Abstract
Here, we consider estimation of the pdf and the CDF of the Weibull distribution. The following estimators are considered: uniformly minimum variance unbiased, maximum likelihood (ML), percentile, least squares and weight least squares. Analytical expressions are derived for the bias and the mean squared error. Simulation studies and real data applications show that the ML estimator performs better than others.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The Weibull distribution is one of the important distributions in reliability theory. It is the distribution that received maximum attention in the past few decades. Numerous articles have been written demonstrating applications of the Weibull distribution in various sciences. Furthermore, the Weibull distribution has applications in medical, biological, and earth sciences [32]. [54] discussed about efficient estimation of the Weibull shape parameter based on a modified profile likelihood. Reliability analysis using an additive Weibull model with bathtub-shaped failure rate function explained by [53]. For more discussion about Weibull distribution see, Zhang et al. [55] and [56]. A consistent method of estimation for the three-parameter Weibull distribution was discussed by [39].
We assume that the random variable X has the Weibull distribution with scale parameter \(\lambda \) and shape parameter \(\alpha \) (known) and its pdf (probability density function) is as
and so its CDF (cumulative distribution function) is
Because of the numerous applications of the Weibull distribution, we feel the importance to investigate efficient estimation of the pdf and the CDF of the Weibull distribution. We consider several different estimation methods: uniformly minimum variance unbiased (UMVU) estimation, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, percentile (PC) estimation, least squares (LS) estimation and weight least squares (WLS) estimation.
Similar studies have appeared in the recent literature for other distributions. For example, [6] derive estimators of the pdf and the CDF of a three-parameter generalized exponential-Poisson distribution when all but its shape parameter are assumed known. [2] derive estimators of the pdf and the CDF of a two-parameter generalized Rayleigh distribution when all but its shape parameter are assumed known. [7] derive estimators of the pdf and the CDF of a three-parameter Weibull extension model when all but its shape parameter are assumed known. Some other recent works have included: generalized exponential distribution by [3]; exponentiated Weibull distribution by [4]; exponentiated Gumbel distribution by [8].
The contents of this paper are organized as follows. The MLE and the UMVUE of the pdf and the CDF and their mean squared errors (MSEs) are derived in Sects. 2 and 3. Other estimation methods are considered in Sects. 4 and 5. The estimators are compared by simulation and real data application in Sects. 6 and 7. Finally, some discussion on the possible use of the results in the paper is provided in Sect. 8. Throughout the paper (except for Sect. 7), we assume \(\lambda \) is unknown, but \(\alpha \) is known. A future work is to extend the results of the paper to the case that all two parameters are unknown.
A future work is to extend the results of the paper to the case that all parameters of the Weibull distribution are unknown. There has been work in the literature where the pdf and the CDF have been estimated when all their parameters are unknown.
Such estimation of pdfs is considered by [33] for a trapezoidal distribution, by [31] for a log-concave distribution, and by [13] for a compound Poisson distribution. See also [16]. [31] use MLEs.
Such estimation of CDFs is considered by [44] for a three-parameter Weibull distribution, by [14] for a convex discrete distribution, and by [11] for distributions in measurement error models. [44] use MLEs and [14] use LSEs.
2 Maximum Likelihood Estimator of pdf and CDF
Let \(X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}\) be a random sample from the Weibull distribution. The MLE of \(\lambda \) say \(\widetilde{\lambda }\) is \(\widetilde{\lambda }=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{i}^{\alpha }\). Therefore, we obtain MLEs of the pdf and the CDF as
and
respectively. The probability density of \(T=\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{i}^{\alpha }\) is
for \(t>0.\) After some elementary algebra, we obtain the pdf of \(w=\tilde{\lambda }\) as
for \(w > 0\).
In the following, we calculate \(E \left( {\widetilde{f}(x)}^r \right) \) and \(E\left( {\widetilde{F}(x)}^r \right) \).
Theorem 2.1
The \(E\left( {\widetilde{f}(x)}^r \right) \) and \(E\left( {\widetilde{F}(x)}^r \right) \) are given, respectively, as,
Proof (A)
By Eq. (2.4), we can write
where the last step follows by equation (3.471.9) in [19]. The proof is similar for \(E \left( \widetilde{F}(x)^{r} \right) \). \(\square \)
In the following theorem we obtain the MSE of \(\widetilde{f}(x)\) and \(\widetilde{F}(x)\).
