Abstract
Let \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) be lifetimes of components with independent non-negative generalized Birnbaum–Saunders random variables with shape parameters \(\alpha _{i}\) and scale parameters \(\beta _{i},~ i=1,\ldots ,n\), and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) be independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). These are associated with random shocks on \(X_{i}\)’s. Then, \(Y_{i}=I_{p_{i}}X_{i}, ~i=1,\ldots ,n,\) correspond to the lifetimes when the random shock does not impact the components and zero when it does. In this paper, we discuss stochastic comparisons of the smallest order statistic arising from such random variables \(Y_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). When the matrix of parameters \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }})\) or \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}})\) changes to another matrix of parameters in a certain mathematical sense, we study the usual stochastic order of the smallest order statistic in such a setup. Finally, we apply the established results to two special cases: classical Birnbaum–Saunders and logistic Birnbaum–Saunders distributions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution, proposed by Diáz-Garciá and Leiva-Sánchez (2005), is a lifetime model, and it has some flexible characteristics such as different degrees of kurtosis, asymmetry, and possess both unimodality and bimodality. Sanhueza et al. (2008) discussed in detail its properties, transformations and related distributions, lifetime analysis, and shape analysis. Interested readers may refer to Leiva et al. (2008a, b, c) for pertinent details. A random variable X is said to have generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution (“GBS” in short) if its cumulative distribution function (cdf) is given by
where \(G(\cdot )\) is an elliptically contoured univariate distribution, with corresponding density and hazard rate functions \(g(\cdot )\) and \(r(\cdot )\), respectively. Here, \(\alpha >0\) and \(\beta >0\) are the shape and scale parameters, respectively. We shall use the notation \(X\sim GBS(\alpha , \beta )\). We now introduce two special cases of GBS distribution which will be used later:
(i) When
the distribution is known as the classical Birnbaum–Saunders distribution (“BS” in short). It was introduced by Birnbaum and Saunders (1969a, b) for modeling failure time distribution corresponding to fatigue failure. Many authors have done considerable amount of work on this model; see, for example, Chang and Tang (1993), Dupuis and Mills (1994), Ng et al. (2003, 2006), Kundu et al. (2008, 2013), Zhu and Balakrishnan (2015), Fang et al. (2016), and the references cited therein.
(ii) When
the distribution is called the logistic Birnbaum–Saunders distribution (“LBS” in short). Its properties have been discussed by Sanhueza et al. (2008).
The largest and smallest order statistics correspond to the lifetimes of parallel and series systems, respectively, in reliability theory. Stochastic comparisons of parallel and series systems with heterogeneous components have been studied by many authors. For example, one may refer to Dykstra et al. (1997), Khaledi and Kochar (2000), Khaledi et al. (2011), Balakrishnan and Zhao (2013), Zhao and Zhang (2014), Li and Li (2015), Zhao et al. (2015) and Balakrishnan et al. (2015) for details on different developments in this regard.
Here, we assume \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) to be independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),~ i=1,\ldots ,n\), and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) to be independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). We then let \(Y_{i}=I_{p_{i}}X_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Note that the random variables \(Y_{i}\) are discrete-continuous type, which admit zero with probability \(1-p_{i}\), and distributed as \(X_{i}\) with probability \(p_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Then, the survival function of \(Y_{1:n}=\min \{Y_{1},\ldots , Y_{n}\}\) is given by
Hereafter, we assume that \(Y_{1:n}^{*}\) denotes similarly the smallest order statistic arising from \(Y_{i}^{*}=I_{p_{i}^{*}}X_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n,\) where \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*}),~ i=1,\ldots ,n\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). The survival function of \(Y_{1:n}^{*}\) is then same as in (2) with \(p_{i}\), \(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}\) replaced by \(p_{i}^{*}\), \(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*}\), respectively.
It is of interest to mention that this model could arise in the following reliability context. Suppose the GBS random variable \(X_{i}\) represents the lifetime of the i-th component in a series (parallel) system which may receive a random shock \(I_{p_{i}}\) instantaneously. When \(I_{p_{i}}=1,\) this random shock may not impact the i-th component, while when \(I_{p_{i}}=0,\) this random shock will impact the i-th component and result in its failure. Then, clearly, \(Y_{i}=I_{p_{i}}X_{i}\) corresponds to the lifetime of the i-th component with an associated random shock that may or may not occur.
