model monotonic and
nonmonotonic hazard rates particularly if the baseline
hazard rate is only monotonic.
Some of the most notable extensions of the Lomax model
are the exponentiated-Lomax [4], Marshall–Olkin Lomax
nentiated half logistic-Lomax [8], and Fréchet Topp–Leone
Lomax distributions [9]. On the contrary, some authors
studied the estimation of the Lomax distribution using the
Bayesian approach. For example, Okasha [10] studied the
E-Bayesian estimation for the Lomax distribution based on
type-II censored data and Hassan and Zaky [11] studied the
entropy Bayesian estimation for the Lomax distribution
based on records. For more details about Bayesian inference
for probability distributions, the interested reader can refer
to [12–19].
Recently, there have been a great interest among stat-
isticians to develop new families or generators of distribu-
tions by adding extra shape parameter(s) to the well-known
classical distributions. One of the most recent generators is
called modified Kies-G (MK-G) family due to Al-Babtain
et al. [20]. Consider any baseline cumulative distribution
function (CDF) with a vector of parameters υ, denoted by
G(x; υ); then, the CDF of the MK-G class with additional
shape parameter a takes the form
2 Journal of Mathematics

a
F(x; a, υ) � 1 − e− [G(x;υ)/(1− G(x;υ))] , x > 0, a > 0. (1) The corresponding probability density function (PDF) of
(1) reduces to

a− 1 − [G(x;υ)/(1− G(x;υ))]a
f(x; a, υ) � ag(x; υ)G(x; υ)a− 1 [1 − G(x; υ)]− e . (2)

The hazard rate function (HRF) of the MK-G class has likelihood methods are recommended to estimate the model
the form parameters.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. The MKL
h(x; a, υ) � ag(x; υ)G(x; υ)a− 1 [1 − G(x; υ)]− a− 1
. (3)
distribution is introduced in Section 2. Its basic distribu-
In this paper, a new three-parameter model called the tional properties are determined in Section 3. Six estimation
modified Kies–Lomax (MKL) distribution is introduced to approaches are introduced in Section 4. Simulation results
extend the Lomax model and improve its flexibility in fitting for the six estimation methods are given in Section 5. The
real-life data in various applied areas. The MKL distribution empirical importance MKL model is checked using two real
is generated by replacing the baseline Lomax distribution in datasets in Section 6. Some concluding remarks are pre-
the MK-G family. Shafiq et al. [21] adopted the MK-G family sented in Section 7.
to define the MK-Fréchet distribution.
The MKL distribution gives a better fit than some 2. The MKL Distribution
existing rival extensions of the Lomax model which have The Lomax distribution with shape parameter, λ, and scale
three, four, and five parameters. The MKL distribution, with parameter, β, is specified by the CDF
three parameters, provides decreasing, unimodal, increas-
− λ
ing, bathtub, J shape, and reversed-J shaped hazard func- x
tions, as well as right-skewed, symmetrical, left-skewed, and G(x; λ, β) � 1 − 􏼠 + 1􏼡 , x > 0, λ, β > 0. (4)
β
reversed-J shaped densities. Further important aim of the
current paper is to explore the estimation of the MKL pa- The PDF of the Lomax distribution reduces to
rameters using classical methods such as maximum likeli- − λ− 1
hood, Anderson–Darling, Cramér–von Mises, least-squares, λ x
g(x; λ, β) � 􏼠 + 1􏼡 , x > 0, λ, β > 0. (5)
weighted least-squares, and maximum product of spacings. β β
The performance of these methods are explored via simu-
lation results based on the average values of absolute biases The CDF of the MKL distribution follows, by inserting
(AVBs), mean square error (MSEs), and mean relative errors (4) in (1), as
a
of the estimates (MREs). Besides, these measures are ordered λ
F(x; a, λ, β) � 1 − e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) , x > 0, a, λ, β > 0.
using the partial and overall ranks to compare the perfor-
mances of the proposed estimators and to determine the best (6)
estimation method for the MKL parameters. The findings
Its PDF is determined by inserting (4) and (5) in
show that the maximum product of spacings and maximum
equation (2) as follows:

λ a− 1
⎝􏼠β + x􏼡 − 1⎞
λ a
f(x; a, λ, β) � aλβ− λ (β + x)λ− 1 e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) ⎛ ⎠ , x > 0, a, λ, β > 0. (7)
β

The survival function (SF) and HRF of the MKL dis- reversed-J shaped densities, as well as decreasing, uni-
tribution take the forms modal, increasing, bathtub, J shape, and reversed-J shaped
λ a hazard functions.
S(x; a, λ, β) � e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) ,

λ a− 1 (8) 3. Mathematical Properties

− λ λ− 1 ⎛
⎝ β+x ⎠
h(x; a, λ, β) � aλβ (β + x) 􏼠 􏼡 − 1⎞ . 3.1. Quantile Function. The quantile function (QF) of the
β
MKL distribution is obtained by determining the inverse
Some possible shapes for the PDF and HRF of the function of the MKL CDF (6) as
MKL distribution are displayed in Figures 1 and 2, re- 1/λ
Q(p) � β􏼒􏼐(− log(1 − p))1/a + 1􏼑 − 1􏼓, 0 < p < 1.
spectively. These plots show that the MKL distribution
provides right-skewed, symmetrical, left-skewed, and (9)
Journal of Mathematics 3

0.10 0.25
0.5
0.08 0.20
0.4
0.06 0.15
0.3
f (x)

f (x)

f (x)
0.04 0.2 0.10

0.02 0.1 0.05

0.00 0.0 0.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 25
x x x

a = 2.5 λ = 0.5 β = 3 a = 0.8 λ = 0.75 β = 0.3 a = 1.5 λ = 0.75 β = 2.5

0.4
0.6
0.5 0.3
0.4
f (x)

f (x)
0.3 0.2

0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x x

a = 2 λ = 2.5 β = 5 a = 10 λ = 0.75 β = 7
Figure 1: Some possible density curves of the MKL distribution for different values of its parameters.

5 1.5 2.5

4 2.0
1.0
3 1.5
h (x)

h (x)

h (x)

2 1.0
0.5
1 0.5

0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 5 10 15 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
x x x

a = 0.5 λ = 5 β = 1.5 a = 0.75 λ = 0.75 β = 0.75 a = 3 λ = 1.5 β = 0.75

1.5 1.0

0.8
1.0
0.6
h (x)

h (x)

0.4
0.5
0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5
x x

a = 1.5 λ = 0.75 β = 1 a = 1.15 λ = 0.5 β = 0.5

Figure 2: Some possible hazard rate shapes of the MKL distribution for different values of its parameters.
4 Journal of Mathematics

(j + 1)a + k
The three quartiles of the MKL distribution can be where Ψj,k,m � (a(− 1)j+m+1 /j![(j + 1)a + k]) 􏼠 􏼡
k
obtained by setting p � 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75, respectively, in
(9). (j + 1)a + k
􏼠 􏼡 and hm (x) is the PDF of Lomax distribution
Let p ∼ U(0, 1); then, the QF can be used directly in m
generating random data from the MKL distribution as with shape parameter mλ and scale parameter β. Hence, the
follows: properties of the proposed MKL model, such as moments,
xi � β􏼒􏼐 − log 1 − pi 􏼁􏼁
1/a
+ 1􏼑
1/λ
− 1􏼓, i � 1, 2, . . . , n. (10) follow from those of the Lomax distribution.

3.3. Moments. The rth moments of the MKL distribution

3.2. Mixture Representation. Here, we derive a useful linear has the form
representation for the PDF (7) of the MKL distribution. Al- ∞ ∞ ∞
Babtain et al. [22] derived a linear representation of the MK- μr′ � E Xr 􏼁 � 􏽚 xr f(x)dx � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m 􏽚 xr hm (x)dx.
G CDF (1) as follows: 0 j,k,m�0 0
∞
(15)
F(x) � 􏽘 δj,k H(j+1)a+k (x), (11)
j,k�0 Then, the rth moments of the MKL distribution follows,
from the moments of Lomax model, as
where H(j+1)a+k (x) is the CDF of the exp-G family with
∞
power parameter (j + 1)a + k and the term δj,k is given by λmβr Γ(r + 1)Γ(mλ − r)
μr′ � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m . (16)
(j + 1)a + k j,k,m�0 Γ(mλ + 1)
a(− 1)j ⎝
⎛ ⎠.
⎞
δj,k � (12)
j![(j + 1)a + k] k Setting r � 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, we obtain the first
four-moments of the MKL distribution.
Then, the linear representation of the CDF of the MKL The moment generating function of the MKL distri-
distribution takes the form bution follows directly from the previous formula as
∞ − λ (j+1)a+k ∞
tr ∞ r
⎣1 − 􏼠x + 1􏼡 ⎤⎦
F(x) � 􏽘 δj,k ⎡ M(t) � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m 􏽚 x hm (x)
β j,k,m,r�0
r! 0
j,k�0
(13) (17)
∞
x
− mλ ∞
tr λmβr Γ(r + 1)Γ(mλ − r)
� 􏽘 Φj,k,m 􏼠 + 1􏼡 , � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m .
β j,k,m,r�0
r! Γ(mλ + 1)
j,k,m�0
(j + 1)a + k The characteristic function of the MKL distribution
where Φj,k,m � (a(− 1)j+ m/j![(j + 1)a + k])􏼠 􏼡
k follows from the last equation by setting t � it.
(j + 1)a + k
􏼠 􏼡.
m
By differentiating the previous equation, we obtain a
linear representation of the MKL PDF as 3.4. Order Statistics. The PDF and CDF of the ith order
statistic of the MKL distribution are
∞
f(x) � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m hm (x), (14)
j,k,m�0

n!
fi:n (x) � [F(x)]i− 1 [1 − F(x)]n− i f(x)
(i − 1)!(n − i)!
a− 1 a i− 1 a − i+n+1
− ((β+x)/β)λ − 1) − ((β+x)/β)λ − 1)
aλn!β− λ (β + x)λ− 1 􏼐((β + x)/β)λ − 1􏼑 􏼒1 − e ( 􏼓 􏼒e ( 􏼓
� ,
Γ(i)Γ(− i + n + 1)
(18)
n n
Fi:n (x) � 􏽘⎛ ⎝ ⎞⎠(F(x)) (1 − F(x)) r n− r

r�i r
n λ a i λ a n− i a
⎝ ⎞
�⎛ ⎠􏼒1 − e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) 􏼓 􏼒e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) 􏼓 (((x+β)/β)λ − 1) 􏼓,
2 F1 􏼒1, i − n; i + 1; 1 − e
i
Journal of Mathematics 5

λ
− 1)a
where 2 F1 (1, i − n; i + 1; 1 − e(((x+β)/β) ) is a hyper- The joint PDF of the rth and ith order d (for 1 ≤ r < i ≤ n)
geometric function. by

n!
fr,i:n (x, y) � [F(x)]r− 1 [1 − F(y)]n− i [F(y) − F(x)]i− r− 1
f(x)f(y). (19)
(r − 1)!(n − i)!(i − r − 1)!