Theorem 2.2
respectively, where \(K_\nu (\cdot )\) denotes the modified Bessel function of the second kind of order \(\nu \).
Proof
Note that \(MSE (\widetilde{f}(x)) = E \left( \widetilde{f}(x) \right) ^2 - 2 f(x) E \left( \widetilde{f}(x) \right) + f^2 (x)\). We have an expression for \(E \left( \widetilde{f}(x) \right) \) and \(E \left( \widetilde{f}(x) \right) ^2\) from Theorem 2.1, yielding the given expression for \(MSE \left( \widetilde{f}(x) \right) \). The proof for \(MSE \left( \widetilde{F}(x) \right) \) is similar.
3 UMVU Estimator of pdf and CDF
In this section, we find the UMVU estimators of pdf and CDF of Weibull distribution. Also we compute the MSEs of these estimators.
Let \(X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}\) be a random sample of size n from the Weibull distribution given by (1.1). Then \(T=\sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{i}^{\alpha }\) is a complete sufficient statistic for the unknown parameter \(\lambda \) (when \(\alpha \) is known). According to Lehmann Scheffe theorem if \(h(x_{1}|t)=f^{*}(t)\) is the conditional pdf of \(X_{1}\) given T, we have
where \(h(x_{1},t)\) is the joint pdf of \(X_{1}\) and T. Therefore \(f^{*}(t)\) is the UMVUE of f(x).
Lemma 3.1
The joint distribution of \(X_{1}\) and T is as follow.
Proof
We have the joint distribution of \((X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{n})\) as
In order to find the joint pdf of \((X_{1},T)\), we set this transformation \(\{ y_{1}=x_{1}^{\alpha },~ y_{2}=x_{2}^{\alpha },\ldots ,~y_{n-1}=x_{n-1}^{\alpha },~ t= \sum _{i=1}^{n} x_{i}^{\alpha } \}\). Then by using some elementary algebra and \((n-2)\) integrations for \(y_{2}, y_{3},\ldots , y_{n-1}\), the proof is done. \(\square \)
Theorem 3.2
If we know \(T = t\), then
-
(A) \(\widehat{f}(x)\) is UMVUE of f(x), where
$$\begin{aligned} \widehat{f}(x)= \alpha (n-1) x^{\alpha -1} t^{-1} \left( 1-\frac{x^\alpha }{t}\right) ^{n-2}, \quad 0< \frac{x^\alpha }{t} <1. \end{aligned}$$(3.3) -
(B) \(\widehat{F}(x)\) is UMVUE of F(x), where
$$\begin{aligned} \widehat{F}(x)= 1-\left( 1-\frac{x^\alpha }{t}\right) ^{n-1}, \quad 0< \frac{x^\alpha }{t} < 1. \end{aligned}$$(3.4)
Proof
By using Eq. (2.3) and Lemma 3.1, the proof of case (A) is easy. Also by using \(\widehat{F}(x) = \int _{ 0}^{x_{1}} h(x_{1}|~t) dx_{1}\) and some elementary algebra, the proof of case (B) is done.
\(\square \)
Lemma 3.3
The MSEs of \(\widehat{f}(x)\) and \(\widehat{F}(x)\) are given by
respectively, where
denotes the complementary incomplete gamma function.
Proof (A)
By using Eq. (2.3), we can write
where the last step follows by the definition of the complementary incomplete gamma function. The expression for the MSE for \(\widehat{f}(x)\) follows by \(MSE \left( \widehat{f}(x)\right) = E \left( \widehat{f}(x)\right) ^2 - f^2(x)\). The proof for the expression for the MSE for \(\widehat{F}(x)\) is similar. \(\square \)
In the following section we present percentile method of the estimation.