Let
Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
Under the assumptions (i)–(iii), we establish here the following results:
\((R_{1})\) (1) For \(\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\alpha _{2}^{*}=\alpha \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\), we have
(2) For \(\beta _{1}=\beta _{2}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\beta _{2}^{*}=\beta \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\), we have
We also consider some generalizations of \((R_{1})\) to the case when \(n>2\) as follows:
\((R_{2})\) Suppose the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{i}}, i=1,\ldots ,k\), have the same structure. (1) For \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\),
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n};\)
(2) For \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\),
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n}\).
\((R_{3})\) Suppose the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}}, \ldots , T_{w_{k}}, k>2,\) have different structures.
(1) For \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }})T_{w_{1}}\ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n};\)
(2) For \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}})T_{w_{1}} \ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n}\).
For illustrative purposes, we apply these results to two special cases, namely, the classical BS and LBS distributions with possibly different model parameters.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we briefly review the definitions of usual stochastic order and chain majorization that are most pertinent to the discussion here. For more details on these, one may refer to Shaked and Shanthikumar (2007). Throughout this paper, we use “increasing” to mean “nondecreasing” and similarly “decreasing” to mean “nonincreasing”.
Definition 2.1
We say that Y is smaller than X in the usual stochastic order, denoted by \(X\ge _{st} Y\), if \({\bar{F}}(x) \ge {\bar{G}}(x)\) for all x.
A square matrix \({\varPi }\) is said to be a permutation matrix if each row and column has a single unity and all other entries as zero. Clearly, n! such matrices are obtained by interchanging rows (or columns) of the identity matrix of size \(n\times n\). The T-transform matrix has the form \(T_{w}=wI_{n}+(1-w){\varPi },\) where \(0 \le w \le 1\) and \({\varPi }\) is a special case of permutation matrix when only two coordinates are interchanged. Let \(T_{w_{1}}=w_{1}I_{n}+(1-w_{1}){\varPi }_{1}\) and \( T_{w_{2}}=w_{2}I_{n}+(1-w_{2}){\varPi }_{2}\) are two special cases of permutation matrices when only two coordinates are interchanged. When \({\varPi }_{1}={\varPi }_{2},\) we say that \(T_{w_{1}}\) and \(T_{w_{2}}\) have the same structure. When \({\varPi }_{1}\) and \({\varPi }_{2}\) are different, then \(T_{w_{1}}\) and \(T_{w_{2}}\) are said to have different structures. It is well known that a finite product of T-transform matrices with the same structure is also a T-transform matrix and has the same structure as the elements. However, this result may not hold for a finite product of T-transform matrices with different structures; see Balakrishnan et al. (2015) for more details.
We now describe a type of multivariate majorization that has been discussed in the literature.
Definition 2.2
Let \(A=\{a_{ij}\}\) and \(B=\{b_{ij}\}\) be \(m\times n\) matrices such that \(a_{1}^{R},\ldots ,a_{m}^{R}\) and \(b_{1}^{R},\ldots ,b_{m}^{R}\) are the rows of A and B, respectively. Then, A is said to chain majorize B (denoted by \(A \gg B\)) if there exists a finite set of \(n\times n\) T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}},\ldots ,T_{w_{k}}\) such that \(B = AT_{w_{1}}T_{w_{2}}\ldots T_{w_{k}}\).
The following Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 will be useful in proving the main results in the next section; see Balakrishnan et al. (2015) for an idea about their proofs.
Lemma 2.3
A differentiable function \(\phi : {\mathbb {R}}^{+^{4}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{+}\) satisfies
if and only if
-
(i)
\(\phi (A)=\phi (A{\varPi })\) for all permutation matrices \({\varPi }\);
-
(ii)
\(\sum \limits _{i=1}^2 (a_{ik}-a_{ij})[\phi _{ik}(A)-\phi _{ij}(A)]\ge (\le )0\) for all \(j,k=1,2,\) where \(\phi _{ij}(A)=\partial \phi (A)/\partial a_{ij}\).
Lemma 2.4
Let the function \(\psi : {\mathbb {R}}^{+^{2}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{+}\) be differentiable, and the function \(\phi _{n}: {\mathbb {R}}^{+^{2n}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^{+}\) be defined as
Assume that \(\phi _{2}\) satisfies the inequality in \((*)\). Then, with \(A\in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \(B=AT_{w}\), we have \( \phi _{n}(A)\ge \phi _{n}(B)\).
