Abstract
The inverse Weibull distribution (IWD) can be applied to a various situations, including applications in reliability and medicine. In a reliability and medicine test, it is generally known that the results of test units may not be recorded. Recently, the generalized adaptive progressive hybrid censoring (GAPHC) scheme was introduced. In this paper, therefore, we consider the classical estimators (maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) and maximum product spacings estimator (MPSE)) and Bayes estimators (BayEsts) of the uncertainty measure of the IWD under GAPHC scheme. We derive the BayEsts of the uncertainty measure based on flexible (symmetrical and asymmetrical) priors. Additionally, we derive the Bayes estimators using the Tierney and Kadane approximation (TiKa) and importance sampling methods. In particular, the importance sampling method is used to obtain the credible interval for the uncertainty measure of the IWD under the GAPHC scheme. To compare the proposed estimators (classical and BayEsts), the Monte Carlo simulation method is conducted. Finally, the real dataset based on GAPHC scheme is analyzed.
Keywords:
Bayes estimator; generalized adaptive progressive hybrid censoring; inverse Weibull distribution; maximum likelihood estimator; maximum product spacings estimator; Tierney and Kadane approximation MSC:
62F10; 62F15; 62N02; 62N05
1. Introduction
Entropy, which is one of the important terms in statistical mechanics, was originally defined in physics. Shannon [1] re-defined it and introduced the idea of entropy into information theory to quantify information uncertainty. Differential entropy is defined by Cover and Thomas [2] to be
where denotes a probability density function (pdf) of random variable X. Entropy measurement is a crucial concept in a variety of fields. More entropy indicates that there is less information in the sample.
The estimation of entropy has been studied by many researchers. Cho et al. [3] provided the estimators of entropy of a Rayleigh distribution under doubly generalized hybrid censoring. Cho et al. [4] provided the classical and BayEsts of entropy of a Weibull distribution (WD) under generalized progressive hybrid censoring (GPHC). Recently, Attoui et al. [5] provided the Bayes premium estimators for a mixture of two gamma distributions under squared error (SELF), entropy (GELF), and Linex (LLF) loss functions. Xu and Gui [6] provided the classical and BayEsts of entropy of a IWD under adaptive progressive hybrid censoring (APHC). Yu et al. [7] provided the classical and BayEsts of entropy of a IWD under progressive first-failure censoring. Shi et al. [8] provided the estimator for entropy of generalized Bilal distribution under APHC. Shrahili et al. [9] provided the estimator for the entropy of log-logistic distribution under progressive censoring (PrC).
The IWD can be readily applied to a wide range of situations, including applications in reliability and medicine [10,11,12,13,14]. The cumulative distribution function (cdf) and pdf of IWD are given by
and
where , and are the scale and shape parameters, respectively. Note that when , we have the Frechet distribution. Additionally, when and , the IWDs are referred to as the inverse exponential and inverse Raleigh distribution, respectively [15,16]. Then, the differential entropy of X is given by
where , and are obtained below:
and
where is the Euler–Mascheroni constant. Finally, entropy reduces to
On the other hand, in a life-testing and reliability test, it is generally known that the lifetimes of test units may not be recorded. Additionally, there are situations wherein the withdrawal of units prior to failure is pre-arranged in order to reduce the cost or time. This case is called a typical censoring scheme. However, one of the drawbacks of a typical censoring scheme is that it does not allow units to be removed from the test at a point other than the end point of the test. For this reason, reliability theoreticians considered the progressive censoring (PC) scheme [17]. Consider a life-testing experiment in which n identical units are put to the test. In the PC scheme, if the 1st failure is observed (), the survival units are removed randomly from the test. Furthermore, if the 2nd failure is observed (), the survival units are removed randomly from the test. Finally, if the m-th failure is observed (), all the survival units () are removed from the test. In this test, the PC scheme and are pre-fixed integers satisfying . The m-ordered time of observed failure () is called the PC data.
However, the time of test under the PC scheme can be long. Hence, Ng et al. [18] suggest an adaptive progressive hybrid censoring (APHC) scheme. In the APHC scheme, the PC scheme is pre-assigned, but the values of some of the may change accordingly during the test. Suppose the experimenter provides a pre-assigned ideal total time on test (). If the occurs before pre-assigned time , the test stops at the . Otherwise, once the test time passes the pre-assigned time but the number of failures has not reached m, the experimenter would want to terminate the test as soon as possible (assume that we still allow the experiment to run over time ). After the test passed pre-assigned time , therefore, Ng et al. [18] set and .
