106 views

Uploaded by ahmhamed

- 30 Relating St St Sampling
- A. Gibbs, J. Rosenthal. Statistics - Making Sense of Data
- term project 2
- Birds 14
- Chapter - Confidence Interval
- Levine Smume6 Im 08[1]
- par inc.
- MICS Sample Size Calculation Template 20130421
- What are confidence intervals and p-values?
- Interval Estimate
- Article-1.pdf
- Modeling Arena
- Session 10 (Waiting Line Model) FINAL.pdf
- Kisiel 2016
- qustion chiptr 8.docx
- Mvp
- Econometrics Slides
- uuuuu
- BS EN 14358-2016
- 767896B0d01

You are on page 1of 24

Size

A.H. Abd Ellah

E-mail ahmhamed@hotmail.com

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science,

Sohag University 82524,

Egypt

Key Words and Phrases: Two sample, Order statistics, random sample size, pre-

dictive distribution, exponential model, probability coverage, average width.

Abstract:

This paper is concerned with the Bayesian prediction limits problem of the sth

order statistics when the size of the future sample is a random variable. The one pa-

rameter exponential distribution with constant failure rate is considered. Using the

gamma prior, the paper derives the posterior distribution for that failure rate and

hence the predictive distribution of future observations. Available data are from type

II censored sampling. The analysis depends mainly on assuming that the future sam-

ple size m is a random variable having Poisson or binomial distribution. Simulation

study and numerical examples are used to illustrate the procedure.

1 Introduction

In this paper, we consider the Bayesian prediction for future observations from ex-

ponential distribution in both (1) fixed sample size FSS and (2) random sample size

RSS. In next section, we derive the exact form for Bayesian predictive function in FSS

see, for example, Lawless (1971), Likes (1974), Lingappaiah (1973), Abd Ellah (1999,

2003), Abd Ellah and Soliman (2005),Lee (1997), Lindsey (1996), Huber -Carol, Bal-

akrishnan, Nikulin and Mesbah (2002), Johnson, Kotz and Balakrishnan (1994). In

section 3, we derive the Bayesian predictive function when the sample size is dis-

tributed as a Poisson pdf. In section 4, we derive the Bayesian predictive function

1

when the sample size is distributed as a binomial pdf. In section 5, we shown the

classical approach in pervious work. In section 6, in order to show the usefulness of

our results presented in the paper, we discuss simulation study and numerical exam-

ples. Finally, we present applications to illustrate the methods of inference developed

here. In many biological and quality control problems, the sample size of the future

sample can not always be taken as fixed. Lingappaiah (1986) assumed that the sam-

ple size of the future sample is a random variable. Under this assumption, he derived

the Bayesian predictive distribution of the range when the parent distribution is a

one parameter exponential distribution see, for example, Buhrman (1973), Raghu-

nandanan and Patil (1972). Upadhyay and Pandey (1989) have determined similar

prediction intervals for one parameter exponential distribution with fixed future sam-

ple size. Problems for constructing prediction limits have also been considered by

Hahn and Meeker (1991), Giesser (1993)and Soliman and Abd-Ellah (1996, 2006), .

Several authors, including Aitchison and Dunsmore (1975), Nelson (1982), Lawless

(1982), Cohen and Whitten (1988), Balakrishnan and Cohen (1991), Cohen (1991),

Bain and Engelhardt (1991), Meeker and Escobar (1998), Gelman, Carlin, Proschan

(1963), Stern and Rubin (1995), Gertsbakh (1989), Nagaraja (1995), Nelson (1982),

Patel (1989), Balakrishnan and Lin (2002, 2003) .

Let x1:n ≤ x2:n ≤ · · · ≤ xr:n , the observed ordered lifetimes of the first r compo-

nents to fail in a sample of n (r ≤ n) components. Let y1:m ≤ y2:m ≤ · · · ≤ xm:m , be

a second independent random sample of size m of future observation from the same

distribution, we assume that n,m components whose lifetimes have the one parameter

exponential distribution

Suppose that the survival time of some components may be modelled by equation

(1.1) and suppose that n new components have been established at a given point in

time and that the survival times of the first r of these to fail are Let x1:n ≤ x2:n ≤

· · · ≤ xr:n , the problem under consideration is to make inferences about the survival

times of the future ys:m in the future sample of m lifetimes. Assuming that the survival

times are independent, the likelihood function for a type II censored sample is

n!

L(x|λ) = λr e−λSr (1.2)

(n − r)!

Pr

where Sr = i=1 xi:n + (n − r)xr:n . We assume a 2 parameter gamma prior for λ

1

g(λ|a, b) = λa−1 e−λ/b , a, b > 0 (1.3)

Γ(a)ba

Where a and b known.

2

Combining the prior distribution in (1.3) with the likelihood function in (1.2) via

Bayes theorem yields the posterior distribution of λ

1 R−1 R −λA

P (λ|x) = λ A e (1.4)

Γ(R)

where

R = r+a

A = Sr + 1/b (1.5)

The Bayes predictive density function of y given x denoted by

Z ∞

h(y|x) = f (x|λ)P (λ|x) dλ (1.6)

0

AR

h(y|x) = R (1.7)

(A + y)R+1

R

A

H(y|x) = 1 − (1.8)

A+y

If we consider m future obervations, the pdf of the sth ordered future observation

is

!

m

g(ys:m|x) = s H s−1 (1 − H)m−s h (1.9)

s

where H and h are an abbreviations of H ≡ H(ys:m|x) and h ≡ h(ys:m |x)

In this section, we derive the predictive function based on fixed sample size with prior

given by (1.3). Substituting (1.7) and (1.8) for H and h in (1.9), we get

AR

! R s−1 R(m−s)

m A A

g1 (ys:m|x) = s R 1− (2.1)

s A + ys:m A + ys:m (A + ys:m )R+1

while the Bayesian predictive cdf is given by

Z t

G1 (t) = P r(ys:m ≤ t|x) = g(ys:m|x) dys:m

0

m s−1 (−1)i s−1

!