Hence, the joint PDF of two order statistics from the

MKL distribution takes the form

n!a2 λ2 β− 2λ (β + x)λ− 1 λ a λ a
fr,i:n (x, y) � (β + y)λ− 1 e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) e− (((β+y)/β) − 1)
(r − 1)!(n − i)!(i − r − 1)!

λ a− 1 λ a− 1
n− i
⎝􏼠β + x􏼡 − 1⎞ ⎝􏼠β + y􏼡 − 1⎞
a
− ((β+y)/β)λ − 1)
×⎛ ⎠ ⎛ ⎠ 􏼔e ( 􏼕 (20)
β β

λ a r− 1 a a i− r− 1
− ((β+x)/β)λ − 1) − ((β+y)/β)λ − 1)
× 􏼔1 − e− (((β+x)/β) − 1)
􏼕 􏼚􏼔e ( 􏼕 − 􏼔e ( 􏼕􏼛 .

3.5. Incomplete Moments. The sth incomplete moment of the 4. Methods of Estimation
MKL distribution is given by
t ∞ t
Here, we discuss the estimation of the MKL parameters by
Ψs (t) � 􏽚 xs f(x)dx � 􏽘 Ψj,k,m 􏽚 xs hm (x)dx different approaches of estimation including the maximum
0 j,k,m�0 0 likelihood estimates (MLE), Anderson–Darling estimates
∞ (ADE), maximum product of spacings estimates (MPSE),
� 􏽘 Ψj,k,m λm(− 1)1− s βs B− (t/β) (s + 1, − mλ), least-squares estimates (LSE), Cramér–von Mises estimates
j,k,m�0 (CVME), and weighted least-squares estimates (WLSE). The
parameters of several models have been estimated using
(21)
classical methods. For example, quasi xgamma-geometric
z b− 1
where Bz (a, b) � 􏽒0 ta− 1 (1
− t) dt. [23], Weibull Marshall–Olkin Lindley [24], heavy-tailed
The important application of the first incomplete mo- exponential [25], transmuted Burr X exponential [26], and
ment is related to the Bonferroni and Lorenz curves defined discrete Poisson–Lindley and discrete Lindley [22], among
by L(p) � (Ψ1 (t)/μ1′) and B(p) � (Ψ1 (xp )/(pμ1′)), respec- many others.
tively, where xp can be evaluated numerically by equation
(22) for a given probability p. These curves are very useful in
economics, demography, insurance, engineering, and 4.1. Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Let x1 , x2 , . . . , xn be a
medicine. Another application of the first incomplete mo- random sample of size n from the PDF (7); then, the log-
ment refers to the mean residual life (MRL) and the mean likelihood function reduces to
waiting time given by m1 (t) � ([1 − Ψ1 (t)]/(S(t) − t)) and
M1 (t) � ((t − Ψ1 (t))/F(t)), respectively.

λ a λ
n n n
L � n log􏼐aλβ 􏼑 − 􏽘 ⎝
− λ ⎛􏼠β + xi 􏼡 − 1⎠ ⎛􏼠β + xi 􏼡 − 1⎠
⎞ +(a − 1) 􏽘 log⎝ ⎞ +(λ − 1) 􏽘 log β + xi 􏼁. (22)
i�1
β i�1
β i�1

By differentiating equation (22) with respect to a, λ, and

β, respectively, and equating to zero, we obtain
6 Journal of Mathematics

λ a λ λ
zL n n ⎛ β + xi ⎝􏼠β + xi 􏼡 − 1⎞
n
⎝􏼠β + xi 􏼡 − 1⎞
� − 􏽘 ⎝􏼠 ⎠ log⎛
􏼡 − 1⎞ ⎠ + 􏽘 log⎛ ⎠ � 0,
za a i�1 β β i�1
β

λ λ λ a− 1
n n
zL β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 log β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 β + xi β + xi ⎛ β + xi
� (a − 1) 􏽘 λ
− 􏽘 a􏼠 􏼡 log􏼠 􏼡⎝ 􏼠 ⎠
􏼡 − 1⎞
zλ i�1 β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 − 1 i�1
β β β

n
n
+ 􏽘 log β + xi 􏼁 + n(− log(β)) + � 0,
i�1
λ

λ− 1 λ a− 1
n λ− 1 n n
zL λx β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 aλxi β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 􏼐 β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 − 1􏼑 1 λn
� (a − 1) 􏽘 − 2 i λ
− 􏽘 − 2 +(λ − 1) 􏽘 − � 0.
zβ i�1 β 􏼐 β + xi 􏼁/β􏼁 − 1􏼑 i�1 β i�1
β + xi β
(23)
n n
i 2 λ a
i 2
Solving the previous equations, we obtain estimators of O � 􏽘 􏼔F xi:n 􏼁 − 􏼕 � 􏽘 􏼔1 − e− 􏼂((β+xi )/β) − 1􏼃 − 􏼕.
i�1 n+1 i�1 n+1
the MKL parameters by the MLEs. The previous equations
cannot be solved explicitly; hence, the numerical techniques (24)
can be used maximize the log-likelihood function to get the The LSE of the MKL parameters can also be obtained by
MLEs using several programs such as the R, SAS, Mathcad. solving the following equations:
n a
λ i
4.2. Ordinary Least-Squares and Weighted Least-Squares 􏽘 􏼚1 − e− 􏼂((β+xi )/β) − 1􏼃 − 􏼛ϑ x 􏼁 � 0, k � 1, 2, 3,
i�1 n + 1 k i:n
Estimators. Let x1: n , x2: n , . . . , x2: n be the order statistics of
a random sample of size n from the MKL distribution. (25)
Hence, we can obtain the LSE of the MKL parameters by
where
minimizing the following equation:

λ a λ
z ⎝􏼠β + x􏼡 − 1⎞ ⎝􏼠β + x􏼡 − 1⎞
λ a
ϑ1 xi:n 􏼁 � F xi:n 􏼁 � e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) ⎛ ⎠ log⎛ ⎠, (26)
za β β

λ λ a− 1
z β+x β + x − (((β+x)/β)λ − 1)a ⎝
⎛􏼠β + x􏼡 − 1⎞
⎠
ϑ2 xi:n 􏼁 � F xi:n 􏼁 � a􏼠 􏼡 log􏼠 􏼡e , (27)
zλ β β β

λ a
a− 1
z aλx((β + x)/β)λ− 1 e− (((β+x)/β) − 1) 􏼐((β + x)/β)λ − 1􏼑
ϑ3 xi:n 􏼁 � F xi:n 􏼁 � − . (28)
zβ β2
n
(n + 1)2 (n + 2) λ a
i
􏼔1 − e 􏼂(( i ) ) 􏼃 −
− β+x /β − 1
The WLSE of the MKL parameters are obtained by 􏽘 􏼕ϑ x 􏼁 � 0,
i�1 i(n − i + 1) n + 1 k i:n
minimizing the following equation:
(30)
(n + 1)2 (n + 2)
n
i 2 where ϑk (xi:n ) for k � 1, 2, 3 are defined in (26)–(28).
W�􏽘 􏼔F xi:n 􏼁 − 􏼕
i�1
i(n − i + 1) n+1

4.3. Anderson–Darling Estimation. The ADE of the MKL

n
(n + 1)2 (n + 2) λ a
i 2
􏼚1 − e 􏼂(( i ) ) 􏼃 −
− β+x /β − 1 parameters can be obtained by minimizing
�􏽘 􏼛.
i�1
i(n − i + 1) n+1
1 n
(29) A�− n− 􏽘 (2i − 1)􏼂log F xi:n 􏼁 + log S xi:n 􏼁􏼃. (31)
n i�1
Moreover, the WLSE of the MKL parameters are also The ADE are also be calculated by solving the following
obtained by solving the following equations: equations:
Journal of Mathematics 7

n
ϑk xi:n 􏼁 ϑk xn+1− i:n 􏼁 1 N
􏽘 (2i − 1)􏼢 − 􏼣 � 0, (32) AVBs � 􏽘 |􏽢φ − φ|,
i�1 F xi:n 􏼁 S xn+1− i:n 􏼁 N i�1

where ϑk (xi:n ), for k � 1, 2, 3, are defined in (26)–(28). 1 N

MSEs � 􏽘 (􏽢φ − φ)2 , (38)
N i�1
4.4. Cramér–von Mises Estimation. The CVME of MKL
parameters are obtained by minimizing the following 1 N |􏽢
φ − φ|
MREs � 􏽘 ,
equation: N i�1 φ
n
1 2i − 1 2 where φ � (a, λ, β)′ .
CV � + 􏽘 􏼔F xi:n 􏼁 − 􏼕
12n i�1 2n Tables 1–6 report detailed simulation results for the six
(33) estimation methods including AVBs, MSEs, and MREs for the
n
1 λ a
2i − 1 2 parameters of the MKL distribution. These tables also present
� + 􏽘 􏼚1 − e− 􏼂((β+xi )/β) − 1􏼃 − 􏼛, the ordering of the simulation measures, AVBs, MSEs, and
12n i�1 2n
MREs, based on partial and overall ranks which are given for
or by solving the following equations each combination and sample size. In conclusion, the esti-
n a
mates, from six estimation methods, of the MKL parameters
λ 2i − 1
􏽘 􏼚1 − e− 􏼂((β+xi )/β) − 1􏼃
− 􏼛ϑk xi:n 􏼁 � 0, (34) are quite good and close to their true values, showing small
i�1 2n and decreasing AVBs, MSEs, and MREs in all parameter
combinations. Moreover, all methods have the consistency
where ϑk (xi:n ), for k � 1, 2, 3, were defined in (26)–(28). property, i.e., the MREs and MSEs decrease as sample size, n,
increases, for all parameter combinations.
Table 7 illustrates the partial and overall ranks of the six
4.5. Maximum Product of Spacings’ Estimation. The maxi-
estimators. Table 7 shows that the performance ordering of
mum product of spacings (MPS) method is used to estimate
the estimators are MPSE, MLE, ADE, LSE, WLSE, and
the parameters of continuous models as a good alternative to
CVME, respectively. Based on simulation results and the
the maximum likelihood method. The uniform spacings of a
ranks of the estimators, we conclude that the MPSE out-
random sample of size n from the MKL distribution is
performs other estimators with an overall score of 39.5 and
defined by
can confirm the superiority of MPSE and MLE for esti-
Di � F xi 􏼁 − F xi− 1 􏼁, (35) mating the parameters of the MKL distribution.