4 Estimators Based on Percentiles
Estimation based on percentiles was originally explored by Kao ([28, 29]), see also [38] and [26]. In fact the nature of percentiles estimators is based on distribution function. In case of a Weibull distribution also it is possible to use the same concept to obtain the estimators of parameters based on the percentiles, because of the structure of its distribution function. If \(p_{i}\) denotes some estimate of \(F(x_{(i)}, \alpha , \lambda )\) then the estimate of \(\lambda \) (when \(\alpha \) is known ) can be obtained by minimizing
where \(p_{i}=\frac{i}{n+1}\) and \(X_{(i)};~i=1,\ldots , n\) denotes the ordered sample (see [20]). So to obtain the PC estimator of pdf and CDF, we use the same method as for the ML estimator. Therefore
Now we can simulate the expectation and the MSE of these estimators.
5 Least Squares and Weighted Least Squares Estimators
In this section, we derive regression based estimators of the unknown parameter. This method was originally suggested by [49] to estimate the parameters of beta distributions. It can be used for some other distributions also.
Suppose \(X_{1}, X_2, \ldots , X_{n}\) is a random sample of size n from a CDF \(F(\cdot )\) and suppose \(X_{(i)}\), \(i = 1, 2, \ldots , n\) denote the ordered sample in ascending order. The proposed method uses \(F \left( X_{(i)}\right) \). For a sample of size n, we have
see [26]. Using the expectations and the variances, two variants of the least squares method follow.
5.1 Method 1: Least Squares Estimators
Obtain the estimators by minimizing
with respect to the unknown parameters. Therefore in case of Weibull distribution the least squares estimators of \(\lambda \) (when \(\alpha \) is known ), say \(\widetilde{\lambda }_{ls}\), can be obtained by minimizing
So to obtain the LS estimator of pdf and CDF, we use the same method as for the ML estimator. Therefore
It is difficult to find the expectation and the MSE of these estimators by mathematical methods. So we calculate them by simulation study.
5.2 Method 2: Weighted Least Squares Estimators
The weighted least squares estimators can be obtained by minimizing
with respect to the unknown parameters, where \(w_{j}=\frac{1}{Var\left( F(X_{(j)})\right) }=\frac{(n+1)^{2}(n+2)}{j(n-j+1)}.\) Therefore in case of Weibull distribution the wight least squares estimators of \(\lambda \) (when \(\alpha \) is known ), say \(\widetilde{\lambda }_{wls}\), can be obtained by minimizing
So to obtain the WLS estimator of pdf and CDF, we use the same method as for the ML estimator. Therefore
It is difficult to find the expectation and the MSE of these estimators by mathematical methods. So we calculate them by simulation study.
6 Comparison of UMVU, ML, PC, LS and WLS estimators
Here, we perform a simulation study to compare the performances of the following estimators: MLE, UMVUE, PCE, LSE and WLSE of the pdf and the CDF. The comparison is based on MSEs. The MSEs were computed by generating one thousand replications of samples of size \(n = 5, 6, \ldots , 35\) from the Weibull distribution with \((\alpha , \lambda )= (1, 0.5)\), (1, 0.75), (1, 1), (2, 1), (2, 2), (1, 2). Figures 1 and 2 plot the the MSEs of the UMVUE, WLSE, LSE and the PCE from the MSE of the MLE versus n.
We can see from the figures that the ML estimators of the pdf and the CDF are the most efficient for all n. We can also see that the gain in efficiency by using the MLE over others increases with increasing \(\lambda \).
7 Data Analysis
This paper takes the form of a case study, in which we examine a sample of fibre strength data. The sample are experimental data of the strength of glass fibre of length, 1.5 cm, from the National Physical Laboratory in England. We use a real data set to show that the comparison of MLE, PCE, LSE and WLSE of pdf and CDF. The data is obtained from [50].
0.55, 0.74, 0.77, 0.81, 0.84, 0.93, 1.04, 1.11, 1.13, 1.24, 1.25, 1.27, 1.28, 1.29, 1.30, 1.36, 1.39, 1.42, 1.48, 1.48, 1.49, 1.49, 1.50, 1.50, 1.51, 1.52, 1.53, 1.54, 1.55, 1.55, 1.58, 1.59, 1.60, 1.61, 1.61, 1.61, 1.61, 1.62, 1.62, 1.63, 1.64, 1.66, 1.66, 1.66, 1.67, 1.68, 1.68, 1.69, 1.70, 1.70, 1.73, 1.76, 1.76, 1.77, 1.78, 1.81, 1.82, 1.84, 1.84, 1.89, 2.00, 2.01, 2.24.