However, the time of the test under APHCS also can be long. For this reason, Lee and Lee [19] suggested a GAPHC scheme in which the test is assured to end at a pre-assigned time. The GAPHC scheme can be explained as follows. Let be a pre-fixed time point. Additionally, let represent the number of failures up to the pre-assigned times . Likewise, let be the observed value of . If , terminate the test at (Case I). If , then instead of terminating the test by removing all the survival units at , continue to observe failures, without any removals (), up to time m-th failure (Case II). If , terminate the test at (Case III). This GAPHC scheme modifies the APHC scheme by guaranteeing that the test will be completed by time . In the GAPHC scheme (Figure 1), there are Cases I, II and III as follows:
Figure 1.
A schematic representation of GAPHC scheme.
- CasesI:
- , if .
- CasesII:
- , if .
- CasesIII:
- , if .
Here, and . A schematic representation of the GAPHC scheme is presented in Figure 1.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to propose the classical and BayEsts of the entropy of a IWD under GAPHC scheme. However, we observed that the classical estimators of the entropy cannot be derived in closed form. Therefore, we have to obtain them by solving non-linear equations simultaneously. Further, we derive the BayEsts of the entropy based on various priors—SELF, GELF and LLF are derived. However, we observe that the BayEsts cannot be derived in closed form, and we propose the Tierney and Kadane approximate method and importance sampling procedure of the BayEsts. Moreover, the importance sampling procedure is used to obtain the HPD credible interval for the entropy of a IWD under the GAPHC scheme.
In Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4, we derive the classical and BayEsts of the entropy of IWD based on the GAPHC scheme. To compare the proposed estimators (classical and BayEsts), the Monte Carlo simulation method is conducted in Section 5. Finally, a real dataset based on GAPHC scheme is analyzed.
2. Maximum Likelihood Estimation
2.1. Maximum Likelihood Estimator
This section deals with deriving MLE of the unknown parameters of a IWD. As a consequence, MLEs of entropy will also be obtained. Using Lee and Lee [19], the likelihood functions of , ) under the GAPHC scheme are given by
where . Utilizing Equations (1), (2) and (4), the likelihood function of and under GAPHC are given by
Therefore, the above equations can be combined as
where and for Case I, , and for Case II, , and for Case III. Hence, the log-likelihood function becomes
Here, for Case III,
for Cases I and II,
2.2. Approximate Confidence Interval
In this subsection, we obtain the approximate CI of the entropy. By using Equations (7) and (8), the second derivatives of Equation (5) with respect to and are given by
and
Here, for Case III,
for Case I and Case II,
Let denote the Fisher information matrix of the . Under some mild regularity conditions, is approximately bivariately normal with mean and covariance matrix . In practice, we usually estimate by . A simpler and equally valid procedure is to use the approximation
where
In order to find the approximate estimate of the variance of entropy, we use the delta method. Let
where
Then, the approximate estimate of variance of entropy is given by
Thus, asymptotically,
These results yield the % approximate CIs for entropy given by
where is the percentile of the standard normal distribution with right-tail probability .
3. Maximum Product Spacings Estimation
The limitation of MLE is that it cannot work for heavy tailed distribution. Additionally, it creates problem in mixture of distributions. In order to overcome these problems, Cheng and Amin [20] introduced the MPSE as an alternative to MLE. Cheng and Amin [20] proposed to replace the likelihood function by the product of spacings (PSs) and insisted that it preserves the properties of the MLE.
For GAPHC samples, the PS to be maximized is
where , . Then, taking the logarithm of , we obtain
After differentiating the above equation with respect to parameters and then equating it to zero, we have
and
4. Bayes Estimation
In this section, we obtain the BayEsts for the entropy of the IWD under GAPHC scheme. We obtain the BayEst under three different loss functions—SELF, GELF and LLF. Additionally, we assume that priors of are independent, and the follow the gamma prior distributions ( GAM and GAM). Therefore, the joint prior distribution of is obtained as
Then, the joint posterior distribution of the given the is obtained
where . However, it is impossible to obtain the marginal posterior distribution of the entropy function. Therefore, we propose the use of TK approximation procedure and the importance sampling procedure to obtain the BayEsts of entropy function under three different loss functions.