where Di are the uniform spacings, F(x0 ) � 0, F(xn+1 � 1),

and 􏽐n+1
i�1 Di � 1. The MPSE of the MKL parameters can be
obtained by maximizing
1 n+1
G� 􏽘 log Di 􏼁,
n + 1 i�1
with respect to a, λ, and β. Furthermore, the MPSE of the
MKL parameters can also be calculated by solving
1 n+1 1
􏽘 􏼂ϑ x 􏼁 − ϑk xi− 1: n 􏼁􏼃 � 0,
n + 1 i�1 Di k i:n
where ϑk (xi:n ), for k � 1, 2, 3, were defined in (26)–(28).
5. Simulation Results
Now, we explore and compare the performance of the in-
troduced methods in estimating the MKL parameters based
on simulation results. Several sample sizes, n � {20, 70, 150,
250, 400}, and several parametric values for the parameters,
a � {0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.50, 2.0, 3.0}, λ � {0.50, 0.75, 1.50, 2.0,
3.0}, and β � {0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.50, 2.0}, are considered to
generate N � 10, 000 random samples from the MKL dis-
tribution using its QF and to determine the AVBs’, MSEs’,
and MREs’ measures using the R program. The AVBs’,
MSEs’, and MREs’ measures are calculated using the fol-
lowing equations:
6. Application
In this section, we consider two real-life datasets to show the
applicability and flexibility of the new MKL distribution. The
(36) first dataset is studied by [9, 27], and it represents successive
failures of air conditioning systems for fleet of 13 Boeing 720
jet airplanes. The data are 50, 11, 14, 130, 16, 9, 57, 102, 15, 5,
14, 11, 10, 57, 261, 12, 51, 44, 239, 18, 33, 209, 181, 37, 111, 82,
230, 71, 80, 152, 46, 386, 182, 118, 44, 120, 141, 210, 11, 14,
186, 29, 14, 102, 4, 118, 72, 270, 31, 14, 88, 130, 15, 326, 18,
(37)
130, 35, 5, 18, 1, 79, 216, 61, 41, 58, 61, 60, 48, 56, 87, 98, 54,
12, 5, 22, 43, 201, 84, 27, 20, 206, 310, 220, 34, 29, 26, 90, 163,
208, 1, 134, 3, 184, 20, 35, 29, 65, 49, 7, 104, 21, 16, 283, 5, 22,
120, 66, 57, 139, 67, 3, 27, 76, 14, 100, 32, 9, 12, 5, 18, 3, 14, 39,
18, 13, 7, 34, 36, 79, 33, 246, 25, 59, 34, 18, 44, 191, 100, 7, 156,
320, 63, 22, 23, 62, 188, 11, 104, 31, 106, 153, 59, 42, 46, 26,
54, 62, 39, 36, 30, 23, 95, 16, 101, 71, 52, 208, 24, 12, 70, 230,
97, 254, 438, 502, 493, 487, and 603. The second dataset is
studied by [8], and it contains 100 observations about
waiting times (in minutes) in a bank before the customers
receive their services. The data are 0.8, 4.3, 0.8, 1.5, 1.3, 1.8,
2.7, 1.9, 2.1, 1.9, 2.6, 3.1, 3.5, 2.9, 3.2, 3.3, 4, 3.6, 4.2, 4.1, 4.2,
4.4, 4.3, 4.9, 4.4, 7.1, 4.6, 7.1, 4.7, 7.1, 4.7, 6.9, 4.8, 5.0, 4.9, 5.3,
8.9, 5.5, 5.7, 8.8, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, 9.5, 6.2, 6.3, 6.2, 6.7, 7.1, 10.7,
7.4, 7.7, 7.6, 8, 8.6, 8.2, 8.6, 8.8, 11.0, 8.9, 8.6, 9.6, 11.9, 12.5,
13.0, 13.3, 13.6, 13.7, 33.1, 9.7, 9.8, 11.1, 10.9, 11.0, 17.3, 11.2,
11.5, 12.4, 13.1, 11.2, 20.6, 12.9, 27, 31.6, 23, 13.9, 21.9, 18.9,
8 Journal of Mathematics

Table 1: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 0.25, λ � 0.5, and β � 0.75).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 0.04931{4} 0.04875{3} 0.05656{5} 0.04113{1} 0.058{6} 0.04476{2}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.13797{4} 0.11954{3} 0.11866{2} 0.10849{1} 0.14696{6} 0.13835{5}
β􏽢 0.38104{3} 0.37337{2} 0.40831{5} 0.34521{1} 0.41155{6} 0.38367{4}
a􏽢 0.00509{4} 0.00445{3} 0.00632{6} 0.00325{1} 0.00612{5} 0.00349{2}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.0301{6} 0.02144{2} 0.0221{3} 0.019{1} 0.03001{5} 0.02666{4}
20
β􏽢 0.19462{4} 0.18369{2} 0.20346{6} 0.16691{1} 0.20247{5} 0.19181{3}
a􏽢 0.19723{4} 0.19501{3} 0.22623{5} 0.16451{1} 0.23201{6} 0.17904{2}
MREs λ􏽢 0.27594{4} 0.23908{3} 0.23731{2} 0.21698{1} 0.29393{6} 0.27669{5}
β􏽢 0.50806{3} 0.49783{2} 0.54442{5} 0.46027{1} 0.54874{6} 0.51156{4}
􏽐 Ranks 36{4} 23{2} 39{5} 9{1} 51{6} 31{3}
a􏽢 0.02742{3.5} 0.0268{2} 0.03636{6} 0.02306{1} 0.02742{3.5} 0.03118{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.07868{1} 0.0793{2} 0.09272{6} 0.08375{4} 0.08793{5} 0.08202{3}
β􏽢 0.28137{5} 0.25654{2} 0.2631{3} 0.26644{4} 0.2398{1} 0.29297{6}
a􏽢 0.00116{2} 0.00126{4} 0.0024{6} 0.00089{1} 0.00118{3} 0.0017{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.00903{1} 0.00919{2} 0.01312{6} 0.01017{4} 0.0127{5} 0.01009{3}
70
β􏽢 0.10563{5} 0.087{2} 0.08971{3} 0.10316{4} 0.08385{1} 0.1073{6}
a􏽢 0.10966{3} 0.10719{2} 0.14544{6} 0.09223{1} 0.10968{4} 0.12472{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.15736{1} 0.15859{2} 0.18543{6} 0.16749{4} 0.17586{5} 0.16404{3}
β􏽢 0.37517{5} 0.34205{2} 0.3508{3} 0.35525{4} 0.31974{1} 0.39062{6}
􏽐 Ranks 26.5{2} 20{1} 45{6} 27{3} 28.5{4} 42{5}
a􏽢 0.02093{4} 0.01933{1} 0.02289{6} 0.01946{2} 0.02073{3} 0.02157{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.05985{4} 0.05645{2} 0.0666{6} 0.05679{3} 0.06349{5} 0.05637{1}
β􏽢 0.18028{2} 0.2037{4} 0.23448{6} 0.14297{1} 0.21707{5} 0.2023{3}
a􏽢 0.00071{3} 0.00065{2} 0.00088{6} 0.00064{1} 0.00075{5} 0.00073{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.0058{4} 0.00493{2} 0.00645{6} 0.00533{3} 0.0064{5} 0.0047{1}
150
β􏽢 0.0503{2} 0.0579{4} 0.06827{6} 0.0414{1} 0.06224{5} 0.05699{3}
a􏽢 0.08372{4} 0.0773{1} 0.09155{6} 0.07786{2} 0.08291{3} 0.08628{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.11969{4} 0.11291{2} 0.1332{6} 0.11357{3} 0.12698{5} 0.11274{1}
β􏽢 0.24038{2} 0.2716{4} 0.31265{6} 0.19063{1} 0.28943{5} 0.26974{3}
􏽐 Ranks 29{4} 22{2} 54{6} 17{1} 41{5} 26{3}
a􏽢 0.01421{2} 0.01556{3} 0.01742{6} 0.01606{5} 0.01583{4} 0.01402{1}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.04106{2} 0.04526{3} 0.05146{5} 0.04092{1} 0.05157{6} 0.04632{4}
β􏽢 0.12122{2} 0.15847{5} 0.16527{6} 0.09491{1} 0.14253{3} 0.15646{4}
a􏽢 3e − 04{1} 0.00039{3} 0.00048{5.5} 0.00048{5.5} 4e − 04{4} 0.00035{2}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.00271{1} 0.00339{3} 0.00417{5} 0.00324{2} 0.00423{6} 0.00341{4}
250
β􏽢 0.02544{2} 0.03493{6} 0.03417{5} 0.02{1} 0.02854{3} 0.03285{4}
a􏽢 0.05683{2} 0.06224{3} 0.06969{6} 0.06423{5} 0.06333{4} 0.05609{1}
MREs λ􏽢 0.08212{2} 0.09052{3} 0.10292{5} 0.08185{1} 0.10315{6} 0.09265{4}
β􏽢 0.16163{2} 0.2113{5} 0.22037{6} 0.12655{1} 0.19005{3} 0.20862{4}
􏽐 Ranks 20{1} 33{4} 47.5{6} 20.5{2} 41{5} 27{3}
a􏽢 0.0093{2} 0.00882{1} 0.01164{6} 0.00933{3} 0.01089{4} 0.01107{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.02335{1} 0.02816{3} 0.03528{5} 0.02659{2} 0.03594{6} 0.03181{4}
β􏽢 0.05035{2} 0.07811{3} 0.08973{6} 0.04182{1} 0.08909{5} 0.08367{4}
a􏽢 0.00015{2} 0.00014{1} 2e − 04{5} 0.00016{3} 0.00019{4} 0.00021{6}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.00107{1} 0.00139{3} 0.002{6} 0.00122{2} 0.00187{5} 0.00153{4}
400
β􏽢 0.0059{2} 0.00903{3} 0.01047{5} 0.00526{1} 0.01054{6} 0.00972{4}
a􏽢 0.0372{2} 0.03527{1} 0.04654{6} 0.03731{3} 0.04357{4} 0.04427{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.0467{1} 0.05632{3} 0.07056{5} 0.05319{2} 0.07189{6} 0.06361{4}
β􏽢 0.06713{2} 0.10414{3} 0.11964{6} 0.05577{1} 0.11879{5} 0.11156{4}
􏽐 Ranks 15{1} 21{3} 51{6} 18{2} 45{5} 39{4}