A R(m−s+i+1)

X i

= 1−s (2.2)

s i=0 (m − s + i + 1) A + t

3

where A and R are given in (1.5). The percentage points of the predictive cdf given

in (2.2) can be easily obtained by solving the nonlinear equation

G1 (t) = 1 − τ (2.3)

Then the exact 100τ % two sided Bayesian interval for the future ys:m can be con-

stracted as

tτ /2 , t1−τ /2 (2.4)

P r(y ≤ t1 ) = τ /2

P r(y ≥ t2 ) = τ /2 (2.5)

where t1 = tτ /2 and t2 = t1−T au/2 are the lower and upper percentage points of

G1 (t) . More precisely, given a value of τ , we may determine values of t1 and t2 .

size

put s=1 in (2.3), and from (2.4) the LB and UB are

1

1/M

t3 = A −1

1 − τ /2

1 1/M

t4 = A −1 (2.6)

τ /2

Where t3 and t4 are lower (LB) and upper (UB) bounds of ys:m.

size

put s=m in (2.3), and from (2.4)

m−1

m−1

X (−1)i i

A

Ri

G1 (t) = 1 − (2.7)

i=0 i A+t

Example 1

By using the Mathematica see Hastings (2001) , we generate 11 order statistics from

4

exponential with mean 1 as follows: .107, .107, .569, .929, 1.061, 1.240, 1.546, 1.626,

1.778, 1.951, 2.413. The first 6 from the above order statistics are used together with

the percentage points of Bayesian that calculated from (2.2), then the predictive con-

fidence interval (2.5) is constructed for r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with hyperparameter

of prior (known) a=1.01 and b=2.01 in the table given below:

r s 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 90% 95% 97.5% 99 %

6 1 1.2468 1.2572 1.2749 1.3124 3.2993 4.1343 5.0849 6.5390

2 1.3291 1.3871 1.4591 1.5754 4.8862 6.1256 7.5171 3.6254

3 1.4837 1.5936 1.7187 1.9077 6.4412 8.0685 9.8854 12.6276

4 1.6798 1.8403 2.0168 2.2756 8.0145 10.0296 12.2706 15.6433

5 1.8765 1.9403 2.178 2.756 8.4215 10.9816 12.2706 15.6433

From the above table, we see that, both the upper and lower 1 − τ bounds of the

predictive intervals are greater than xs:11 . Also, the bounds increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

Poisson(θ)

In this section, we derive the predictive function based on random sample size as

Poisson

The predictive distribution of ys:m = y when the sample size m is random variable

is

1 X∞

g(y|x) = P (m)g(y|m) (3.1)

P r(m ≥ s) m=s

Suppose that the sample size m is a Poisson random variable with probability mass

function pmf

e−θ θm

P (m) = , m = 0, 1, 2, · · · (3.2)

m!

Using (1.9), (3.2) and (3.1)

e−θ RAR X∞ θm ms

A

R s−1

A

R(m−s)

g2 (y|x) = R+1

1− (3.3)

Ps m=s m!(A + y) A+y A+y

where

s−1

e−θ θm

X

Ps = 1 − (3.4)

m=0 m!

5

Hence to find the prediction limits for ys:m = y the sth smallest of a set m future

observations with pdf in (3.3) we choose t7 and t8 such that

P r(t7 ≤ y ≤ t8 ) = 1 − τ (3.5)

P r(y ≤ t7 ) = τ /2

P r(y ≥ t8 ) = τ /2 (3.6)

From (3.6)

Z t7

g2 (y) dy = τ /2

Z 0∞

g2 (y) dy = τ /2 (3.7)

t8

Z t

G2 (t) = P r(ys:m ≤ t|x) = g(ys:m|x) dys:m

0

m s−1 (−1)i s−1

!

e−θ X

∞

A R(m−s+i+1)

X i

= 1− s (3.8)

Ps m=s s i=0 (m − s + i + 1) A + t

where A and R are given in (1.5). The percentage points of the predictive cdf given

in (3.8) where t7 = tτ /2 and t8 = t1−T au/2 are the lower and upper percentage points

of G2 (t).

Put s=1 in (3.8), and from (3.3) the LB and UB are

e−θ X

∞

A Rm

G2 (t) = 1 − (3.9)

Ps m=1 A + t

G2 (t9 ) = τ /2

G2 (t10 ) = 1 − τ /2 (3.10)

6

3.2 Prediction Limits of ym:m with m ∼ Poisson(θ)

Put s=m in (3.8), and from (3.3)

m−1

e ∞ m−1

−θ X X (−1)i i

A

Ri

G2 (t) = 1 − (3.11)

Ps m i=0 i A+t

and

G2 (t11 ) = τ /2

G2 (t12 ) = 1 − τ /2 (3.12)

Example 2

In this example we generate the sample size m from P(m;2) to be m=10. Then, we

generate 11 order statistics based on m=10 from the standard exponential pdf by

using the Mathematica as follows: .107, .107, .569, .929, 1.061, 1.240, 1.546, 1.626,

1.778, 1.951, 2.413. The first 6 from the above order statistics are used together with

the percentage points of Bayesian that calculated from (3.7), then the predictive con-

fidence interval (3.8) is constructed for r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with hyperparameter

of prior (known) a=1.01 and b=2.01 in the table given below:

6 1 1.2468 1.2572 1.2749 1.3124 3.2993 4.1343 5.0849 6.5390

2 1.3291 1.3871 1.4591 1.5754 4.8862 6.1256 7.5171 3.6254

3 1.4837 1.5936 1.7187 1.9077 6.4412 8.0685 9.8854 12.6276

4 1.6798 1.8403 2.0168 2.2756 8.0145 10.0296 12.2706 15.6433

5 1.8971 1.9533 2.2187 2.5976 8.4655 10.5926 12.7641 15.9653

From the above table, we see that, both the upper and lower 1 − τ bounds of the

predictive intervals are greater than xs:11 . Also, the bounds increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

In this section, we assume that the sample size is distributed as binomial pmf,

b(n;M,p) as

!