Lemma 2.5
(Fang and Zhang 2010) Let \(h(u)=\frac{e^{-\frac{u^{2}}{2}}}{\int _{u}^{+\infty }e^{-\frac{t^{2}}{2}}dt}\), for all \(u\in R\). Then, h(u) is an increasing function.
3 Main results
In this section, we establish some ordering properties for the smallest order statistics from GBS models with associated random shocks.
Theorem 3.1
Suppose \(X_{1}\) and \( X_{2}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}}\) and \( I_{p_{2}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1, 2\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*}\) and \( X_{2}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}}\) and \( I_{p_{2}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1, 2\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
Then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\alpha _{2}^{*}=\alpha \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\), we have
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\beta _{2}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\beta _{2}^{*}=\beta \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\), we have
Proof
(1) With \(u_{1}=h(p_{1}),\) \( u_{2}=h(p_{2})\), \(\lambda _{1}=\beta _{1}^{\frac{1}{\nu }},\) and \(\lambda _{2}=\beta _{2}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}\), we have \(p_{1}=h^{-1}(u_{1}),\) \( p_{2}=h^{-1}(u_{2})\), \( \beta _{1}=\lambda _{1}^{\nu }\) and \(\beta _{2}=\lambda _{2}^{\nu }\), where \(h^{-1}\) denotes the inverse of the function h. From (2), the survival function of \(Y_{1:2}\) is, for \( x>0\),
where \(k(x;\lambda _{i}, \alpha , \nu )=\frac{1}{\alpha }\Bigl (\frac{\sqrt{x}}{\lambda _{i}^{\nu /2}}-\frac{\lambda _{i}^{\nu /2}}{\sqrt{x}}\Bigr )\).
It is well known that the function \({\overline{F}}_{Y_{1:2}}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})\) is permutation invariant in \((u_{i},\lambda _{i})\), and so condition (i) of Lemma 2.3 is satisfied. Next, we have to show that condition (ii) of Lemma 2.3 also holds.
The assumption \(({\varvec{u}},{\varvec{\lambda }})\in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\) implies that \((u_{1}-u_{2})(\lambda _{1}-\lambda _{2})\ge 0\). This means that \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), or \(u_{1}\le u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\le \lambda _{2}\). We then present the proof only for the case when \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), since the proof for the other case is quite similar.
The partial derivatives of \({\overline{F}}_{Y_{1:2}}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})\) with respect to \(u_{i}\) and \(\lambda _{i}\) are
where \(h(x;\lambda _{i}, \alpha , \nu )=\frac{1}{\alpha }\Bigl (\frac{\sqrt{x}}{\lambda _{i}^{\nu /2+1}}+\frac{\lambda _{i}^{\nu /2-1}}{\sqrt{x}}\Bigr )\).
For fixed \(x>0\) and \(\alpha >0\), let us define the function \(\varphi ({\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }})\) as follows:
Note that, since h is strictly increasing and concave, \(h^{-1}\) is strictly increasing and concave. Since \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), we have
Furthermore, the functions \(k(x;\lambda , \alpha , \nu )\) and \(h(x;\lambda , \alpha , \nu )\) are decreasing in \(\lambda \) for \(0<\nu \le 2\). For the hazard rate function r that is increasing, we have
and
Upon combining the facts in (4)–(6), we see that the RHS of (3) is non-positive. Thus, \(\varphi ({\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }})\le 0\), and so condition ii) of Lemma 2.3 is satisfied, which completes the proof.
(2) With \(u_{1}=h(p_{1}),\) \(u_{2}=h(p_{2})\), \( \lambda _{1}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{1}}\) and \(\lambda _{2}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{2}}\), we have \(p_{1}=h^{-1}(u_{1}),~ p_{2}=h^{-1}(u_{2})\). Then, according to (2), the survival function of \(Y_{1:2}\) is, for \(x>0\),
by letting \(a(x; \lambda _{i}, \beta )=\lambda _{i}\biggl (\sqrt{\frac{x}{\beta }}-\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{x}}\biggr )=\lambda _{i}l(x;\beta )\). It is easy to see that the function \( {\overline{F}}_{Y_{1:2}}(x; {\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }}, \beta )\) is permutation invariant in \((u_{i},\lambda _{i})\), and so condition i) of Lemma 2.3 is satisfied. Next, we have to show that condition ii) of Lemma 2.3 also holds.