Our brief calculations, shows that the Weibull distribution is fitted well to this real data.
It must be note that when we work with real data, in fact all of the parameters, \(\alpha \) and \(\lambda \) are unknown. Therefore we use the following equations for estimating unknown parameters under different methods.
Let \(X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}\) be a random sample of size n from the Weibull distribution given by (1.1), then the log-likelihood function of the observed sample is
The MLEs of \(\alpha \) and \(\lambda \), say \(\widetilde{\alpha }\) and \(\widetilde{\lambda }\) respectively, can be obtained as the solutions of the equations
The PCEs of \(\alpha \) and \(\lambda \), say \(\widetilde{\alpha }_{pc}\) and \(\widetilde{\lambda }_{pc}\) respectively, can be obtained by minimizing
where \(p_{i}=\frac{i}{n+1}\) and \(X_{(i)};~i=1,\ldots , n\) denotes the ordered sample.
The LSEs of \(\alpha \) and \(\lambda \), say \(\widetilde{\alpha }_{ls}\) and \(\widetilde{\lambda }_{ls}\) respectively, can be obtained by minimizing
The weighted least squares estimators of the unknown parameters, \(\alpha \) and \(\lambda \), say \(\widetilde{\alpha }_{wls}\) and \(\widetilde{\lambda }_{wls}\) respectively, can be obtained by minimizing
where \(w_{j}=\frac{1}{Var\left( F(Y_{(j)})\right) }=\frac{(n+1)^{2}(n+2)}{j(n-j+1)}\).
The Weibull distribution was fitted to the strength data by MLE, PCE, LSE and WLSE. Table 1 gives the estimates of \(\alpha \), \(\lambda \) and the corresponding log-likelihood values. The log-likelihood value is the largest for the MLE.
We also compared the estimation methods by means of model selection criteria. The ones we considered are:
where \(\ln L(\theta )\) denotes the log-likelihood, n denotes the number of observations (i.e., the length of x) and k denotes the number of parameters of the distribution. The smaller the values of these criteria the better the fit. For more discussion on these criteria, see [10] and [17].
Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the Q–Q plots (observed quantiles versus expected quantiles), the density plots (fitted pdf versus empirical pdf) and the distribution plots (fitted CDF versus empirical CDF) for the four different estimation methods. The figures show that the ML estimators provide the best fit.
Table 2 gives values of the model selection criteria for the four different estimation methods. We can see that the ML estimators give the smallest values for all five model selection criteria.
Hence, evidence based on the MSEs in the simulation study, the log-likelihood values, the Q–Q plots, the density plots, the distribution plots and the model selection criteria show that the ML estimators for the pdf and the CDF are the best.
8 Discussion
We have compared five different estimators (the UMVU estimator, the ML estimator, the LS estimator, the WLS estimator, and the PC estimator) for the pdf and the CDF of the Weibull distribution when the shape parameter is assumed to be known.
We have compared the performances of the five estimators by simulation and a real data application. The results show that the ML estimator performs the best in terms of the MSEs in the simulation study, the log-likelihood values, the Q–Q plots, the density plots, distribution plots, AIC, AICc, BIC and HQC.
Comparisons of the kind performed in Section 6 can be useful to find the best estimators for the pdf and the CDF. The best estimators for the pdf can be used to estimate functionals of the pdf like
-
the differential entropy of f defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle -\int _{-\infty }^\infty f (x) \ln f (x) dx; \end{aligned}$$ -
the negentropy defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^\infty f (x) \ln f (x) dx - \int _{-\infty }^\infty \phi (x) \ln \phi (x) dx, \end{aligned}$$where \(\phi (\cdot )\) denotes the standard normal PDF;
-
the Rényi entropy defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle 1-\gamma }\ln \int _0^\infty f^\gamma (x) dx \end{aligned}$$for \(\gamma >0\) and \(\gamma \ne 1\);
-
the Kullback-Leibler divergence of f from an arbitrary PDF \(f_0\) defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^\infty f (x) \ln \left\{ f (x) / f_0 (x) \right\} dx; \end{aligned}$$ -
the Fisher information defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^\infty \left[ \frac{\displaystyle \partial }{\displaystyle \partial \theta } f(x; \theta ) \right] ^2 f(x; \theta ) d x, \end{aligned}$$where \(\theta \) is a parameter specifying the pdf.