19.0, 14.1, 18.2, 15.4, 17.3, 15.4, 18.4, 18.1, 19.9, 21.3, 38.5,
and 21.4.
We compare the proposed MKL model with some
competing models based on some discrimination measures
and criteria such as Akaike information (AIC), consistent
Akaike information (CAIC), Bayesian information (BIC),
and Hannan–Quinn information (HQIC). The competing
distributions include odd Lomax Lomax (OLL) [28],
Lomax–Weibull (LW) [29], Lomax-exponential (LE) [29],
beta exponentiated-Lomax (BExL) [30], beta-Lomax (BL)
[30], exponentiated-Lomax (ExL) [30], Zubair–Lomax (ZL)
[31], and Lomax (L) distributions.
Journal of Mathematics 9

Table 2: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs, and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 1.5, λ � 2, and β � 0.5).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 0.33092{3} 0.36589{6} 0.34955{4} 0.25007{1} 0.32234{2} 0.36587{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.90028{4} 0.97134{5} 0.80902{2} 0.53287{1} 0.85019{3} 1.03424{6}
β􏽢 0.26869{4} 0.28705{5} 0.24492{2} 0.17588{1} 0.25676{3} 0.30119{6}
a􏽢 0.18053{2} 0.22766{6} 0.18778{3} 0.10838{1} 0.19667{4} 0.20879{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 1.02193{3} 1.16806{5} 0.89871{2} 0.64626{1} 1.02508{4} 1.22989{6}
20
β􏽢 0.0885{4} 0.10049{5} 0.07894{2} 0.05519{1} 0.08678{3} 0.10432{6}
a􏽢 0.22061{3} 0.24392{5.5} 0.23303{4} 0.16671{1} 0.2149{2} 0.24392{5.5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.45014{4} 0.48567{5} 0.40451{2} 0.26644{1} 0.4251{3} 0.51712{6}
β􏽢 0.53738{4} 0.5741{5} 0.48984{2} 0.35177{1} 0.51352{3} 0.60237{6}
􏽐 Ranks 31{4} 47.5{5} 23{2} 9{1} 27{3} 51.5{6}
a􏽢 0.21997{4} 0.19866{2} 0.22793{5} 0.13475{1} 0.25474{6} 0.21025{3}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.64469{2} 0.72974{5} 0.79738{6} 0.30303{1} 0.66532{3} 0.70166{4}
β􏽢 0.19237{2} 0.2126{4} 0.23583{6} 0.10683{1} 0.19679{3} 0.2158{5}
a􏽢 0.08351{5} 0.06505{2} 0.08329{4} 0.02929{1} 0.11602{6} 0.07355{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.55096{2} 0.62535{4} 0.78058{6} 0.29671{1} 0.61144{3} 0.63346{5}
70
β􏽢 0.04823{2} 0.05387{4} 0.06659{6} 0.0262{1} 0.05235{3} 0.0576{5}
a􏽢 0.14665{4} 0.13244{2} 0.15195{5} 0.08983{1} 0.16983{6} 0.14017{3}
MREs λ􏽢 0.32234{2} 0.36487{5} 0.39869{6} 0.15151{1} 0.33266{3} 0.35083{4}
β􏽢 0.38475{2} 0.42521{4} 0.47167{6} 0.21366{1} 0.39358{3} 0.4316{5}
􏽐 Ranks 25{2} 32{3} 50{6} 9{1} 36{4} 37{5}
a􏽢 0.12549{5} 0.1182{3} 0.12081{4} 0.08214{1} 0.12884{6} 0.11797{2}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.44747{2} 0.47005{3} 0.47108{4} 0.10787{1} 0.4926{5} 0.49315{6}
β􏽢 0.13267{2} 0.13901{3} 0.13993{4} 0.04666{1} 0.15205{6} 0.14817{5}
a􏽢 0.02557{6} 0.02221{2} 0.02422{4} 0.01081{1} 0.02536{5} 0.02313{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.29665{2} 0.30857{3} 0.30958{4} 0.08514{1} 0.33564{6} 0.32713{5}
150
β􏽢 0.02558{2} 0.02652{3} 0.02697{4} 0.00808{1} 0.03039{6} 0.02991{5}
a􏽢 0.08366{5} 0.0788{3} 0.08054{4} 0.05476{1} 0.08589{6} 0.07865{2}
MREs λ􏽢 0.22374{2} 0.23503{3} 0.23554{4} 0.05394{1} 0.2463{5} 0.24658{6}
β􏽢 0.26534{2} 0.27802{3} 0.27985{4} 0.09331{1} 0.3041{6} 0.29634{5}
􏽐 Ranks 28{3} 26{2} 36{4} 9{1} 51{6} 39{5}
a􏽢 0.08468{3} 0.09057{4} 0.10353{6} 0.0605{1} 0.10173{5} 0.08093{2}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.35792{2} 0.38936{5} 0.39593{6} 0.01375{1} 0.38309{4} 0.381{3}
β􏽢 0.10735{2} 0.11402{4} 0.11462{5} 0.01623{1} 0.11214{3} 0.11881{6}
a􏽢 0.01098{2} 0.01265{4} 0.01754{6} 0.00543{1} 0.01614{5} 0.01114{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.17234{2} 0.2035{6} 0.20212{5} 0.00582{1} 0.19385{4} 0.19201{3}
250
β􏽢 0.01518{2} 0.01738{5} 0.01703{4} 8e − 04{1} 0.01681{3} 0.01819{6}
a􏽢 0.05646{3} 0.06038{4} 0.06902{6} 0.04033{1} 0.06782{5} 0.05395{2}
MREs λ􏽢 0.17896{2} 0.19468{5} 0.19797{6} 0.00688{1} 0.19154{4} 0.1905{3}
β􏽢 0.2147{2} 0.22804{4} 0.22925{5} 0.03247{1} 0.22429{3} 0.23762{6}
􏽐 Ranks 19{2} 40{5} 48{6} 14{1} 35{4} 33{3}
a􏽢 0.05662{3} 0.0499{2} 0.06906{6} 0.04607{1} 0.06143{4} 0.06169{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.20673{4} 0.22241{6} 0.19334{2} 0.00596{1} 0.20281{3} 0.20718{5}
β􏽢 0.0634{5} 0.06786{6} 0.05879{2} 0.01076{1} 0.06035{3} 0.06286{4}
a􏽢 0.00446{3} 0.00404{2} 0.00739{6} 0.00327{1} 0.0056{5} 0.00547{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.05797{5} 0.06436{6} 0.05226{2} 6e − 05{1} 0.05499{3} 0.05731{4}
400
β􏽢 0.00528{5} 0.00573{6} 0.00463{2} 2e − 04{1} 0.00487{3} 0.00513{4}
a􏽢 0.03775{3} 0.03327{2} 0.04604{6} 0.03071{1} 0.04095{4} 0.04113{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.10337{4} 0.1112{6} 0.09667{2} 0.00298{1} 0.10141{3} 0.10359{5}
β􏽢 0.12679{5} 0.13572{6} 0.11757{2} 0.02152{1} 0.1207{3} 0.12572{4}
􏽐 Ranks 35{4} 40{6} 28{2} 19{1} 29{3} 38{5}

The estimates of the model parameters and their SEs of the MKL parameters are obtained using different esti-
(standard errors), using the maximum likelihood, along with mators and listed, for both datasets, in Tables 10 and 11,
discrimination measures are displayed in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. These tables also display the values of Ander-
respectively, for the two datasets. Furthermore, the estimates son–Darling (A), Cramér–von Mises (W), and
10 Journal of Mathematics