The assumption \(({\varvec{u}},{\varvec{\lambda }})\in {\mathcal {S}}_{2}\) implies that \((u_{1}-u_{2})(\lambda _{1}-\lambda _{2})\ge 0\). This means that \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), or \(u_{1}\le u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\le \lambda _{2}\). As before, we present the proof only for the case when \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), since the proof for the other case is quite similar.
The partial derivatives of \( {\overline{F}}_{Y_{1:2}}(x; {\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }}, \beta )\) with respect to \(u_{i}\) and \(\lambda _{i}\) are
For fixed \(x>0\) and \(\alpha >0\), let us define the function \(\psi ({\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }})\) as follows:
Since \(u_{1}\ge u_{2}\) and \(\lambda _{1}\ge \lambda _{2}\), from (4) and the fact that the hazard rate function r is increasing, we have the RHS of (7) to be non-positive. Thus, \(\psi ({\varvec{u}}, {\varvec{\lambda }})\le 0\), and so condition ii) of Lemma 2.3 is satisfied, which completes the proof. \(\square \)
Some generalizations of Theorem 3.1 to the case when the number of underlying random variables is arbitrary are presented below.
Theorem 3.2
Suppose \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i}, ~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
Then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\), we have
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\), we have
Proof
(1) For fixed \(x>0\), let \(\phi _{n}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})={\overline{F}}_{Y_{1:n}}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})\) and \(\psi (x; u, \alpha , \lambda )=h^{-1}(u) {\overline{G}}\biggl [\frac{1}{\alpha }\biggl (\frac{\sqrt{x}}{\lambda ^{\nu /2}}-\frac{\lambda ^{\nu /2}}{\sqrt{x}}\biggr )\biggr ]\). Then, we have \(\phi _{n}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})=\prod \limits _{i=1}^n \psi (x; u_{i}, \alpha , \lambda _{i})\). According to Part (1) of Theorem 3.1, we know that \(\phi _{2}(x; {\varvec{u}}, \alpha , {\varvec{\lambda }})\) satisfies \((*)\). Now, the desired result follows from Lemma 2.4.
(2) The proof is similar to that of Part (1). \(\square \)
Theorem 3.3
Suppose \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i}, ~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
If the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}}, \ldots , T_{w_{k}}\) have the same structure, then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\),
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n};\)
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\),
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n}\).
Proof
(1) As mentioned earlier, a finite product of T-transform matrices with the same structure is also a T-transform matrix. So, the desired result is readily obtained from Part (1) of Theorem 3.2.
(2) The proof is similar to that of Part (1). \(\square \)
Since a finite product of T-transform matrices with different structures may not be a T-transform matrix, we can present the following results.
Theorem 3.4
Suppose \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i}, ~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
If the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}}, \ldots , T_{w_{k}}, k> 2,\) have different structures, then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }})T_{w_{1}}\ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n};\)
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}})T_{w_{1}} \ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{1:n}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:n}\).
Proof
(1) The required result can be obtained readily by repeating the result of Part (1) of Theorem 3.2 for \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{\frac{1}{\nu }})T_{w_{1}}\ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1\).
(2) The proof is similar to that of Part (1). \(\square \)
Remark 3.5
Condition (ii) stating that the hazard function r(x) is increasing in x is satisfied by some well-known members of the elliptically symmetric family such as normal, logistic, etc. The results established in Theorems 3.3 and 3.4, therefore, hold for many well-known GBS distributions.
We now present two applications of the results established in the preceding subsection for the special case of classical BS and LBS distributions.
(E1) Classical Birnbaum–Saunders distribution
A random variable X is said to have the BS distribution when \(G(\cdot )\) in (1.1) is the standard normal cdf \({\varPhi }(\cdot )\). We then have the corresponding hazard rate function \(r(\cdot )\) to be increasing from Lemma 2.5. So, the BS distribution satisfies condition (ii) of Theorems 3.3 and 3.4. Now, let us consider the following example which illustrates the results established in Theorem 3.4 when \(h(p)=\frac{p}{1+p}\).