Estimation of differential entropy is considered by [42] for data located on embedded manifolds and by [21] for positive random variables. The latter paper illustrates an application in computational neuroscience. Estimation of negentropy is considered by [12] for time series models. This paper illustrates an application to environmental data. Estimation of Rényi entropy is considered by [30] for exponential distributions. UMVU and ML estimators are given. Estimation of Kullback-Leibler divergence is considered by [24] for autoregressive model selection in small samples, by [25] for change detection on SAR images, and by [43] for a class of continuous distributions. Estimation of Fisher information is considered by [37] for model selection, and by [36] for image reconstruction problems based on Poisson data.
The best estimators for the CDF can be used to estimate functionals of the CDF like
-
cumulative residual entropy of F defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \int _0^\infty \left[ 1 - F(\lambda ) + F (-\lambda ) \right] \ln \left[ 1 - F(\lambda ) + F (-\lambda ) \right] d \lambda ; \end{aligned}$$ -
the quantile function of F defined by \(F^{-1} (\cdot )\);
-
the Bonferroni curve defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle p \mu } \int _0^p F^{-1} (t) dt, \end{aligned}$$where \(\mu = \mathrm{E} (X)\);
-
the Lorenz curve defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle \mu } \int _0^p F^{-1} (t) dt, \end{aligned}$$where \(\mu = \mathrm{E} (X)\).
Estimation of cumulative residual entropy is considered by [9] for the Rayleigh distribution. Estimation of quantiles is considered by Ehsanes Saleh et al. (1983) for a location-scale family of distributions including the Pareto, exponential and double exponential distributions, by [15] for the normal distribution, by Rojo (1998) for an increasing failure rate distribution, by [5] for a two-parameter kappa distribution, by [40] for a three-parameter gamma distribution, by [35] for the normal, log-normal and Pareto distributions, by [46] for the generalized Pareto distribution, and by [41] for a three-parameter lognormal distribution. Ehsanes Saleh et al. (1983) use order statistics, [15] use asymptotically best linear unbiased estimators and UMVUEs, [5] use MLEs, [35] uses small sample estimators, and Nagatsuka and Balakrishnan ([40, 41]) use statistics invariant to unknown location. Estimation of the Lorenz curve is considered by [52] for a Pareto distribution. See also [18].
The best estimators for both the pdf and the CDF can be used to estimate functionals of the pdf and the CDF like
-
probability weighted moments defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^\infty x F^r (x) f (x) dx; \end{aligned}$$ -
the hazard rate function defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle f (x)}{\displaystyle 1 - F (x)}; \end{aligned}$$ -
the reverse hazard rate function defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle \frac{\displaystyle f(x)}{\displaystyle F (x)}; \end{aligned}$$ -
the mean deviation about the mean defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \displaystyle 2 \mu F \left( \mu \right) - 2 \mu + 2 \int _{\mu }^\infty x f (x) dx, \end{aligned}$$where \(\mu = \mathrm{E} (X)\).
Unbiased estimation of probability weighted moments is considered by [51]. Estimation of hazard rate functions is considered by [47] for two-parameter decreasing hazard rate distributions, by [23] for the inverse Gaussian distribution, by [34] for the linear hazard rate distribution, and by [1] for a mixture distribution with censored lifetimes. [47] use MLEs, [23] uses MLEs and UMVUEs, [34] use MLEs obtained via the EM algorithm, and [1] use MLEs and a Bayesian approach. Estimation of mean deviation is considered by [22] for the normal distribution and by [48] for the Pearson type distribution. The estimators given by the latter are consistent.