M m M −m

P (m) = p q , q = 1 − p, m = 0, 1, 2 · · · , M (4.1)

m

7

using (3.1), (3.3) and (4.1)

m M

M

sq RA R M

X (p/q)m s m

A

R s−1

A

R(m−s)

g3 (y|x) = R+1

1− (4.2)

Bs m=s (A + y) A+y A+y

where

M

!

X M m M −m

Bs = p q (4.3)

m=s m

Hence to find the prediction limits for ys:m = y the sth smallest of a set m future

observations with pdf in (4.2) we choose t13 and t14 such that

P r(t13 ≤ y ≤ t14 ) = 1 − τ (4.4)

If we consider equal tail limits, the probability in (4.4) gives

P r(y ≤ t13 ) = τ /2

P r(y ≥ t14 ) = τ /2 (4.5)

From (4.5)

Z t13

g3 (y) dy = τ /2

Z0 ∞

g3 (y) dy = τ /2 (4.6)

t14

Z t

G3 (t) = P r(ys:m ≤ t|x) = g(ys:m|x) dys:m

0

s−1

R M

M s−1 (−1)i

! ! R(m−s+i+1)

A m A

X

m

X i

= 1− (p/q) (4.7)

Bs m=s s m i=0 (m − s + i + 1) A + t

where A and R are given in (1.5). The percentage points of the predictive cdf given

in (4.7) where t13 and t14 are the lower and upper percentage points of G3 (t).

Put s=1 in (4.7), and from (4.6) the LB and UB are

M

AR X

!

M A Rm

m

G3 (t) = 1 − (p/q) (4.8)

Bs m=1 m A+t

G3 (t15 ) = τ /2

G3 (t16 ) = 1 − τ /2 (4.9)

Using (4.8) and (4.9), we can determin values of LB and UB.

8

4.2 Prediction Limits of ym:m with m∼ binomial(m;M,p)

Put s=m in (4.7), and from (4.2)

m−1

M

R X

M m−1 (−1)i

! Ri

A A

m

X i

G3 (t) = 1 − (p/q) (4.10)

Bs m m i=0 i A+t

and

G3 (t17 ) = τ /2

G3 (t18 ) = 1 − τ /2 (4.11)

Using (4.10) and (4.11), we can determin t17 and t18 of LB and UB of G3 (t)

Example 3

Follow the technique used in the above example, we use the truncated binomial

B(m; 15, 0.5) as a generator for the sample size, we get n = 12. Next we get 12

order statistics from exponential as:.024, .049, .085, .124, .154, .253, .279, .735, 1.107,

1.750, 2.258, 2.406. By making use the first 6 of above order statistics and the calcu-

lated percentage points of Bayesian given in (4.7), the predictive confidence intervals

for the future order statistics when r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are estimated according

(4.6) with hyperparameter of prior (known) a=1.01 and b=2.01 as given below:

6 1 .262 .275 .297 .345 2.982 4.148 5.504 7.617

2 .379 .462 .564 .729 5.605 7.502 9.656 12.952

3 .625 .793 .985 1.274 8.423 11.054 14.012 18.495

4 .963 1.223 1.508 1.927 11.413 14.794 18.571 24.272

5 1.0361 1.6431 1.8327 2.0975 11.8413 14.9734 18.8751 24.7615

The entries of the above table tell that, both the upper and lower (1 − τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xs:12 and increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

Use the well-known fact that if y1:m is the smallest ordered future observations then

see Upadhyay and Pandey (1989)

my1:m Sr

∼ F (2, 2r), where x̄ = (5.12)

x̄ r

9

we choose l1 and l2 such that

my1:m

P r l1 < < l2 = 1 − τ (5.13)

x̄

For equal tail limits l1 and l2 are the lower and upper τ /2 cdf points of F (2, 2r).

These are the classical prediction limits for y1:m

P r C1 < y1:m < C2 = 1 − τ (5.14)

Thus knowing l1 and l2 we can obtain Cl and C2 the lower and upper limits for

y1:m .

The percentage points (factors) of the distributions of Classical and Bayesian when

the sample size n is distributed as P (m; λ) and b(m; M, p) were calculated. The

routine DZREAL from Mathematica were used for solving the nonlinear equations

when n distributed as:

(i) Possion P (m; θ) with θ = 1, 2, 3, (ii) Binomial B(m; M; p) with M = 15 and

p = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75. Tables for different choices of r, s and α are available with the

authors upon request. In order to examine the efficiency of our technique when the

sample size is random variable, the probability coverages and average width of the

predictive confidence intervals are calculated based on 10000 simulations in Tables

1, 2, 3 and 4 see, for example, Rubinstein (1981), Van Dorp and Mazzuchi (2004),

Witkovsky (2002), Sugita (2002), Stuart and Ord (1994). From Tables 1 and 2, we

see that the probability coverages are quite close to the corresponding confidence

levels including 90%, 95%, 97.5% and 99%. From Tables 3 and 4, we see that in each

case the average width decreases as both θ and p increase. Also, the average width

increases as r increases and s decreases. For seek of completeness and comparisons,

the probability coverages and the average width in the case of fixed sample size are

also calculated along in Tables 1,2 ,3 and 4. In conclusion, we can say that our

new technique presented in the papers in the case of random sample size is work

satisfactory as well as the technique when the sample size in fixed. By making use of

the percentage points, we simulate numerical examples of random sample sizes from

the exponential lifetime when the sample size distributed as P (m; 2) and B(m; 15, 0.5)

as follows:

10

Example 4

In this example, follows the same technique in Example 1 but when m distributed as

binomial. Then the truncated binomial generator B(m; 15, 0.25) from Mathematica

gives the sample size to be 11. Again, we generate 11 order statistics from exponential

as:.017, .173, .183, .223, .382, .391, .499, .581, .687, 2.165, 2.632. Once again, by

making use the first 6 of above order statistics together with the calculated percentage

points of Bayesian by solving the nonlinear equation (4.7). Then predictive confidence

interval for the future order statistics when r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are estimated

according (4.6) as given below:

6 1 .3928 .3960 .4013 .4127 1.0220 1.2798 1.5738 2.0242

2 .4185 .4366 .4590 .4952 1.5292 1.9171 2.3527 3.0126

3 .4680 .5028 .5424 .6022 2.0340 2.5475 3.1210 3.9861

4 .5318 .5833 .6398 .7226 2.5492 3.1889 3.9005 4.9715

5 .7328 .8431 .9391 .9126 3.142 3.5818 4.0152 5.0135

Again, from the above table, we see that, both the upper and lower (1 − τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xs:11 . Also, these bounds increase

as the significant level increases as well as s increases.

Example 5

The truncated Poisson distribution P (m; 2) is used again to generate the sample size

to be 12. Next, 12 order statistics are generated from exponential as: .024, .049, .085,

.253, .279, .735, 1.107, 1.750, 1.926, 2.258, 2.406, 3.149. The first 6 from the above

sample of order statistics are used together with the percentage points of Bayesian

calculated from (3.8). Then the predictive confidence intervals given in (3.7) are

calculated for r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the table given below:

6 1 .767 .816 .900 1.076 10.427 14.356 18.830 25.674

2 1.155 1.428 1.766 2.314 17.895 23.728 30.277 40.199

3 1.882 2.399 2.988 3.878 25.213 32.872 41.422 54.327

4 2.805 3.561 4.391 5.609 32.617 42.101 52.647 68.520

5 2.976 3.8526 4.532 5.651 32.724 42.411 52.765 68.723

The entries of the above table tell that, both the upper and lower (1 − τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xs:12 and increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

11

7 Applications

In this section, we apply our predictive technique to some real data that follow expo-

nential distribution as listed below:

1. Consider the data given in Lawless (1971) in which the test is terminated after 4

failures, they are 30, 90, 120 and 170 hours. By using these four times and apply

our predictive confidence intervals given in Sections 3 ,4 and 5, we may able

to predict the 95% and 99% predictive confidence intervals for the fifth failure

when the sample size m is distributed as P (m; 1) and B(m; 15, 0.25). Then

predictive confidence intervals when the sample size is fixed is also calculated

as given below:

Fixed, m = 10 (173.10 , 435.70) (173.10 , 435.00)

95% P (m; 1) (185.60 , 1655.90) (176.30 , 749.50)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (180.90 , 1402.90) (175.30 , 678.30)

Fixed (170.60 , 684.90) (170.60 , 684.80)

99% P (m; 1) (173.00 , 3879.50 (171.20 , 1311.10)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (172.10 , 2674.50) (171.00 , 1184.80)

From the above table, we see that the lower bound of the predictive intervals

for the same level of significant are somewhat closed. Also, both of Classical

and Bayesian are almost give the same results for both fixed and random sam-

ple sizes. In addition, the interval width increases as the level of prediction

increases.

2. The following data given by Proschan (1963), are times between successive

failure of air conditioning equipment in a Boeing 720 airplane, arranged in

increase order of magnitude. The first 9 of the data are 12, 21, 26, 29, 29,

48, 57, 59 and 70. Upon using the percentage points of Classical and Bayesian

given in Sections 3,4 and 5, we predict 95% and 99% confidence intervals for

the 10th observation as given below:

Fixed, m = 10 (72.39 , 282.77) (71.87 , 244.22)

10 95% P (m; 1) (72.18 , 276.81 (71.77 , 239.74)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (72.39 , 282.65 (71.87 , 244.22)

Fixed (74.96 , 350.48) (73.85 , 301.85)

10 99% P (m; 1) (74.54 , 343.46) (73.66 , 296.52)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (74.96 , 350.43) (73.85 , 301.85)

12

From the above table, we see that the predictive confidence intervals are quite

closed for the same level of significant and their widths increase as the prediction

level increases. We also notice that, Classical gives intervals more wider than

the intervals based on Bayesian.

from an assumed exponential distribution (in hours) are given by Lawless (1982)

as: 31, 58, 157, 185, 300, 470, 497 and 673. Again by applying the percentage

points of Classical and Bayesian given in Sections 3, 4 and 5, we predict 95%

and 99% confidence intervals for the future 11th to 12th observations as given

below:

Fixed, m = 12 (648.89 , 1761.34) (685.11 , 1811.11)

11 95% P (m; 1) (694.56 , 2780.17) (690.90 , 2434.85)

B(n; 15, 0.25) (696.05, 2826.26) (691.64 , 2470.11)

Fixed (697.53 , 2118.17) (698.04 , 2193.24)

11 99% P (m; 1) (717.60 , 3482.68) (709.95 , 3040.82)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (720.95 , 3538.06) (711.43 , 3083.35)

Fixed (786.37 , 3359.28) (787.28 , 3490.92)

12 95% P (m; 1) (777.45 , 3289.77) (782.16 , 3425.24)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (786.37 , 3357.42) (787.28 , 3490.92)

Fixed (845.10 , 4143.19) (846.9 , 4333.78)

12 99% P (m; 1) (832.46 , 4390.91) (839.30 , 4255.98)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (845.09 , 4142.45) (846.90 , 4333.78)

As we see from the above table, the predictive confidence intervals are closed

for the same level of significant and their widths increase as the prediction level

and s increase. We also see that, Classical gives intervals more wider than the

intervals based on Bayesian.