Table 3: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs, and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 0.5, λ � 1.5, and β � 0.25).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 0.09005{2} 0.09713{3} 0.13523{6} 0.08034{1} 0.10477{5} 0.09761{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.48744{1} 0.48989{2} 0.59868{6} 0.52309{4} 0.59203{5} 0.50303{3}
β􏽢 0.11704{1} 0.11881{2} 0.12381{4} 0.13104{6} 0.12998{5} 0.12302{3}
a􏽢 0.01368{2} 0.01652{3} 0.03233{6} 0.01282{1} 0.01957{5} 0.01763{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.34523{2} 0.34339{1} 0.45922{6} 0.3845{4} 0.44525{5} 0.35608{3}
20
β􏽢 0.01801{1} 0.01808{2} 0.01947{4} 0.02096{5} 0.02188{6} 0.01945{3}
a􏽢 0.1801{2} 0.19427{3} 0.27047{6} 0.16068{1} 0.20953{5} 0.19523{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.32496{1} 0.32659{2} 0.39912{6} 0.34873{4} 0.39469{5} 0.33535{3}
β􏽢 0.46814{1} 0.47526{2} 0.49524{4} 0.52415{6} 0.51991{5} 0.49208{3}
􏽐 Ranks 13{1} 20{2} 48{6} 32{4} 46{5} 30{3}
a􏽢 0.0619{4} 0.06702{5} 0.07136{6} 0.05402{1} 0.0597{2} 0.06077{3}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.3572{1} 0.41588{5} 0.37673{3} 0.36502{2} 0.42518{6} 0.41504{4}
β􏽢 0.0825{1} 0.09485{5} 0.09313{3} 0.08562{2} 0.10106{6} 0.09452{4}
a􏽢 0.00695{4} 0.00769{5} 0.00906{6} 0.00451{1} 0.00597{2} 0.00636{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.195{2} 0.23829{5} 0.19322{1} 0.19815{3} 0.23959{6} 0.22863{4}
70
β􏽢 0.01011{2} 0.0119{5} 0.01146{3} 0.00996{1} 0.01269{6} 0.01154{4}
a􏽢 0.1238{4} 0.13403{5} 0.14273{6} 0.10804{1} 0.1194{2} 0.12154{3}
MREs λ􏽢 0.23813{1} 0.27725{5} 0.25115{3} 0.24335{2} 0.28346{6} 0.2767{4}
β􏽢 0.33001{1} 0.37942{5} 0.3725{3} 0.34248{2} 0.40425{6} 0.37808{4}
􏽐 Ranks 20{2} 45{6} 34{4} 15{1} 42{5} 33{3}
a􏽢 0.03991{3} 0.03934{2} 0.03724{1} 0.04001{4} 0.04201{6} 0.04073{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.26917{4} 0.2575{1} 0.30287{5} 0.25965{3} 0.30632{6} 0.25888{2}
β􏽢 0.06385{4} 0.05731{1} 0.06772{6} 0.06079{2} 0.06768{5} 0.0628{3}
a􏽢 0.00248{4} 0.00237{2} 0.0022{1} 0.00245{3} 0.00311{6} 0.00273{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.1048{4} 0.09245{1} 0.12158{5} 0.10016{2} 0.12853{6} 0.10277{3}
150
β􏽢 0.00549{3} 0.00466{1} 0.00598{5} 0.00538{2} 0.00645{6} 0.00554{4}
a􏽢 0.07981{3} 0.07868{2} 0.07449{1} 0.08003{4} 0.08403{6} 0.08146{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.17945{4} 0.17167{1} 0.20191{5} 0.1731{3} 0.20421{6} 0.17259{2}
β􏽢 0.2554{4} 0.22925{1} 0.27089{6} 0.24318{2} 0.27073{5} 0.25121{3}
􏽐 Ranks 33{4} 12{1} 35{5} 25{2} 52{6} 32{3}
a􏽢 0.02941{4} 0.02704{2} 0.03542{6} 0.02412{1} 0.0285{3} 0.02951{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.18916{2} 0.22871{5} 0.25409{6} 0.17726{1} 0.21346{3} 0.21699{4}
β􏽢 0.04715{2} 0.05457{5} 0.05965{6} 0.04676{1} 0.04973{3} 0.05094{4}
a􏽢 0.00152{5} 0.00116{2.5} 0.0019{6} 9e − 04{1} 0.00116{2.5} 0.00135{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.05136{2} 0.07066{5} 0.08695{6} 0.04919{1} 0.06383{4} 0.06366{3}
250
β􏽢 0.00313{2} 0.00389{5} 0.00439{6} 0.0029{1} 0.00336{3} 0.00344{4}
a􏽢 0.05882{4} 0.05407{2} 0.07083{6} 0.04823{1} 0.057{3} 0.05902{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.12611{2} 0.15247{5} 0.16939{6} 0.11818{1} 0.14231{3} 0.14466{4}
β􏽢 0.1886{2} 0.21828{5} 0.23859{6} 0.18703{1} 0.1989{3} 0.20375{4}
􏽐 Ranks 24{2} 35.5{4} 53{6} 14{1} 26.5{3} 36{5}
a􏽢 0.0203{3} 0.02099{5} 0.02205{6} 0.01929{1} 0.02014{2} 0.02076{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.10425{1} 0.12087{4} 0.14026{6} 0.1083{2} 0.13758{5} 0.11882{3}
β􏽢 0.02691{1} 0.03044{5} 0.03105{6} 0.02798{3} 0.0281{4} 0.02698{2}
a􏽢 0.00063{3} 0.00065{4} 0.00074{6} 0.00054{1} 0.00061{2} 7e − 04{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.01718{1} 0.02267{4} 0.02733{6} 0.02219{3} 0.02558{5} 0.02088{2}
400
β􏽢 0.00099{1.5} 0.00118{5} 0.00133{6} 0.00112{4} 0.0011{3} 0.00099{1.5}
a􏽢 0.04059{3} 0.04199{5} 0.0441{6} 0.03859{1} 0.04028{2} 0.04152{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.0695{1} 0.08058{4} 0.09351{6} 0.0722{2} 0.09172{5} 0.07921{3}
β􏽢 0.10763{1} 0.12175{5} 0.12421{6} 0.11193{3} 0.11242{4} 0.10792{2}
􏽐 Ranks 15.5{1} 41{5} 53{6} 20{2} 32{4} 27.5{3}

Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) statistic with its p value (KS- displayed in Figures 3 and 4 for both datasets. These plots
PV) for both datasets. support the results in Tables 8 and 9.
The relative histogram with the fitted MKL density along It is shown, from Tables 8 and 9, that the MKL distri-
with fitted CDF, SF, and P-P plots for the MKL model is bution has the lowest values for goodness-of-fit criteria for
Journal of Mathematics 11

Table 4: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs, and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 0.75, λ � 1.5, and β � 2).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 0.17411{4} 0.19575{6} 0.19085{5} 0.12916{2} 0.12386{1} 0.16158{3}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.54173{3} 0.61757{6} 0.5994{4} 0.4235{1} 0.50867{2} 0.60536{5}
β􏽢 0.97184{3} 1.06916{6} 0.97925{4} 0.69514{1} 0.84836{2} 1.0195{5}
a􏽢 0.05305{4} 0.06806{6} 0.06099{5} 0.02991{2} 0.02783{1} 0.04695{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.39987{3} 0.48492{6} 0.47755{4} 0.27848{1} 0.34546{2} 0.48227{5}
20
β􏽢 1.23491{3} 1.4087{6} 1.30885{4} 0.84901{1} 0.97489{2} 1.34414{5}
a􏽢 0.23215{4} 0.26101{6} 0.25447{5} 0.17221{2} 0.16514{1} 0.21544{3}
MREs λ􏽢 0.36116{3} 0.41172{6} 0.3996{4} 0.28233{1} 0.33911{2} 0.40357{5}
β􏽢 0.48592{3} 0.53458{6} 0.48963{4} 0.34757{1} 0.42418{2} 0.50975{5}
􏽐 Ranks 30{3} 54{6} 39{4.5} 12{1} 15{2} 39{4.5}
a􏽢 0.10242{5} 0.09658{3} 0.11113{6} 0.08714{1} 0.0904{2} 0.09837{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.42781{3} 0.47501{6} 0.46759{4} 0.36496{1} 0.47169{5} 0.40541{2}
β􏽢 0.75135{3} 0.85761{6} 0.83354{5} 0.59498{1} 0.80001{4} 0.71455{2}
a􏽢 0.01773{5} 0.01604{3} 0.02155{6} 0.01266{1} 0.01499{2} 0.01768{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.25072{3} 0.29901{6} 0.291{4} 0.22594{1} 0.29276{5} 0.23214{2}
70
β􏽢 0.73754{3} 0.92344{6} 0.87678{5} 0.65321{1} 0.82773{4} 0.69614{2}
a􏽢 0.13656{5} 0.12878{3} 0.14817{6} 0.11619{1} 0.12054{2} 0.13116{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.2852{3} 0.31667{6} 0.31173{4} 0.24331{1} 0.31446{5} 0.27027{2}
β􏽢 0.37568{3} 0.4288{6} 0.41677{5} 0.29749{1} 0.4{4} 0.35728{2}
􏽐 Ranks 33{3.5} 45{5.5} 45{5.5} 9{1} 33{3.5} 24{2}
a􏽢 0.06039{2} 0.05142{1} 0.06408{5} 0.06076{4} 0.06074{3} 0.06878{6}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.2954{3} 0.28315{2} 0.33674{6} 0.26728{1} 0.30917{4} 0.31007{5}
β􏽢 0.52101{2} 0.53386{3} 0.58887{6} 0.42551{1} 0.54671{4} 0.56229{5}
a􏽢 0.00616{3} 0.00413{1} 0.00685{5} 0.006{2} 0.00621{4} 0.0074{6}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.12614{3} 0.11971{1} 0.15221{6} 0.12535{2} 0.13565{4} 0.13632{5}
150
β􏽢 0.38579{2} 0.38586{3} 0.45167{6} 0.3701{1} 0.40954{4} 0.42788{5}
a􏽢 0.08052{2} 0.06856{1} 0.08544{5} 0.08101{4} 0.08098{3} 0.09171{6}
MREs λ􏽢 0.19694{3} 0.18877{2} 0.2245{6} 0.17818{1} 0.20611{4} 0.20671{5}
β􏽢 0.2605{2} 0.26693{3} 0.29443{6} 0.21275{1} 0.27335{4} 0.28115{5}
􏽐 Ranks 22{3} 17{1.5} 51{6} 17{1.5} 34{4} 48{5}
a􏽢 0.04246{3} 0.04715{6} 0.04058{2} 0.03889{1} 0.04677{5} 0.04538{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.2145{2} 0.22946{4} 0.22809{3} 0.13835{1} 0.2559{6} 0.23093{5}
β􏽢 0.3995{3} 0.39843{2} 0.3999{4} 0.19661{1} 0.46717{6} 0.42976{5}
a􏽢 0.00293{3} 0.00349{6} 0.00259{2} 0.00258{1} 0.00338{5} 0.00335{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.06278{2} 0.07593{4} 0.07329{3} 0.04343{1} 0.08891{6} 0.0771{5}
250
β􏽢 0.22024{3} 0.22118{4} 0.21752{2} 0.12204{1} 0.28098{6} 0.24806{5}
a􏽢 0.05661{3} 0.06287{6} 0.0541{2} 0.05185{1} 0.06237{5} 0.06051{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.143{2} 0.15298{4} 0.15206{3} 0.09223{1} 0.1706{6} 0.15396{5}
β􏽢 0.19975{3} 0.19921{2} 0.19995{4} 0.09831{1} 0.23358{6} 0.21488{5}
􏽐 Ranks 24{2} 38{4} 25{3} 9{1} 51{6} 42{5}
a􏽢 0.03145{3} 0.02735{2} 0.03392{5} 0.02494{1} 0.03326{4} 0.03426{6}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.12051{2} 0.12395{3} 0.12844{4} 0.03796{1} 0.1441{6} 0.13827{5}
β􏽢 0.21744{2} 0.2243{3} 0.23703{4} 0.02181{1} 0.24202{5} 0.24494{6}
a􏽢 0.00144{3} 0.00116{2} 0.00183{5} 0.00093{1} 0.00178{4} 0.00197{6}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.02123{2} 0.02146{3} 0.02437{4} 0.00227{1} 0.02795{6} 0.02636{5}
400
β􏽢 0.06633{2} 0.06671{3} 0.07642{4} 0.00072{1} 0.07786{5} 0.07973{6}
a􏽢 0.04193{3} 0.03647{2} 0.04522{5} 0.03326{1} 0.04434{4} 0.04568{6}
MREs λ􏽢 0.08034{2} 0.08264{3} 0.08562{4} 0.02531{1} 0.09607{6} 0.09218{5}
β􏽢 0.10872{2} 0.11215{3} 0.11851{4} 0.0109{1} 0.12101{5} 0.12247{6}
􏽐 Ranks 21{2} 24{3} 39{4} 9{1} 45{5} 51{6}
12 Journal of Mathematics