4.1. Tierney and Kadane Approximation
For TiKa method, let g be a smooth, positive function on the parameter space (Tierney and Kadane [21]). The posterior expectation of is obtained as
where
For the , the BayEst using TiKa of can be obtained as
where and maximize the and , respectively. and denote the minus of inverse of Hessians of and at and , respectively. In our problem, we observe that
Then, is computed by solving the following equations:
and
Additionally, we compute , and it is given by
where
and
Here, for Case III,
for Cases I and II,
In order to compute BayEst of entropy under SELF, we take . Then, is obtained as
Now solving the following equation
and
We obtain . Then, we compute and it is given by
where
and
Then, the BayEst of entropy is obtained by
Next, in order to compute BayEst of entropy under GELF, we take . Then, is obtained as
Now solving the following equation
and
We obtain . Then, we compute and it is given by
where
and
Then, the BayEst of entropy under GELF is obtained by
In order to compute BayEst of entropy function under LLF, we take . Then, is obtained as
Now solving the following equation
and
We obtain . Then, we compute and it is given by
where
and
Then, the BayEst of entropy function under LLF is obtained by
4.2. Importance Sampling
The drawback of the TiKa method is that it cannot be used to construct an HPD credible interval. Therefore, we propose to use the importance sampling procedure similarly to Lee and Cho [22] to compute simulation consistent Bayes estimates (BEs) of the entropy and also to construct associated HPD credible interval.
Samples are generated using the following steps.
- Step 1. Generate from .
- Step 2. Given generated in Step 1, generate from
- Step 3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 to generate (,), (,), ⋯, (,).
- Step 4. The BEs of entropy under SELF, GELF and LLF can be obtained as followwhere .
Next we obtain the HPD credible interval of entropy using the generated importance sample. We consider the procedure of obtaining the HPD credible interval for entropy. Suppose is such that . Then an approximate BE of under the SELF can be obtained from the generated sample (, , ⋯, ) as follows.
Define
Rearrange {(,), (,), ⋯, (,)} as {(,), (,), ⋯, (,)}, where . Note that ’s are not ordered, they are just associated with . Then the BE of is , where is the integer satisfying
Hence, using the above procedure, a HPD credible interval of can be obtained as , for = , , ⋯, . Therefore, a HPD credible interval of becomes , where is such that for all .
5. Example and Simulation Results
5.1. Example—Aircraft Windshields
In order to analyze the real life data set, we use the proposed estimators in the above section. The real-life dataset was from the data on failure times of aircraft windshields (see Blischke and Murthy [23]). Blischke and Murthy [23] examined the goodness-of-fit of the data to IWD and they found that the IWD fits the data. The ordered data are as follows: 0.301, 0.309, 0.557, 0.943, 1.070, 1.124, 1.248, 1.281, 1.281, 1.303, 1.432, 1.480, 1.505, 1.506, 1.568, 1.615, 1.619, 1.652, 1.652, 1.757, 1.795, 1.866, 1.876, 1.899, 1.911, 1.912, 1.914, 1.981, 2.010, 2.038, 2.085, 2.089, 2.097, 2.135, 2.154, 2.190, 2.194, 2.223, 2.224, 2.229, 2.300, 2.324, 2.349, 2.385, 2.481, 2.610, 2.625, 2.632, 2.646, 2.661, 2.688, 2.823, 2.890, 2.902, 2.934, 2.962, 2.964, 3.000, 3.103, 3.114, 3.117, 3.166, 3.344, 3.376, 3.385, 3.443, 3.467, 3.478, 3.578, 3.595, 3.699, 3.779, 3.924, 4.035, 4.121, 4.167, 4.240, 4.255, 4.278, 4.305, 4.376, 4.449, 4.485, 4.570, 4.602, 4.663, 4.694.
Here, we consider the case when the data are PrC with the following schemes: , and , . We take Sch. a: and , Sch. b: and and Sch. c: and . The BEs based on the non-informative prior are obtained. And, the BEs based on the GELF with q = −0.25, 1.25, and LLF with c = −0.25, 1.25 are obtained. Table 1 shows the estimates of the entropy under the GAPHC scheme.
Table 1.
Classical and Bayes estimates of entropy for example.