4. Let us consider the following data that is the failure times (in minutes) for a

specific type of electrical insulation in an experiment in which the insulation

was subjected to a continuously increasing voltage stress [Lawless (1982)]. The

first 9 observations of the data are 12.3, 21.8, 24.4, 28.6, 43.2, 46.9, 70.7, 75.3

and 98.1. Once again by using the percentage points of Classical and Bayesian

given in Sections 2 and 3, we predict 95% and 99% confidence intervals for the

13

10th observation as given below:

Fixed, m = 10 (101.06 , 361.23) (100.72 , 342.25)

95% P (m; 1) (100.80 , 353.85) (100.58 , 335.97)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (101.06 , 361.07) (100.72 , 342.25)

Fixed (104.23 , 444.96) (103.50 , 423.03)

99% P (m; 1) (103.71 , 436.28) (103.23 , 415.55)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (104.23, 444.90) (103.50 , 423.03)

We see from the above table that the predictive confidence intervals are closed

for the same level of significant and their widths increase as the prediction level

increases. Also, we notice that Classical gives intervals more wider than the

intervals based on Bayesian.

5. Let us consider the data obtained from an experiment on insulating fluid break-

down [Nelson (1982)]. Of the 12 specimens tested at 45KV, 3 failed before 1

second and the time to breakdown (in second) of the remaining 9 specimens

were as: 2, 2, 3, 9, 13, 47, 50, 55 and 71. By using the percentage points

of Classical and Bayesian given in Sections 2 and 3, we predict 95% and 99%

confidence intervals for the 5th observation as given below:

Fixed, m = 10 (72.84 , 234.63) (72.90 , 247.70)

95% P (m; 1) (72.68 , 230.05) (72.80 , 243.16)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (72.84 , 234.53) (72.90 , 247.70)

Fixed (74.81 , 286.70) (74.91 , 306.17)

99% P (m; 1) (74.49 , 281.31) (74.71 , 300.76)

B(m; 15, 0.25) (74.81 , 286.67) (74.91 , 306.17)

From the above table, we see that the predictive confidence intervals are closed

for the same level of significant and their widths increase as the prediction level

increases. We also, notice that Classical gives intervals more wider than the

intervals based on Bayesian.

when the sample size n is distributed as P (m; θ) and b(m; M, p) were calculated. The

Mathematica were used for solving the nonlinear equations when m distributed as:

(i) Possion P (m; θ) with θ = 1, 2, 3, (ii) Binomial B(m; M; p) with M = 15 and

p = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75. Tables for different choices of r, s and τ are available with the

authors upon request. In order to examine the efficiency of our technique when the

14

sample size is random variable, the probability coverages and average width of the

predictive confidence intervals are calculated based on 10000 simulations in Tables 1,

2, 3 and 4. From Tables 1 and 2, we see that the probability coverages are quite close

to the corresponding confidence levels including 90%, 95%, 97.5% and 99%. From

Tables 3 and 4, we see that in each case the average width decreases as both θ and p

increase. Also, the average width increases as r increases and s decreases. For seek

of completeness and comparisons, the probability coverages and the average width

in the case of fixed sample size are also calculated along in Tables 1,2 ,3 and 4. In

conclusion, we can say that our new technique presented in the papers in the case of

random sample size is work satisfactory as well as the technique when the sample size

in fixed. By making use of the percentage points, we simulate numerical examples of

random sample sizes from the exponential lifetime when the sample size distributed

as P (m; 2) and B(m; 15, 0.5) as follows:

Example 6

By using the Mathematica, the truncated Poisson P (m; 2) gives the sample size n =

11. Next, we generate 11 order statistics from exponential with mean 1 as follows:

.107, .107, .569, .929, 1.061, 1.240, 1.546, 1.626, 1.778, 1.951, 2.413. The first 6 from

the above order statistics are used together with the percentage points of Bayesian

that calculated from (3.8), then the predictive confidence interval (3.7) is constructed

for r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the table given below:

6 1 1.2468 1.2572 1.2749 1.3124 3.2993 4.1343 5.0849 6.5390

2 1.3291 1.3871 1.4591 1.5754 4.8862 6.1256 7.5171 9.6254

3 1.4837 1.5936 1.7187 1.9077 6.4412 8.0685 9.8854 12.6276

4 1.6798 1.8403 2.0168 2.2756 8.0145 10.0296 12.2706 15.6433

5 1.7918 1.9840 2.2163 2.6751 8.2142 10.4293 12.4716 15.8432

From the above table, we see that, both the upper and lower 1 − τ bounds of the

predictive intervals are greater than xs:11 . Also, the bounds increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases. intervals.

Example 7

In this example, follows the same technique in Example 1 but when m distributed as

binomial. Then the truncated binomial generator B(m; 15, 0.25) from IMSL routines

gives the sample size to be 11. Again, we generate 11 order statistics from exponential

as:.017, .173, .183, .223, .382, .391, .499, .581, .687, 2.165, 2.632. Once again, by

making use the first 6 of above order statistics together with the calculated percentage

points of Bayesian by solving the nonlinear equation (4.7). Then predictive confidence

15

interval for the future order statistics when r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are estimated

according (4.6) as given below:

6 1 .3928 .3960 .4013 .4127 1.0220 1.2798 1.5738 2.0242

2 .4185 .4366 .4590 .4952 1.5292 1.9171 2.3527 3.0126

3 .4680 .5028 .5424 .6022 2.0340 2.5475 3.1210 3.9861

4 .5318 .5833 .6398 .7226 2.5492 3.1889 3.9005 4.9715

5 .5318 .5833 .6398 .7226 2.5492 3.1889 3.9005 4.9715

Again, from the above table, we see that, both the upper and lower (1 − τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xs:11 . Also, these bounds increase

as the significant level increases as well as s increases.