References
Ahn SE, Park CS, Kim HM (2007) Hazard rate estimation of a mixture model with censored lifetimes. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:711–716
Alizadeh M, Bagheri SF, Khaleghy Moghaddam M (2013) Efficient estimation of the density and cumulative distribution function of the generalized rayleigh distribution. J Stat Res Iran 10:1–22
Alizadeh M, Rezaei S, Bagheri SF, Nadarajah S (2015a) Efficient estimation for the generalized exponential distribution. Stat Pap 1–17. doi:10.1007/s00362-014-0621-7
Alizadeh M, Bagheri SF, Baloui Jamkhaneh E, Nadarajah S (2015b) Estimates of the PDF and the CDF of the exponentiated Weibull distribution. Braz. J Probab Stat 29(3):695–716. doi:10.1214/14-BJPS240. http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bjps/1433983072
Aucoin F, Ashkar F, Bayentin L (2012) Parameter and quantile estimation of the 2-parameter kappa distribution by maximum likelihood. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 26:1025–1039
Bagheri SF, Alizadeh M, Baloui Jamkhaneh E, Nadarajah S (2014a) Evaluation and comparison of estimations in the generalized exponential-Poisson distribution. J Stat Comput Simul 84(11):2345–2360
Bagheri SF, Alizadeh M, Nadarajah S, Deiri E (2014) Efficient estimation of the PDF and the CDF of the Weibull extension model. J Commun Stat Simul Comput. doi:10.1080/03610918.2014.894059
Bagheri SF, Alizadeh M, Nadarajah S (2014c) Efficient estimation of the PDF and the CDF of the exponentiated Gumbel distribution. J Commun Stat Simul Comput. doi:10.1080/03610918.2013.863922
Bratpvrbajgyran S (2012) A test of goodness of fit for Rayleigh distribution via cumulative residual entropy. In: Proceedings of the 8th World Congress in Probability and Statistics
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304
Dattner I, Reiser B (2013) Estimation of distribution functions in measurement error models. J Stat Plan Inference 143:479–493
Dejak C, Franco D, Pastres R, Pecenik G, Solidoro C (1993) An informational approach to model time series of environmental data through negentropy estimation. Ecol Modell 67:199–220
Duval C (2013) Density estimation for compound Poisson processes from discrete data. Stoch Processes Their Appl 123:3963–3986
Durot C, Huet S, Koladjo F, Robin S (2013) Least-squares estimation of a convex discrete distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 67:282–298
Saleh Ehsanes, Md AK, Hassanein KM, Masoom Ali M (1988) Estimation and testing of hypotheses about the quantile function of the normal distribution. J Inform Optim Sci 9:85–98
Er GK (1998) A method for multi-parameter PDF estimation of random variables. Struct Saf 20:25–36
Fang Y (2011) Asymptotic equivalence between cross-validations and akaike information criteria in mixed-effects models. J Data Sci 9:15–21
Gastwirth JL (1972) The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev Econ Stat 54:306–316
Gradshteyn IS, Ryzhik IM (2000) Tables of integrals. Series and products, 6th edn. Academic Press, New York
Gupta RD, Kundu D (2001) Generalized exponential distributions: different methods of estimations. J Stat Comput Simul 69:315–338
Hampel D (2008) Estimation of differential entropy for positive random variables and its application in computational neuroscience. In: Bellomo N (ed) Modeling and simulation in science. engineering and technology, vol 2. Birkhäuser, Boston, pp 213–224
Hartley HO (1945) Note on the calculation of the distribution of the estimate of mean deviation in normal samples. Biometrika 33:257–258
Hsieh HK (1990) Estimating the critical time of the inverse Gaussian hazard rate. IEEE Trans Reliab 39:342–345
Hurvich CM, Shumway R, Tsai C-L (1990) Improved estimators of Kullback-Leibler information for autoregressive model selection in small samples. Biometrika 77:709–719
Inglada J (2003) Change detection on SAR images by using a parametric estimation of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. In: Proceedings of the geoscience and remote sensing symposium, vol 6. IGRSS, Toulouse, pp 4104–4106
Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1994) Continuous univariate distribution, vol 1, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Johnson NL, Kotz S, Balakrishnan N (1995) Continuous univariate distribution, vol 2, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Kao JHK (1958) Computer methods for estimating Weibull parameters in reliability studies. Trans IRE-Reliab Qual Control 13:15–22
Kao JHK (1959) A graphical estimation of mixed Weibull parameters in life testing electron tubes. Technometrics 1:389–407