In Table 1, we tabulate the entropy of the respective MLE and MPSE in the third and fourth columns of the table, respectively. In the other columns, the BEs of entropy under SELF, GELF, LLF are tabulated. In BEs, the two values are BE using the TiKa method and MCMC estimate of entropy, respectively. In Table 1, we observe that the BEs of entropy under GELF are marginally smaller than the corresponding BEs of entropy under SELF and LLF. Additionally, we observe that the MPSEs of entropy are smaller than the corresponding MLE of entropy.
5.2. Simulation Results
In this subsection, we use Monte Carlo simulations to compare the proposed estimators. First of all, we consider various n, m, and , and four different PrC schemes, namely; Sch. a: and for . Sch. b: and for . Sch. c: and for . Sch. d: and for .
In each cases, we take and . We replicate the process 1000 times. The associated classical estimates are computed using a Newton–Raphson method. All BEs are calculated with respect to the non-informative prior distribution . BEs of entropy are obtained with respect to SELF, GELF and LLF. BEs under GELF and LLF are obtained for two distinct values of and , respectively. Various schemes have been taken into consideration to calculate MSE and the bias of the proposed classical and BEs (Table 2 and Table 3).
Table 2.
The relative MSEs and biases of entropy estimators with classical and BayEst ( and ).
Table 3.
The relative MSEs and biases of entropy estimators with classical and BayEst ( and ).
In Table 2 and Table 3, MSEs and biases of all estimates of entropy are presented for various n, m, , and PrC schemes. We tabulated MSE and bias of the respective MLE in the fourth column of Table 2 and Table 3. We also tabulated MSE and bias of the respective MPSE in the fifth column. Uniformly, all other columns contain two values. The 1st values represent the MSE and bias of BEs by using the importance sampling procedure. The 2nd values represent the MSE and bias of BEs by using the TiKa method.
In Table 4, interval estimates for entropy are tabulated for various n, m, , and PrC schemes. Approximate CI is computed using the normality property of MLE. Estimates of HPD credible interval using importance sampling method are also tabulated in Table 4. In Table 4, we also tabulate the coverage probability (CP) for the interval estimates.
Table 4.
The relative CLs and CPs of entropy estimators with classical and BayEst.
5.3. Discussion
This study deals with the classical and BayEsts of the entropy of a IWD under GAPHC scheme. For BayEsts, the performance depends on the loss function assumed. In practice, the loss function is often not symmetric. Therefore, we consider the BayEsts of the entropy based on flexible loss functions. In the above subsection, it is revealed that the BayEst under asymmetric loss is more efficient than the BayEst under symmetry loss function.
In general, the MSE and bias decrease as the sample size (n) and progressive censored sample size (m) increase. For fixed sample size and progressive censored sample size, generally, the MSE and bias decrease as the longest test time () increases. Additionally, the estimates for Sch. b and c behave quite similarly in terms of bias and MSE. The proposed classical and BayEsts for Sch. a have a smaller MSE than the corresponding proposed classical and BayEsts for the other Sch. b, c and d.
Additionally, among the classical estimators, we observe that MLE are superior to the respective MPSE in terms of MSE and bias. Furthermore, we can observe that the BEs of entropy under SELF and GELF for the choice behave almost similarly in terms of MSE and bias. However, we can observe that BEs of entropy under GELF are better than the BEs of entropy under other loss functions in terms of MSE. We observe that the TiKa method perform better compared to the classical estimates. The problem of selecting a loss function is concerned; it can be seen that GELF emerges as the best loss function. Among BEs of entropy, we observe that BEs obtained using the GELF and LLF for the choice and have overall lower MSE, respectively.