Example 8

The truncated Poisson distribution P (n; 2) is used again to generate the sample size

to be 12. Next, 12 order statistics are generated from exponential as:.024, .049, .085,

.253, .279, .735, 1.107, 1.750, 1.926, 2.258, 2.406, 3.149. The first 6 from the above

sample of order statistics are used together with the percentage points of Classical

calculated from (3.8). Then the predictive confidence intervals given in (3.7) are

calculated for r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in the table given below:

6 1 .7167 .8316 .9321 1.1078 10.4527 14.3546 18.3830 25.674

2 1.1525 1.4238 1.7366 2.3214 17.8195 23.7228 30.2377 40.199

3 1.8182 2.3919 2.9818 3.8278 25.2313 32.8172 41.4322 54.327

4 2.805 3.561 4.391 5.609 32.617 42.101 52.647 68.520

5 3.8851 4.9525 5.7931 6.9324 33.8762 43.7326 53.8412 69.8761

The entries of the above table tell that, both the upper and lower (1 − τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xs:12 and increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

Example 9

Follow the technique used in the above example, we use the truncated binomial

B(m; 15, 0.5) as a generator for the sample size, we get n = 12. Next we get 12

order statistics from exponential as:

.024, .049, .085, .124, .154, .253, .279, .735, 1.107, 1.750, 2.258, 2.406.

By making use the first 6 of above order statistics and the calculated percentage

points of Classical given in (4.7), the predictive confidence intervals for the future

16

order statistics when r = 6 and s = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are estimated according (4.6) as given

below:

6 1 .262 .275 .297 .345 2.982 4.148 5.504 7.617

2 .379 .462 .564 .729 5.605 7.502 9.656 12.952

3 .625 .793 .985 1.274 8.423 11.054 14.012 18.495

4 .963 1.223 1.508 1.927 11.413 14.794 18.571 24.272

5 .974 1.6243 1.784 1.921 11.717 14.947 18.715 24.272

The entries of the above table tell that, both the upper and lower (1−τ ) bounds of

the predictive confidence intervals are greater than xr:12 and increase as the significant

level increases as well as s increases.

Comment

1. If r increases, the upper and lower prediction limits increases for all cases.

3. If m and θ increases, the upper and lower prediction limits using random sample

size is greater than that obtained by using fixed sample size.

(2.2), (3.8),(4.7) and (5.14) by setting a=b=0.

REFERENCES

Abd Ellah, A. H. (1999) A prediction problem concerning sample from the exponen-

tial distribution with random sample size Bull.Fac.SCi., Assiut Univ.28(1-c),

pp1-8

Abd Ellah, A.H. (2003) Bayesian one sample prediction bounds for Lomax distribu-

tion, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math., 43(1), 101-109.

Abd Ellah, A.H. and Sultan, K. S (2005) Exact Bayesian prediction of exponential

lifetime based on fixed and random sample sizes, QTQM Journal , vol 2,no.

2,pp 161-174.

Order Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

17

Aitchison, J. and Dunsmore , I.R. (1975).Statistical Prediction analysis, Cambridge

university press, Cambridge.

Methods,san Diego: Academic Press.

Balakrishnan, N. and Lin, C. T. (2002). Exact linear inference and prediction for

exponential distributions based on general progressively Type-II censored sam-

ples, The Journal of Statistics Computation and Simulation, 72,, 8, 677-686.

tial distributions based on doubly Type-II censored samples, Journal of Applied

Statistics, 30, 7, 783-8001.

Statistics, PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Bosten, Mossachusett.

Buhrman, J.M. (1973). Order statistics when the sample size has a binomial distri-

bution, Statistica Neerlandica , 27, 125-126.

Life Span Models, New York :Dekker.

David, H.A. and Nagaraja, H.N. (2003). Order Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New

York.

Dunsmore, I.R. (1974). The Bayesian predictive distribution in life testing model,

Technometrics, 16, 455-460.

Stat. Pla. inf..

Escobar, L.A. and Meeker, W.Q. (1999). Sattistical prediction based on censored

Life data, Technometrics, 41(2), pp. 113-124.

don.

tioners, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

18

Hastings, K. (2001).Introduction to Probability with Mathematica, Chapman & Hall.

Huber-Carol, C., Balakrishnan, N., Nikulin, M.S. and Mesbah, M. (2002). Goodness

- of- Fit Tests and Model Validity, Mirkhäuser Boston. Basel . Berlin.

butions -1 ,John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Lawless, J.F. (1971). A prediction problem concerning samples from the exponential

distribution with application in life testing, Technometrics, 13, 725-730.

Lawlees, J.F. (1982). Statistical Models & Methods For Lifetime Data, Wiley &

Sons, New York.

York.

Likes, J. (1974). Prediction of sth ordered observation for the two parameter expo-

nential distribution, Technometrics, 16,241-244.

1, 113-117.

Size is random variable, IEEE. Trans. Reli., R-35, No.1, 106-110.

Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S. and Rubin, D. B.(1995).Bayesian Data Anal-

ysis, New York: Chapman & Hall

Meeker, W.Q. and Escobar, L.A (1998).Statistical Methods for Reliability Data,John

Wiley & Sons, New York.

Nelson, W. (1982). Applied Life Data Analysis,,John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Balakrishnan and A.P. Basu) Gordon and Breach publishers, Amsterdam.

19

Patel, J.K. (1989).Prediction intervals - A review, Commun. Statist. - Theor. Meth.

, 18, 2393-2465.

nometrics, 5, 375-383.

Raghunandanan, K. and Patil, S.A. (1972).On order statistics for random sample

size, Statistica Neelandica, 26, 121-126.

Rubinstein, R.Y.(1981).Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method ,John Wiley &

Sons, New York.

Soliman,A.A. and Abd Ellah, A.H. (1996).Additional factors for calculating pre-

diction intervals for sth ordered observation from one parameter exponential

distribution, Bull. Fac. Sci., Assiut Univ, 25(2-c), 1-18.

tions Using Record Statistics From Weibull Model : Bayesian and Non-Bayesian

Approaches Comput. statist.& Data Analysis51(2006) 2065-2077.

Stuart, A.and Ord, K.J. (1994).Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, New York:

Edward.

variables, J. of Comp. and Appl. Math. 139, PP.1-8.

bution : A Bayes predictive distribution approach, IEEE Trans. Rel., R38(5),

PP. 599-602.