Example 3.6
Suppose \(X_{1}, X_{2}\) and \( X_{3}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim BS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}}, I_{p_{2}}\) and \( I_{p_{3}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1,2,3\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*}, X_{2}^{*}\) and \( X_{3}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim BS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}}, I_{p_{2}^{*}}\) and \( I_{p_{3}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,2,3\). Consider the T-transform matrices as follows:
Suppose \(\nu =1\) and \(h(p)=\frac{p}{1+p}\). Then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha _{3}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\alpha _{2}^{*}=\alpha _{3}^{*}=2\), let \((\beta _{1}, \beta _{2}, \beta _{3})=(3,1,4)\), \((\beta _{1}^{*}, \beta _{2}^{*}, \beta _{3}^{*})=(1.78,3.342,2.878)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{9},\frac{3}{7})\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.1737,0.3110,0.2736)\). It is then easy to observe that \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.4} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.4}T_{0.3} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}^{*}}{1+{\varvec{p}}^{*}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{*})=(\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.4}T_{0.3}T_{0.1}\). So, from Part (1) of Theorem 3.4, we immediately have \(Y_{1:3}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:3}\). Figure 1 presents the plots of survival functions of \(Y_{1:3}\) and \(Y_{1:3}^{*}\), which are seen to be in accordance with the above inequality.
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\beta _{2}=\beta _{3}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\beta _{2}^{*}=\beta _{3}^{*}=1.2\), let \((\alpha _{1}, \alpha _{2}, \alpha _{3})=(1,1/4,1/2)\), \((\alpha _{1}^{*}, \alpha _{2}^{*}, \alpha _{3}^{*})=(1/3.28,1/1.492,1/2.228)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(\frac{1}{9},\frac{3}{7}, \frac{1}{4})\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.3477,0.1712,0.2435)\). It is then easy to observe that \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4}T_{0.3} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}^{*}}{1+{\varvec{p}}^{*}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}^{*}})=(\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4}T_{0.3}T_{0.1}\). So, from Part (2) of Theorem 3.4, we immediately have \(Y_{1:3}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:3}\). Figure 2 presents the plots of survival functions of \(Y_{1:3}\) and \(Y_{1:3}^{*}\), which are seen to be in accordance with the above inequality.
(E2) Logistic Birnbaum–Saunders distribution
A random variable X is said to have the LBS distribution when we choose \(G(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}},~ x\in R,\) corresponding to the standard logistic distribution. In this case, it is evident that the hazard rate function \(r(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}\) is increasing in \(x\in R\). So, LBS distribution satisfies condition (ii) of Theorems 3.3 and 3.4. Now, let us consider the following example which illustrates the results established in Theorem 3.4 when \(h(p)=p\).
Example 3.7
Suppose \(X_{1}, X_{2}\) and \( X_{3}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim LBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}}, I_{p_{2}}\) and \( I_{p_{3}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1,2,3\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*}, X_{2}^{*}\) and \( X_{3}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim LBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}}, I_{p_{2}^{*}}\) and \( I_{p_{3}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,2,3\). Consider the T-transform matrices as follows:
Suppose \(\nu =1\) and \( h(p)=p\). Then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha _{3}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\alpha _{2}^{*}=\alpha _{3}^{*}=2.2\), let \((\beta _{1}, \beta _{2}, \beta _{3})=(5,2,4)\), \((\beta _{1}^{*}, \beta _{2}^{*}, \beta _{3}^{*})=(4.5,4, 2.5)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(0.3,0.1,0.2)\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.25, 0.22, 0.13)\). It is then easy to observe that \(({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \(({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.5} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and (\({\varvec{p}}^{*}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{*})=({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.5}T_{0.2}\). So, from Part (1) of Theorem 3.4, we immediately have \(Y_{1:3}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:3}\). Figure 3 presents the plots of survival functions of \(Y_{1:3}\) and \(Y_{1:3}^{*}\), which are seen to be in accordance with the above inequality.