In general, the average confidence length (CL) of the approximate CI and HPD credible interval using importance sampling method tends to decrease with the effective increase in sample size and progressive censored data size. We observe that the average CL of credible interval is wider than the corresponding average CL of approximate CI. CP of approximate CI is mostly below 95%. In the case of the credible interval, however, in some cases, CP lies below 95%, and for some schemes it lies above 95%.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, we consider the MLE, MPSE and BayEst of the entropy of a IWD under GAPHC scheme. We observe that the classical estimators of the entropy cannot be derived in closed form. The associated classical estimates are computed using a Newton–Raphson method. Additionally, we propose the TiKa method and importance sampling procedure of the BayEsts. Moreover, the importance sampling procedure is used to obtain the credible interval for the entropy of the IWD under GAPHC scheme. Among the classical estimators, we observe that MLE are superior to the respective MPSE in terms of MSE and bias. We can also observe that BEs of entropy under GELF are better than the BEs of entropy under other loss functions in terms of MSE. Among the BayEsts, the choices and seem to be reasonable under GELF and LLF, respectively. In the interval estimation, we observe that the average CL of credible interval is wider than the corresponding average CL of approximate CI. Although we focus on the entropy estimate of the IWD based on the GAPHC scheme, the Bayes estimation can be applied to any other distributions. The estimation of the uncertainty measure from other distributions based on the GAPHC scheme is of potential interest for future research.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (NRF-2022R1I1A3068582).
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Author would like to express deep thanks to the editor and the referees for their helpful comments and suggestions which led to a considerable improvement in the presentation of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- Shannn, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cover, T.M.; Thomas, J.A. Elements of Information Theory; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, Y.; Sun, H.; Lee, K. An estimation of the entropy for a Rayleigh distribution based on doubly-generalized Type-II hybrid censored samples. Entropy 2014, 16, 3655–3669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, Y.; Sun, H.; Lee, K. Estimating the entropy of a Weibull distribution under generalized progressive hybrid censoring. Entropy 2015, 17, 101–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attoui, F.Z.; Zeghdoudi, H.; Saadoun, A. Bayesian premium estimators for mixture of two gamma distributions under squared error, entropy, and Linex loss functions: With informative and non-informative priors. J. Stat. Theory Appl. 2018, 17, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, R.; Gui, W. Entropy estimation of inverse Weibull distribution under adaptive type-II progressive hybrid censoring schemes. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Gui, W.; Shan, Y. Statistical inference on the Shannon entropy of inverse Weibull distribution under the progressive first-failure censoring. Entropy 2019, 21, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.; Shi, Y.; Zhou, K. Estimation for entropy and parameters of generalized Bilal distribution under adaptive type II progressive hybrid censoring scheme. Entropy 2021, 23, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrahili, M.; El-Saeed, A.R.; Hassan, A.S.; Elbatal, I.; Elgarhy, M. Estimation of entropy for log-logistic distribution under progressive type II censoring. J. Nanomater. 2022, 2022, 2739606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basheer, A.M. Alpha power inverse Weibull distribution with reliability application. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2019, 13, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, A.S.; Zaky, A.N. Estimation of entropy for inverse Weibull distribution under multiple censored data. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2019, 13, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhammed, H.Z.; Almetwally, E.M. Bayesian and non-Bayesian estimation for the bivariate inverse weibull distribution under progressive type-II censoring. Ann. Data Sci. 2020, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sindhu, T.N.; Atangana, A. Reliability analysis incorporating exponentiated inverse Weibull distribution and inverse power law. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2021, 37, 2399–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afify, A.Z.; Ahmed, S.; Nassar, M. A new inverse Weibull distribution: Properties, classical and Bayesian estimation with applications. Kuwait J. Sci. 2021, 48, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K. Estimation of entropy of the inverse Weibull distribution under generalized progressive hybrid censored data. J. Korean Data Inf. Sci. Soc. 2017, 28, 659–668. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K. Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation of entropy of the inverse Weibull distribution under generalized type I progressive hybrid censoring. Commun. Stat. Appl. Methods 2020, 27, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balakrishnan, N.; Aggarwala, R. Progressive Censoring: Theory, Methods and Applications; Birkhauser: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, H.K.T.; Kundu, D.; Chan, P.S. Statistical analysis of exponential lifetimes under an adaptive type-II progressively censoring scheme. Nav. Res. Logist. 2010, 56, 687–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Lee, K. Exact likelihood inference for an exponential parameter under generalized adaptive progressive hybrid censoring. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, R.C.H.; Amin, N.A.K. Estimating parameters in continuous univariate distributions with a shifted origin. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1983, 45, 394–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tierney, L.; Kadane, J.B. Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal densities. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1986, 81, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Cho, Y. Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimations of the inverted exponentiated half logistic distribution under progressive Type II censoring. J. Appl. Stat. 2017, 44, 811–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blischke, W.R.; Murthy, D.N.P. Reliability: Modeling, Prediction, and Optimization; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).