Van Dorp, J.R. and Mazzuchi, T.A. (2004) A general Bayes exponential inference

model for accelerated life testing, J. Stat. Pla. and Inf.

chi square random variables with odd degrees of freedom, stat. & Prob. Letters

56, PP. 45-50

20

Table 1: Probability coverage

5 6 0.9005 0.9501 1 0.9910 0.9974 0.25 0.9847 0.9951

2 0.9923 0.9979 0.50 0.9064 0.9660

3 0.9905 0.9983 0.75 0.7944 0.8784

7 0.9017 0.9538 1 0.9910 0.9963 0.25 0.9873 0.9952

2 0.9908 0.9963 0.50 0.9470 0.9816

3 0.9927 0.9966 0.75 0.8375 0.9179

8 0.9014 0.9496 1 0.9854 0.9944 0.25 0.9803 0.9925

2 0.9846 0.9944 0.50 0.9474 0.9802

3 0.9848 0.9951 0.75 0.8530 0.9265

9 0.8987 0.9499 1 0.9617 0.9843 0.25 0.9541 0.9821

2 0.9615 0.9845 0.50 0.9212 0.9645

3 0.9594 0.9842 0.75 0.8272 0.9149

10 0.8988 0.9506 1 0.8726 0.9381 0.25 0.8648 0.9330

2 0.8708 0.9334 0.50 0.8193 0.8980

3 0.8673 0.9319 0.75 0.7124 0.8441

7 8 0.8982 0.9517 1 0.9729 0.9925 0.25 0.9870 0.9972

2 0.9864 0.9960 0.50 0.9451 0.9861

3 0.9538 0.9884 0.75 0.8167 0.9010

9 0.9010 0.9511 1 0.9605 0.9817 0.25 0.9742 0.9903

2 0.9715 0.9881 0.50 0.9379 0.9765

3 0.9356 0.9734 0.75 0.8296 0.9132

10 0.8986 0.9498 1 0.8562 0.9277 0.25 0.8881 0.9416

2 0.8825 0.9406 0.50 0.8398 0.9123

3 0.8193 0.9074 0.75 0.7069 0.8305

9 10 0.8984 0.9511 1 0.6914 0.8272 0.25 0.7628 0.8689

2 0.8695 0.9314 0.50 0.7120 0.8433

3 0.6314 0.7909 0.75 0.5144 0.6772

21

Table 2: Probability Coverage

5 6 0.8998 0.9500 1 0.8992 0.9459 0.25 0.8751 0.9359

2 0.8860 0.9408 0.50 0.8134 0.8863

3 0.8716 0.9356 0.75 0.7014 0.7894

7 0.9026 0.2527 1 0.9392 0.9665 0.25 0.9270 0.9641

2 0.9274 0.9690 0.50 0.8848 0.9392

3 0.9206 0.9629 0.75 0.7686 0.8505

8 0.9007 0.9516 1 0.9395 .9719 0.25 0.9338 0.9683

2 0.9372 0.9717 0.50 0.9077 0.9516

3 0.9284 0.9703 0.75 0.8052 0.8851

9 0.8992 0.9507 1 0.9300 0.9694 0.25 0.9245 0.9661

2 0.9269 0.9655 0.50 0.9013 0.9533

3 0.9168 0.9609 0.75 0.8014 0.8902

10 0.8989 0.9493 1 0.8651 0.9283 0.25 0.8614 0.9236

2 0.8603 0.9261 0.50 0.8376 0.9127

3 0.8471 0.9221 0.75 0.7433 0.8482

7 8 0.8995 0.2521 1 0.8886 0.9418 0.25 0.8773 0.9343

2 0.8764 0.9370 0.50 0.8270 0.8948

3 0.8632 0.9295 0.75 0.7106 0.7978

9 0.9023 0.9511 1 0.9022 0.9554 0.25 0.8936 0.9476

2 0.8986 0.9508 0.50 0.8575 0.9320

3 0.8915 0.9446 0.75 0.7564 0.8451

10 0.8956 0.9521 1 0.8537 0.9137 0.25 0.8452 0.9088

2 0.8343 0.9083 0.50 0.8094 0.8903

3 0.8356 0.9013 0.75 0.7084 0.8131

9 10 0.8979 0.9518 1 0.7878 0.8745 0.25 0.7804 0.8690

2 0.7839 0.8657 0.50 0.7557 0.8435

3 0.7711 0.8585 0.75 0.6511 0.7564

22

Table 3: Average Width

5 6 0.5828 0.8170 1 2.7377 3.8718 0.25 2.3604 3.4057

2 2.5511 3.6452 0.50 1.3380 2.0357

3 2.3420 3.3834 0.75 0.5158 0.7462

7 1.1692 1.5622 1 3.7619 5.0900 0.25 3.4422 4.7067

2 3.5784 4.8710 0.50 2.4092 3.4050

3 3.3643 4.6115 0.75 1.0466 1.4600

8 1.9284 2.5281 1 4.4212 5.8767 0.25 4.1794 5.5803

2 4.2524 5.6732 0.50 3.2972 4.4971

3 4.0508 5.4299 0.75 1.6979 2.3422

9 3.0726 3.9942 1 4.9140 6.4611 0.25 4.7442 6.2576

2 4.7595 6.2798 0.50 4.0357 5.3920

3 4.5722 6.0571 0.75 2.4821 3.3838

10 5.4438 7.0957 1 5.3064 6.9309 0.25 5.2022 6.8025

2 5.1681 6.7673 0.50 4.6535 6.1365

3 4.9965 6.5599 0.75 3.3403 4.4824

7 8 0.9037 1.2393 1 4.5901 3.5746 0.25 2.4228 3.3764

2 2.4525 3.4141 0.50 1.7994 2.6102

3 2.3071 3.4214 0.75 0.7657 1.1273

9 1.9934 2.6005 1 3.4978 4.6129 0.25 3.3757 4.2722

2 3.3575 4.4505 0.50 2.8209 3.8151

3 3.2104 4.2820 0.75 1.5621 2.1871

10 4.1852 5.3952 1 4.0714 5.2655 0.25 3.9999 5.1861

2 3.9379 5.1114 0.50 3.5624 4.6756

3 3.7991 4.9527 0.75 2.4205 3.2712

9 10 2.6072 3.5311 1 2.5135 3.4249 0.25 2.4510 3.3533

2 2.4057 3.3006 0.50 2.1176 2.9614