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\beta _{2}=\beta _{3}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\beta _{2}^{*}=\beta _{3}^{*}=1.5\), let \((\alpha _{1}, \alpha _{2}, \alpha _{3})=(1/7,1/4,1/5)\), \((\alpha _{1}^{*}, \alpha _{2}^{*}, \alpha _{3}^{*})=(1/6,1/5.6,1/4.4)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(0.3,0.1,0.2)\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.25, 0.22, 0.13)\). It is then easy to observe that \(({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \(({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.5} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and \(({\varvec{p}}^{*}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{*})=({\varvec{p}}, {\varvec{\beta }})T_{0.5}T_{0.2}\). So, from Part (2) of Theorem 3.4, we immediately have \(Y_{1:3}^{*} \ge _{st} Y_{1:3}\). Figure 4 presents the plots of the survival functions of \(Y_{1:3}\) and \(Y_{1:3}^{*}\), which are seen to be in accordance with the above inequality.
Remark 3.8
From Diáz-Garciá and Leiva-Sánchez (2005), it is known that GBS random variables are closed under reciprocation. So, it will be of interest to know whether ordering properties of the largest lifetime in the GBS models with associated random shocks will hold. Specifically, suppose \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}, \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha _{i}^{*}, \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is increasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly increasing concave function.
If the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}}, \ldots , T_{w_{k}}, k>2,\) have different structures, then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\alpha _{n}^{*}=\alpha \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{-\frac{1}{\nu }}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{-\frac{1}{\nu }})T_{w_{1}}\ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{n:n} \ge _{st} Y_{n:n}^{*};\)
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\cdots =\beta _{n}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\cdots =\beta _{n}^{*}=\beta \), \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n}\) and \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\frac{1}{\alpha }}})T_{w_{1}} \ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{n:n} \ge _{st} Y_{n:n}^{*}\). The following example presents a negative answer to this question.
Example 3.9
Consider the setting in Example 3.6, Then:
(1) for \(\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{2}=\alpha _{3}=\alpha _{1}^{*}=\alpha _{2}^{*}=\alpha _{3}^{*}=2\), let \((\beta _{1}, \beta _{2}, \beta _{3})=(1/3,1,1/4)\), \((\beta _{1}^{*}, \beta _{2}^{*}, \beta _{3}^{*})=(1/1.78,1/3.342,1/2.878)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{9},\frac{3}{7})\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.148/0.852,0.2372/0.7628,0.2148/0.7852)\). It is then easy to observe that \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{-1}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{-1})T_{0.4} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{-1})T_{0.4}T_{0.3} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}^{*}}{1+{\varvec{p}}^{*}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{*-1})=(\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, {\varvec{\beta }}^{-1})T_{0.4}T_{0.3}T_{0.1}\). Figure 5 presents the plots of distribution functions of \(Y_{3:3}\) and \(Y_{3:3}^{*}\) which are seen to cross, which means that \(Y_{3:3} \ngeq _{st} Y_{3:3}^{*}\).
(2) for \(\beta _{1}=\beta _{2}=\beta _{3}=\beta _{1}^{*}=\beta _{2}^{*}=\beta _{3}^{*}=1.2\), let \((\alpha _{1}, \alpha _{2}, \alpha _{3})=(1,1/4,1/2)\), \((\alpha _{1}^{*}, \alpha _{2}^{*}, \alpha _{3}^{*})=(1/3.28,1/1.492,1/2.228)\), \((p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3})=(\frac{1}{9},\frac{3}{7}, \frac{1}{4})\) and \((p_{1}^{*}, p_{2}^{*}, p_{3}^{*})=(0.258/0.742,0.1462/0.8538,0.1958/0.8042)\). It is then easy to observe that \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}}) \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\), \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4}T_{0.3} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{3}\) and \((\frac{{\varvec{p}}^{*}}{1+{\varvec{p}}^{*}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}^{*}})=(\frac{{\varvec{p}}}{1+{\varvec{p}}}, \frac{1}{{\varvec{\alpha }}})T_{0.4}T_{0.3}T_{0.1}\). Figure 6 presents the plots of distribution functions of \(Y_{3:3}\) and \(Y_{3:3}^{*}\) which are seen to cross, which means that \(Y_{3:3} \ngeq _{st} Y_{3:3}^{*}\).
Now, we present the usual stochastic order for the largest order statistics from GBS models with associated random shocks when shape parameters are fixed.