Table 5: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 2, λ � 3, and β � 1.5).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 0.45733{5} 0.46058{6} 0.37328{2} 0.25011{1} 0.40724{3} 0.41064{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 1.30794{4} 1.41894{5} 0.59264{2} 0.12831{1} 0.86803{3} 1.59773{6}
β􏽢 0.74411{4} 0.79779{5} 0.37001{2} 0.12344{1} 0.52246{3} 0.87477{6}
a􏽢 0.36524{5} 0.3785{6} 0.24646{2} 0.08914{1} 0.28188{3} 0.32263{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 2.44014{4} 2.70767{5} 1.20276{2} 0.22751{1} 1.76894{3} 3.01049{6}
20
β􏽢 0.76239{4} 0.83187{5} 0.37686{2} 0.07616{1} 0.55207{3} 0.911{6}
a􏽢 0.22867{5} 0.23029{6} 0.18664{2} 0.12506{1} 0.20362{3} 0.20532{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.43598{4} 0.47298{5} 0.19755{2} 0.04277{1} 0.28934{3} 0.53258{6}
β􏽢 0.49607{4} 0.53186{5} 0.24667{2} 0.0823{1} 0.34831{3} 0.58318{6}
􏽐 Ranks 39{4} 48{5.5} 18{2} 9{1} 27{3} 48{5.5}
a􏽢 0.27147{6} 0.20385{2} 0.2163{3} 0.16352{1} 0.26453{5} 0.21738{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 1.11622{5} 1.09158{4} 0.72181{2} 0.02427{1} 0.84077{3} 1.1646{6}
β􏽢 0.62453{4} 0.63132{5} 0.42321{2} 0.04581{1} 0.4824{3} 0.65228{6}
a􏽢 0.12205{6} 0.06387{2} 0.08422{4} 0.03886{1} 0.11468{5} 0.08241{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 1.62036{5} 1.58112{4} 1.15051{2} 9e − 04{1} 1.38397{3} 1.71056{6}
70
β􏽢 0.50397{4} 0.50902{5} 0.36501{2} 0.00339{1} 0.42974{3} 0.53839{6}
a􏽢 0.13574{6} 0.10192{2} 0.10815{3} 0.08176{1} 0.13226{5} 0.10869{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.37207{5} 0.36386{4} 0.2406{2} 0.00809{1} 0.28026{3} 0.3882{6}
β􏽢 0.41635{4} 0.42088{5} 0.28214{2} 0.03054{1} 0.3216{3} 0.43486{6}
􏽐 Ranks 44{5} 32{3.5} 21{2} 14{1} 32{3.5} 46{6}
a􏽢 0.15853{3} 0.17212{5} 0.17651{6} 0.11725{1} 0.14261{2} 0.16351{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.83788{4} 0.91123{6} 0.80657{3} 0.0144{1} 0.71055{2} 0.88337{5}
β􏽢 0.47034{4} 0.51291{6} 0.46265{3} 0.03062{1} 0.40628{2} 0.4977{5}
a􏽢 0.03858{3} 0.04603{5} 0.05023{6} 0.02086{1} 0.03026{2} 0.04235{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.97321{3} 1.04517{6} 1.02079{4} 0.00033{1} 0.84724{2} 1.02604{5}
150
β􏽢 0.30329{3} 0.32665{6} 0.31881{4} 0.00154{1} 0.26612{2} 0.32207{5}
a􏽢 0.07927{3} 0.08606{5} 0.08826{6} 0.05862{1} 0.07131{2} 0.08176{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.27929{4} 0.30374{6} 0.26886{3} 0.0048{1} 0.23685{2} 0.29446{5}
β􏽢 0.31356{4} 0.34194{6} 0.30843{3} 0.02042{1} 0.27085{2} 0.3318{5}
􏽐 Ranks 31{3} 51{6} 38{4} 9{1} 18{2} 42{5}
a􏽢 0.07724{1} 0.0907{3} 0.10679{4} 0.08774{2} 0.10959{6} 0.10718{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.55468{3} 0.56113{4} 0.54465{2} 0.01477{1} 0.57456{5} 0.5937{6}
β􏽢 0.31861{4} 0.31751{3} 0.31036{2} 0.02894{1} 0.32425{5} 0.33132{6}
a􏽢 0.00938{1} 0.01411{3} 0.01806{4} 0.01144{2} 0.01822{5} 0.0186{6}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.42851{2} 0.43144{3} 0.47142{4} 0.00031{1} 0.4846{6} 0.48259{5}
250
β􏽢 0.14022{3} 0.13692{2} 0.149{4} 0.00125{1} 0.14914{5} 0.14978{6}
a􏽢 0.03862{1} 0.04535{3} 0.0534{4} 0.04387{2} 0.05479{6} 0.05359{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.18489{3} 0.18704{4} 0.18155{2} 0.00492{1} 0.19152{5} 0.1979{6}
β􏽢 0.21241{4} 0.21167{3} 0.20691{2} 0.0193{1} 0.21617{5} 0.22088{6}
􏽐 Ranks 22{2} 28{3.5} 28{3.5} 12{1} 48{5} 51{6}
a􏽢 0.06949{2} 0.08018{5} 0.07449{4} 0.06876{1} 0.09024{6} 0.07128{3}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.26719{3} 0.34652{6} 0.23443{2} 0.00862{1} 0.29159{4} 0.32212{5}
β􏽢 0.15605{3} 0.19426{6} 0.13475{2} 0.01886{1} 0.16609{4} 0.17784{5}
a􏽢 0.00797{2} 0.00987{5} 0.00932{4} 0.0073{1} 0.01294{6} 0.00798{3}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.11174{3} 0.15788{6} 0.11022{2} 0.00013{1} 0.14164{5} 0.13431{4}
400
β􏽢 0.03671{3} 0.04983{6} 0.03369{2} 0.00058{1} 0.04374{5} 0.04173{4}
a􏽢 0.03475{2} 0.04009{5} 0.03725{4} 0.03438{1} 0.04512{6} 0.03564{3}
MREs λ􏽢 0.08906{3} 0.11551{6} 0.07814{2} 0.00287{1} 0.0972{4} 0.10737{5}
β􏽢 0.10404{3} 0.12951{6} 0.08983{2} 0.01258{1} 0.11073{4} 0.11856{5}
􏽐 Ranks 24{2.5} 51{6} 24{2.5} 9{1} 44{5} 37{4}
Journal of Mathematics 13