3 2.3072 3.1894 0.75 1.2815 1.8860

23

Table 4: Average Width

5 6 0.5867 0.8242 1 2.7591 3.9113 0.25 2.2901 3.2705

2 2.4874 3.5410 0.50 1.2345 1.7789

3 2.2474 3.2132 0.75 0.5045 0.7114

7 1.1785 1.5770 1 4.9471 6.7056 0.25 4.2609 5.7990

2 4.5140 6.1361 0.50 2.5129 3.4517

3 4.1343 5.6366 0.75 1.0049 1.3555

8 1.9443 2.5526 1 7.1201 9.4708 0.25 6.2753 8.3688

2 6.5439 8.7236 0.50 3.9562 5.3154

3 6.0430 8.0745 0.75 1.6233 2.1601

9 3.0986 4.0343 1 9.3354 12.2843 0.25 8.3609 11.0195

2 8.6235 11.3675 0.50 5.5364 7.3379

3 8.0100 10.5785 0.75 2.4161 3.1977

10 5.4903 7.1635 1 11.6039 15.1607 0.25 10.5173 13.7527

2 10.7598 14.0779 0.50 7.2204 9.4795

3 10.0382 13.1552 0.75 3.4033 4.4831

7 8 0.9161 1.2604 1 2.6210 3.6360 0.25 2.4146 3.3659

2 2.4618 3.4287 0.50 1.6791 2.3740

3 2.2404 3.1339 0.75 0.7295 1.0208

9 2.0253 2.6510 1 4.5105 5.9662 0.25 4.2491 5.6344

2 4.2751 5.6708 0.50 3.1706 4.2441

3 3.9307 5.2297 0.75 1.5000 2.0091

10 4.2552 5.5036 1 6.3174 8.1877 0.25 6.0354 7.8318

2 6.0199 7.8189 0.50 4.7088 6.1486

3 5.5690 7.2503 0.75 2.4524 3.2236

9 10 2.6963 3.6835 1 2.5820 3.5396 0.25 2.4781 3.4046

2 2.4406 3.3584 0.50 2.0765 2.8832

3 2.2593 3.1211 0.75 1.2042 1.6923

24

- 30 Relating St St SamplingUploaded bygigito
- A. Gibbs, J. Rosenthal. Statistics - Making Sense of DataUploaded byzabihicac
- term project 2Uploaded byapi-253502872
- Birds 14Uploaded byslixster
- Chapter - Confidence IntervalUploaded byAlvin Tung Kwong Choong
- Levine Smume6 Im 08[1]Uploaded byspsid
- par inc.Uploaded byHàMềm
- MICS Sample Size Calculation Template 20130421Uploaded byvito_luvito
- What are confidence intervals and p-values?Uploaded bydrprashantmb1012
- Interval EstimateUploaded byhinda
- Article-1.pdfUploaded byAniruddha Ghosh
- Modeling ArenaUploaded byJadv665
- Session 10 (Waiting Line Model) FINAL.pdfUploaded bymaloy
- Kisiel 2016Uploaded bychristianFPT
- qustion chiptr 8.docxUploaded byRehan Khan
- MvpUploaded byelmoummy
- Econometrics SlidesUploaded byAnonymous HU37mJ
- uuuuuUploaded byMeirani
- BS EN 14358-2016Uploaded bybilicabil

- Question_bank_Biostatistics (2017!02!03 02-43-30 UTC)Uploaded byWaqas Qureshi
- Practical Bayesian Model Evaluation Using Leave-One-out Cross-Validation and WAIC - Vehtari Gelman Gabry 2016Uploaded byjohseb71
- MARS And Truncated Spline Approach On Modelling Human Development Index (HDI) In IndonesiaUploaded byochaholic
- Tut8SolnsUploaded byDai Dexter
- STK511 materi4Uploaded byMa'ruf Nurwantara
- Understanding Six SigmaUploaded byDharmendra Sondhiya
- ListMF26Uploaded byMay Chee
- 1987 Ashton Et Al. - An Empirical Analysis of Audit DelayUploaded byMarvelia Vatarsony Munthe
- 1Uploaded bysomeoneelses
- Parametric Survial Model EUploaded byJoseph Lim
- mrcp part 1STATISTICS NOTES.pdfUploaded byAppu Jain
- error in Chemical AnalysisUploaded byAhmed Atef
- assg 4Uploaded byNaila Mehboob
- DOE - Inner-Outer ArraysUploaded bychit cat
- guia_stata_8.0Uploaded byLuu BeHl
- Module 5 DemosUploaded bydangelodon
- WMO_100_en-chap5Uploaded bycejavier
- EViews 8 Users Guide IUploaded byfernandesg11
- betaUploaded byAnkur Srivastava
- Chap 013asdadUploaded byJoshua Wijaya
- Ovronnaz.pdfUploaded bynamhoa02
- General Stepwise Regression (GSR)Uploaded byDipanjan Das Majumdar
- Chi Square T TestUploaded bysitalcoolk
- The Intersection of Statistics with Geometry, Information, and Riemannian ManifoldsUploaded bybilisoly
- Time Series Econometrics[Cointegration,ARCH,GARCH]Uploaded byNguyen Anh Duy
- saUploaded byNajmul Puda Pappadam
- Chap 017Uploaded byDarin M Sadiq
- c2Uploaded byTrịnh Quỳnh Diệp
- CA AssignmentUploaded byAli Tariq Butt
- lab6Uploaded bylinda