Kayal S, Kumar S, Vellaisamy P (2013) Estimating the Rényi entropy of several exponential populations. Braz J Probab Stat 29(1):94–111
Koenker R, Mizera I (2010) Quasi-concave density estimation. Ann Stat 38:2998–3027
Krishnamoorthy K (2006) Handbook of statistical distributions with applications. Chapman Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, pp 687–691
Lech WZ, Maryna G (2009) The best measurand estimators of trapezoidal pdf. In: Proceedings of the XIX Imeko World Congress, pp 2405–2410
Lin C-T, Wu SJS, Balakrishnan N (2003) Parameter estimation for the linear hazard rate distribution based on records and inter-record times. Commun Stat-Theory Methods 32:729–748
Longford NT (2012) Small-sample estimators of the quantiles of the normal, log-normal and Pareto distributions. J Stat Comput Simul 82:1383–1395
Li QZ, Asma E, Qi JY, Bading JR, Leahy RM (2004) Accurate estimation of the fisher information matrix for the PET image reconstruction problem. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:1057–1064
Mielniczuk J, Wojtys M (2010) Estimation of Fisher information using model selection. Metrika 72:163–187
Mann NR, Schafer RE, Singpurwalla ND (1974) Methods for statistical analysis of reliability and life data. Wiley, New York
Nagatsuka H, Kamakura T, Balakrishnan N (2013) A consistent method of estimation for the three-parameter Weibull distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 58:210–226
Nagatsuka H, Balakrishnan N (2012) Parameter and quantile estimation for the three-parameter gamma distribution based on statistics invariant to unknown location. J Stat Plan Inference 142:2087–2102
Nagatsuka H, Balakrishnan N (2013) Parameter and quantile estimation for the three-parameter lognormal distribution based on statistics invariant to unknown locatio. J Stat Comput Simul 83:1629–1647
Nilsson M, Kleijn WB (2007) On the estimation of differential entropy from data located on embedded manifolds. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 53:2330–2341
Perez-Cruz F (2008) Kullback-Leibler divergence estimation of continuous distributions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on information theory, pp 1666–1670
Przybilla C, Fernandez-Canteli A, Castillo E (2013) Maximum likelihood estimation for the three-parameter Weibull cdf of strength in presence of concurrent aw populations. J Eur Ceram Soc 33:1721–1727
Raja TA, Mir AH (2011) On extension of some exponentiated distributions with application. Int J Contemp Math Sci 6:393–400
Song J, Song S (2012) A quantile estimation for massive data with generalized Pareto distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 56:143–150
Saunders SC, Myhre JM (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation for two-parameter decreasing hazard rate distributions using censored data. J Am Stat Assoc 78:664–673
Suzuki G (1965) A consistent estimator for the mean deviation of the Pearson type distribution. Ann Inst Stat Math 17:271–285
Swain J, Venkatraman S, Wilson J (1988) Least squares estimation of distribution function in Johnson’s translation system. J Stat Comput Simul 29:271–297
Smith RL, Naylor JC (1987) A Comparisono f maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimators for the three-parameter Weibull distribution. Appl Stat 38:358–369
Wang QJ (1990) Unbiased estimation of probability weighted moments and partial probability weighted moments from systematic and historical flood information and their application to estimating the GEV distribution. J Hydrol 120:115–124
Woo JS, Yoon GE (2001) Estimations of Lorenz curve and Gini index in a Pareto distribution. Commun Stat Appl Methods 8:249–256
Xie M, Lai CD (1996) Reliability analysis using an additive Weibull model with bathtub-shaped failure rate function. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 52:87–93
Yang ZL, Xie M (2002) Efficient estimation of the Weibull shape parameter based on a modified profile likelihood. J Stat Comput Simul 73:115–123
Zhang LF, Xie M, Tang LC (2006) Bias correction for the least squares estimator of Weibull shape parameter with complete and censored data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:930–939
Zhang LF, Xie M, Tang LC (2007) A study of two estimation approaches for parameters of Weibull distribution based on WPP. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:360–368
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alizadeh, M., Rezaei, S. & Bagheri, S.F. On the Estimation for the Weibull Distribution. Ann. Data. Sci. 2, 373–390 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-015-0046-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-015-0046-8