Table 6: Simulation results for the AVBs, MSEs, and MREs of the MKL distribution with (a � 3, λ � 0.75, and β � 2).
n Est. Est. par. MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
a􏽢 1.29216{2} 1.42769{3} 1.52997{5} 0.85369{1} 1.55878{6} 1.45966{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.2811{2} 0.37028{6} 0.33573{3} 0.17249{1} 0.36139{5} 0.35782{4}
β􏽢 1.04799{2} 1.39234{6} 1.23951{3} 0.63006{1} 1.33652{4} 1.3463{5}
a􏽢 2.8395{2} 2.86932{3} 3.23369{6} 1.49162{1} 3.2078{5} 2.95247{4}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.11872{2} 0.15837{5} 0.1507{3} 0.07289{1} 0.16246{6} 0.15457{4}
20
β􏽢 1.61532{2} 2.20159{5} 2.03665{3} 0.96315{1} 2.20717{6} 2.14013{4}
a􏽢 0.43072{2} 0.4759{3} 0.50999{5} 0.28456{1} 0.51959{6} 0.48655{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.37481{2} 0.4937{6} 0.44764{3} 0.22999{1} 0.48185{3} 0.47709{4}
β􏽢 0.524{2} 0.69617{6} 0.61976{3} 0.31503{1} 0.66826{4} 0.67315{5}
􏽐 Ranks 18{2} 43{5} 34{3} 9{1} 47{6} 38{4}
a􏽢 0.50381{6} 0.43357{2} 0.47586{4} 0.21847{1} 0.44486{3} 0.49399{5}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.18242{3} 0.20285{6} 0.16606{2} 0.01803{1} 0.19103{4} 0.19958{5}
β􏽢 0.72078{3} 0.81053{6} 0.66029{2} 0.07716{1} 0.75744{4} 0.80171{5}
a􏽢 0.45732{6} 0.34007{3} 0.39228{4} 0.06942{1} 0.32252{2} 0.40268{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.048{3} 0.05275{6} 0.04216{2} 0.00051{1} 0.05264{5} 0.05116{4}
70
β􏽢 0.74478{3} 0.83718{6} 0.65699{2} 0.00864{1} 0.83659{5} 0.81626{4}
a􏽢 0.16794{6} 0.14452{2} 0.15862{4} 0.07282{1} 0.14829{3} 0.16466{5}
MREs λ􏽢 0.24322{3} 0.27047{6} 0.22141{2} 0.02403{1} 0.25471{4} 0.26611{5}
β􏽢 0.36039{3} 0.40526{6} 0.33014{2} 0.03858{1} 0.37872{4} 0.40086{5}
􏽐 Ranks 36{4} 43{5.5} 24{2} 9{1} 34{3} 43{5.5}
a􏽢 0.29539{2} 0.43592{6} 0.3139{3} 0.15921{1} 0.34463{5} 0.34434{4}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.13599{3} 0.15432{6} 0.1204{2} 0.01586{1} 0.14924{4} 0.15154{5}
β􏽢 0.54612{3} 0.61997{6} 0.495{2} 0.05477{1} 0.60725{4} 0.61644{5}
a􏽢 0.14953{3} 0.27674{6} 0.14667{2} 0.03844{1} 0.17093{4} 0.18813{5}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.02546{3} 0.03113{6} 0.02249{2} 0.00037{1} 0.02985{4} 0.03023{5}
150
β􏽢 0.4087{3} 0.49686{6} 0.37687{2} 0.00465{1} 0.49318{4} 0.49595{5}
a􏽢 0.09846{2} 0.14531{6} 0.10463{3} 0.05307{1} 0.11488{5} 0.11478{4}
MREs λ􏽢 0.18132{3} 0.20575{6} 0.16054{2} 0.02115{1} 0.19898{4} 0.20206{5}
β􏽢 0.27306{3} 0.30998{6} 0.2475{2} 0.02739{1} 0.30362{4} 0.30822{5}
􏽐 Ranks 25{3} 54{6} 20{2} 9{1} 38{4} 43{5}
a􏽢 0.22734{5} 0.21452{3} 0.26203{6} 0.1162{1} 0.22426{4} 0.18238{2}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.1113{5} 0.10314{4} 0.1125{6} 0.01001{1} 0.10148{3} 0.0916{2}
β􏽢 0.45883{5} 0.41517{3} 0.46173{6} 0.04165{1} 0.41738{4} 0.36781{2}
a􏽢 0.08172{5} 0.07427{3} 0.10805{6} 0.02047{1} 0.08008{4} 0.05268{2}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.01636{6} 0.01415{4} 0.01635{5} 0.00016{1} 0.01411{3} 0.01177{2}
250
β􏽢 0.27203{5} 0.23036{3} 0.27578{6} 0.00265{1} 0.23524{4} 0.19272{2}
a􏽢 0.07578{5} 0.07151{3} 0.08734{6} 0.03873{1} 0.07475{4} 0.06079{2}
MREs λ􏽢 0.1484{5} 0.13752{4} 0.15{6} 0.01334{1} 0.13531{3} 0.12214{2}
β􏽢 0.22941{5} 0.20759{3} 0.23087{6} 0.02083{1} 0.20869{4} 0.18391{2}
􏽐 Ranks 46{5} 30{3} 53{6} 9{1} 33{4} 18{2}
a􏽢 0.13181{4} 0.14973{6} 0.14057{5} 0.08626{1} 0.12756{3} 0.11893{2}
AVBs λ􏽢 0.05143{2} 0.05615{6} 0.0549{5} 0.00841{1} 0.05265{3} 0.05453{4}
β􏽢 0.21117{2} 0.22913{6} 0.22023{4} 0.03165{1} 0.21541{3} 0.22415{5}
a􏽢 0.02646{3} 0.0354{6} 0.02958{5} 0.0111{1} 0.02785{4} 0.02343{2}
MSEs λ􏽢 0.00377{2} 0.00428{6} 0.00411{5} 0.00011{1} 0.00391{3} 0.00393{4}
400
β􏽢 0.06287{2} 0.07284{6} 0.06662{5} 0.00152{1} 0.06531{3} 0.06592{4}
a􏽢 0.04394{4} 0.04991{6} 0.04686{5} 0.02875{1} 0.04252{3} 0.03964{2}
MREs λ􏽢 0.06857{2} 0.07486{6} 0.07321{5} 0.01121{1} 0.0702{3} 0.07271{4}
β􏽢 0.10559{2} 0.11456{6} 0.11012{4} 0.01582{1} 0.10771{3} 0.11208{5}
􏽐 Ranks 23{2} 54{6} 43{5} 9{1} 28{3} 32{4}
14 Journal of Mathematics

Table 7: Partial and overall ranks of the estimation methods for various values of a, λ, and β.
Parameters n MLE ADE CVME MPSE LSE WLSE
20 4 2 5 1 6 3
70 2 1 6 3 4 5
a � 0.25, λ � 0.5, β � 0.75 150 4 2 6 1 5 3
250 1 4 6 2 5 3
400 1 3 6 2 5 4
20 4 5 2 1 3 6
70 2 3 6 1 4 5
a � 1.5, λ � 2, β � 0.5 150 3 2 4 1 6 5
250 2 5 6 1 4 3
400 4 6 2 1 3 5
20 1 2 6 4 5 3
70 2 6 4 1 5 3
a � 0.5, λ � 1.5, β � 0.25 150 4 1 5 2 6 3
250 2 4 6 1 3 5
400 1 5 6 2 4 3
20 3 6 4.5 1 2 4.5
70 3.5 5.5 5.5 1 3.5 2
a � 0.75, λ � 1.5, β � 2 150 3 1.5 6 1.5 4 5
250 2 4 3 1 6 5
400 2 3 4 1 5 6
20 4 5.5 2 1 3 5.5
70 5 3.5 2 1 3.5 6
a � 2, λ � 3, β � 1.5 150 3 6 4 1 2 5
250 2 3.5 3.5 1 5 6
400 2.5 6 2.5 1 5 4
20 2 5 3 1 6 4
70 4 5.5 2 1 3 5.5
a � 3, λ � 0.75, β � 2 150 3 6 2 1 4 5
250 5 3 6 1 4 2
400 2 6 5 1 3 4
􏽐 Ranks 83 121 131 39.5 127 128.5
Overall rank 2 3 6 1 4 5

Table 8: Estimates, SEs, and discrimination measures for successive failures of air conditioning systems’ data.
Distribution Estimates SEs AIC CAIC BIC HQIC
a􏽢 � 3.03865 1.78423 1960.24 1960.37 1969.8 1964.11
MKL λ􏽢 � 0.144314 0.08508
β􏽢 � 0.637195 1.79215
λ􏽢 � 4.90598 2.3522 1963.44 1963.51 1969.82 1966.03
L
β􏽢 � 350.7 199.943
α 􏽢 � 0.07169 0.01738 1977.57 1977.8 1990.32 1982.74
β􏽢 � 9.8974 14.4404
OLL
a􏽢 � 17.6183 3.9966
􏽢b � 46.3791 22.5866
α 􏽢 � 2.92404 1.91716 1966.86 1967.09 1979.61 1972.03
β􏽢 � 11.0795 115725
LW
a􏽢 � 1.0948 0.13109
􏽢b � 0.05127 489.109
β􏽢 � 2.69863 4663.98 1970.01 1970.15 1979.58 1973.89
LE a􏽢 � 1.40099 0.08629
􏽢b � 0.04206 51.895
α 􏽢 � 1.63677 7.3695 1964.55 1964.9 1980.49 1971.02
β􏽢 � 0.00005 0.000249
BExL a􏽢 � 20.6824 62.3831
􏽢b � 21.1752 29.5167
λ􏽢 � 0.12862 0.31728
α 􏽢 � 4.94928 8.56206 1965.99 1966.22 1978.74 1971.16
β􏽢 � 0.00568 0.00359
BL
a􏽢 � 1.22641 0.20528
􏽢b � 0.63721 1.09985
Journal of Mathematics 15

Table 8: Continued.
Distribution Estimates SEs AIC CAIC BIC HQIC
α􏽢 � 3.1473 1.4118 1964.04 1964.18 1973.61 1967.92
ExL β􏽢 � 0.00583 0.00407
a􏽢 � 1.21591 0.21023
α􏽢 � 1.61702 0.26665 1969.93 1970.07 1979.49 1973.81
ZL β􏽢 � 32.8351 16.9085
a􏽢 � 0.68337 1.0219

Table 9: Estimates, SEs, and discrimination measures for waiting times in a bank data.
Distribution Estimates SEs AIC CAIC BIC HQIC
a􏽢 � 3.40298 3.21709 640.027 640.277 647.842 643.19
MKL λ􏽢 � 0.218857 0.240281
β􏽢 � 0.46161 1.67085
λ􏽢 � 1.48985 × 108 2.65679 × 1011 662.042 662.042 667.252 664.15
L
β􏽢 � 1.47152 × 109 2.62411 × 1012
α 􏽢 � 0.159404 0.084276 643.045 643.466 653.466 647.263
β􏽢 � 10.8939 8.03526
OLL
a􏽢 � 4.34048 × 108 9.96634 × 1011
􏽢b � 5.05811 × 108 1.16139 × 1012
􏽢 � 3.022
α 2.37068 643.016 643.437 653.437 647.234
β􏽢 � 0.94752 1.28896
LW
a􏽢 � 1.76986 0.25992
􏽢b � 0.055076 0.664065
β􏽢 � 0.060187 337.599 644.82 645.07 652.635 647.983
LE a􏽢 � 2.26712 0.188173
􏽢b � 0.03704 91.6422
α 􏽢 � 17.8535 160.591 643.983 644.621 657.009 649.255
β􏽢 � 0.00094 0.00955
BExL a􏽢 � 48.7632 76.4906
􏽢b � 8.76344 4.56521
λ􏽢 � 0.07769 6.26012
α 􏽢 � 4.69661 4.31371 642.446 642.867 652.866 646.663
β􏽢 � 0.023226 0.020468
BL
a􏽢 � 2.37854 0.47328
􏽢b � 2.00288 1.67736
α 􏽢 � 37.8584 164.125 640.136 640.386 647.951 643.299
ExL β􏽢 � 0.004426 0.020182
a􏽢 � 2.27211 0.52796
α 􏽢 � 62.8113 31.2061 640.538 640.788 648.354 643.701
ZL β􏽢 � 377.766 44.7447
a􏽢 � 0.357708 0.49548

Table 10: The estimates of the MKL model and goodness-of-fit measures for successive failures of air conditioning systems’ data.
Methods a􏽢 λ􏽢 β􏽢 A W KS KS-PV
MLE 3.03865 0.144314 0.637195 0.25262 0.033613 0.04088 0.92579
ADE 2.08689 0.20975 2.90608 0.20949 0.02387 0.03497 0.98086
CVME 1.98069 0.21931 3.37816 0.217826 0.022869 0.03782 0.95997
MPSE 2.74144 0.156318 0.922833 0.220944 0.025801 0.038189 0.95651
LSE 1.94982 0.22111 3.48051 0.23123 0.02325 0.03943 0.94352
WLSE 2.0765 0.209918 2.91841 0.210342 0.023408 0.03575 0.97615

Table 11: The estimates of the MKL model and goodness-of-fit measures for waiting times in a bank data.
Methods a􏽢 λ􏽢 β􏽢 A W KS KS-PV
MLE 3.40298 0.218857 0.46161 0.145415 0.020592 0.039433 0.99772
ADE 2.94833 0.26006 0.780946 0.141895 0.019414 0.040580 0.99655
CVME 3.02441 0.253434 0.720923 0.144506 0.019025 0.040927 0.99612
MPSE 2.5297 0.301557 1.17817 0.144506 0.019025 0.040927 0.99612
LSE 2.94567 0.256954 0.752882 0.145375 0.0196922 0.0440176 0.990224
WLSE 2.79771 0.273449 0.901411 0.146428 0.0203144 0.0433284 0.991902
16 Journal of Mathematics

MKL MKL
0.015 1.0

0.8
0.010
0.6
Density

F (x)
0.4
0.005
0.2

0.000 0.0
0 100 300 500 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
x x
MKL MKL
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

Expected
S (x)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x Observed
Figure 3: The fitted MKL PDF, CDF, SF, and P-P plots for for successive failures of air conditioning systems’ data.

MKL MKL
0.08 1.0

0.06 0.8

0.6
Density

0.04
F (x)

0.4
0.02
0.2

0.00 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
x x
MKL MKL
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Expected
S (x)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x Observed
Figure 4: The fitted MKL PDF, CDF, SF, and P-P plots for waiting times in a bank data.
Journal of Mathematics
both datasets among all fitted competing models. That is, it
provides close fit for the data, and hence, it could be chosen
as the best distribution for the two datasets.
From Tables 10 and 11 and based on the values of KS
statistic, we conclude that all estimation methods perform
well in estimating the parameters of the MKL distribution
for the two datasets.
7. Concluding Remarks
In this study, a new three-parameter extension of the Lomax
distribution called the modified Kies–Lomax (MKL) dis-
tribution has been studied. The MKL distribution provides
flexible hazard rate and density functions which can have
important forms, depending on its shape parameters, in-
cluding increasing, unimodal, decreasing, and bathtub
hazard rate shapes, and positive-skewed, symmetrical,
negative-skewed, and reversed-J shaped densities. Further-
more, its density can be viewed as a linear mixture of Lomax
distribution. The MKL parameters have been estimated via
six estimation approaches, called, maximum likelihood,
least-squares and weighted least-squares, Cramér–von
Mises, maximum product of spacings, an Anderson–Darl-
ing. The simulation study has been illustrated that maximum
product of spacings is the best performing method in terms
of partial and overall ranks for absolute biases, mean square
errors, and mean relative errors of the estimates. Two real
data applications show that all estimators perform well for
both datasets. Furthermore, the MKL distribution shows its
flexibility in modeling successive failures of air conditioning
systems and waiting times’ datasets as compared with some
rival Lomax extensions.
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of the study are in-
cluded within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] M. Chahkandi and M. Ganjali, “On some lifetime distribu-
tions with decreasing failure rate,” Computational Statistics &
Data Analysis, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4433–4440, 2009.
[2] B. C. Arnold, Pareto Distributions, International Cooperative
Publishing House, Fairland, MD, USA, 1983.
[3] N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan, Continuous
Univariate Distributions, Vol. 1, Wiley, New York, NY, USA,
2nd edition, 1994.
[4] R. C. Gupta, P. L. Gupta, and R. D. Gupta, “Modeling failure
time data by Lehman alternatives,” Communications in Sta-
tistics—Theory and Methods, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 887–904, 1998.
[5] M. E. Ghitany, F. A. Al-Awadhi, and L. A. Alkhalfan,
“Marshall-Olkin extended Lomax distribution and its appli-
cation to censored data,” Communications in Statistics—
Theory and Methods, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1855–1866, 2007.
[6] A. J. Lemonte and G. M. Cordeiro, “An extended Lomax
distribution,” Statistics, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 800–816, 2013.
17
[7] M. H. Tahir, G. M. Cordeiro, M. Mansoor, and M. Zubair,
“The Weibull-Lomax distribution: properties and applica-
tions,” Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics,
vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 455–474, 2015.
[8] A. Afify, H. Yousof, and S. Nadarajah, “The beta transmuted-
H family for lifetime data,” Statistics and Its Interface, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 505–520, 2017.
[9] H. Reyad, M. Ç. Korkmaz, A. Z. Afify, G. G. Hamedani, and
S. Othman, “The Fréchet Topp Leone-G family of distribu-
tions: properties, characterizations and applications,” Annals
of Data Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 345–366, 2021.
[10] H. M. Okasha, “E-Bayesian estimation for the Lomax dis-
tribution based on type-II censored data,” Journal of the
Egyptian Mathematical Society, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 489–495,
2014.
[11] A. S. Hassan and A. N. Zaky, “Entropy Bayesian estimation for
Lomax distribution based on record,” Thailand Statistician,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 96–115, 2021.
[12] T. N. Sindhu, N. Feroze, and M. Aslam, “Preference of prior
for Bayesian analysis of the mixed Burr type X distribution
under type I censored samples,” Pakistan Journal of Statistics
and Operation Research, vol. 10, 2014.
[13] T. N. Sindhu, M. Aslam, and A. Shafiq, “Bayesian analysis of
two censored shifted Gompertz mixture distributions using
informative and noninformative priors,” Pakistan Journal of
Statistics and Operation Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 227–243,
2017.
[14] T. N. Sindhu, Z. Hussain, and M. Aslam, “On the Bayesian
analysis of censored mixture of two Topp-Leone distribution,”
Sri Lankan Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 19, no. 1, 2019.
[15] T. N. Sindhu, H. M. Khan, Z. Hussain, and B. Al-Zahrani,
“Bayesian inference from the mixture of half-normal distri-
butions under censoring,” Journal of the National Science
Foundation of Sri Lanka, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 587–600, 2018.
[16] T. N. Sindhu, M. Riaz, M. Aslam, and Z. Ahmed, “Bayes
estimation of Gumbel mixture models with industrial ap-
plications,” Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and
Control, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 201–214, 2016.
[17] T. N. Sindhu, M. Riaz, M. Aslam, and Z. Ahmed, “A study of
cumulative quantity control chart for a mixture of Rayleigh
model under a Bayesian framework,” Revista Colombiana de
Estadı́stica, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 185–205, 2016.
[18] T. N. Sindhu, M. Saleem, and M. Aslam, “Bayesian estimation
for Topp Leone distribution under trimmed samples,” Journal
of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, vol. 3, no. 10,
pp. 347–360, 2013.
[19] T. N. Sindhu and A. Atangana, “Reliability analysis incor-
porating exponentiated inverse Weibull distribution and
inverse power law,” Quality and Reliability Engineering In-
ternational, vol. 37, pp. 2399–2422, 2021.
[20] A. A. Al-Babtain, M. K. Shakhatreh, M. Nassar, and
A. Z. Afify, “A new modified Kies family: properties, esti-
mation under complete and type-II censored samples, and
engineering applications,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 8, p. 1345,
2020.
[21] A. Shafiq, S. A. Lone, T. N. Sindhu, Y. El Khatib, Q. M. Al-
Mdallal, and T. Muhammad, “A new modified Kies Fréchet
distribution: applications of mortality rate of COVID-19,”
Results in Physics, vol. 28, pp. 1–17, 2021.
[22] A. A. Al-Babtain, A. M. Gemeay, and A. Z. Afify, “Estimation
methods for the discrete Poisson-Lindley and discrete Lindley
distributions with actuarial measures and applications in
medicine,” Journal of King Saud University—Science, vol. 33,
Article ID 101224, 2020.
18 Journal of Mathematics

[23] S. Sen, A. Afify, H. Al-Mofleh, and M. Ahsanullah, “The quasi

xgamma-geometric distribution with application in medi-
cine,” Filomat, vol. 33, no. 16, pp. 5291–5330, 2019.
[24] A. Z. Afify, M. Nassar, G. M. Cordeiro, and D. Kumar, “The
Weibull Marshall-Olkin Lindley distribution: properties and
estimation,” Journal of Taibah University for Science, vol. 14,
no. 1, pp. 192–204, 2020.
[25] A. Z. Afify, A. M. Gemeay, and N. A. Ibrahim, “The heavy-
tailed exponential distribution: risk measures, estimation, and
application to actuarial data,” Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 8,
p. 1276, 2020.
[26] A. A. Al-Babtain, I. Elbatal, H. Al-Mofleh, A. M. Gemeay,
A. Z. Afify, and A. M. Sarg, “The flexible Burr X-G family:
properties, inference, and applications in engineering sci-
ence,” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 474, 2021.
[27] M. A. Aldahlan, A. Z. Afify, and A. H. N. Ahmed, “The odd
inverse Pareto-G class: properties and applications,” Journal
of Nonlinear Science and Applications, vol. 12, no. 5,
pp. 278–290, 2019.
[28] G. M. Cordeiro, A. Z. Afify, E. M. M. Ortega, A. K. Suzuki, and
M. E. Mead, “The odd Lomax generator of distributions:
properties, estimation and applications,” Journal of Compu-
tational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 347, pp. 222–237,
2019.
[29] G. M. Cordeiro, E. M. M. Ortega, B. V. Popović, and
R. R. Pescim, “The Lomax generator of distributions: prop-
erties, minification process and regression model,” Applied
Mathematics and Computation, vol. 247, pp. 465–486, 2014.
[30] M. Mead, “On five-parameter Lomax distribution:properties
and applications,” Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation
Research, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 185–199, 2016.
[31] R. Bantan, A. S. Hassan, and M. Elsehetry, “Zubair Lomax
distribution: properties and estimation based on ranked set
sampling,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 65, no. 3,
pp. 2169–2187, 2020.