Theorem 3.10
Suppose \(X_{1},\ldots , X_{n}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}\sim GBS(\alpha , \beta _{i}),\) and \(I_{p_{1}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}})=p_{i}, ~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Further, suppose \(X_{1}^{*},\ldots , X_{n}^{*}\) are independent non-negative random variables with \(X_{i}^{*}\sim GBS(\alpha , \beta _{i}^{*})\), and \(I_{p_{1}^{*}},\ldots , I_{p_{n}^{*}}\) are independent Bernoulli random variables, independent of \(X_{i}^{*}\)’s, with \(E(I_{p_{i}^{*}})=p_{i}^{*},~i=1,\ldots ,n\). Assume that the following conditions hold:
-
(i)
\(0<\nu \le 2;\)
-
(ii)
r(x) is decreasing in x;
-
(iii)
\(h: [0,1]\rightarrow (0,\infty )\) is differentiable and a strictly decreasing convex function.
If the T-transform matrices \(T_{w_{1}}, \ldots , T_{w_{k}}, k>2,\) have different structures, then for \((h({\varvec{p}}), {\varvec{\beta }}^{-\frac{1}{\nu }})T_{w_{1}}\ldots T_{w_{i}} \in {\mathcal {S}}_{n},~i=1,\ldots , k-1,\)
implies that \(Y_{n:n} \ge _{st} Y_{n:n}^{*}\).
Proof
The proof is similar to that of Part (1) of Theorem 3.4, and is therefore not presented here for the sake of conciseness. \(\square \)
References
Balakrishnan N, Haidari A, Masoumifard K (2015) Stochastic comparisons of series and parallel systems with generalized exponential components. IEEE Trans Reliab 64:333–348
Balakrishnan N, Zhao P (2013) Ordering properties of order statistics from heterogeneous populations: a review with an emphasis on some recent developments. Prob Eng Inf Sci 27:403–469 (with discussions)
Birnbaum ZW, Saunders SC (1969a) A new family of life distributions. J Appl Probab 6:319–327
Birnbaum ZW, Saunders SC (1969b) Estimation for a family of life distributions with applications to fatigue. J Appl Probab 6:328–347
Chang DS, Tang LC (1993) Reliability bounds and critical time for the Birnbaum–Saunders distribution. IEEE Trans Reliab 47:88–95
Diáz-Garciá JA, Leiva-Sánchez V (2005) A new family of life distributions based on the elliptically contoured distributions. J Stat Plan Inference 128:445–457
Dupuis DJ, Mills JE (1994) Robust estimation of the Birnbaum–Saunders distribution. IEEE Trans Reliab 42:464–469
Dykstra R, Kochar SC, Rojo J (1997) Stochastic comparisons of parallel systems of heterogeneous exponential components. J Stat Plan Inference 65:203–211
Fang L, Zhu X, Balakrishnan N (2016) Stochastic comparisons of parallel and series systems with heterogeneous Birnbaum–Saunders components. Stat Probab Lett 112:131–136
Fang L, Zhang X (2010) Slepian’s inequality with respect to majorization. Linear Algebra Appl 434:1107–1118
Khaledi B, Farsinezhad S, Kochar SC (2011) Stochastic comparisons of order statistics in the scale models. J Stat Plan Inference 141:276–286
Khaledi B, Kochar SC (2000) Some new results on stochastic comparisons of parallel systems. J Appl Probab 37:1123–1128
Kundu D, Kannan N, Balakrishnan N (2008) On the hazard function of Birnbaum–Saunders distribution and associated inference. Comput Stat Data Anal 52:2692–2702
Kundu D, Balakrishnan N, Jamalizadeh A (2013) Generalized multivariate Birnbaum–Saunders distributions and related inferential issues. J Multivar Anal 116:230–244
Leiva V, Riquelme M, Balakrishnan N, Sanhueza A (2008a) Lifetime analysis based on the generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 21:2079–2097
Leiva V, Barros M, Paula GA, Sanhueza A (2008b) Generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution applied to air pollutant concentration. Environmetrics 19:235–249
Leiva V, Sanhueza A, Sen PK, Paula GA (2008c) Random number generators for the generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution. J Stat Comput Simul 78:1105–1118
Li C, Li X (2015) Likelihood ratio order of sample minimum from heterogeneous Weibull random variables. Stat Probab Lett 97:46–53
Ng HKT, Kundu D, Balakrishnan N (2003) Modified moment estimation for the two-parameter Birnbaum–Saunders distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal 43:283–298
Ng HKT, Kundu D, Balakrishnan N (2006) Point and interval estimations for the two-parameter Birnbaum–Saunders distribution based on Type-II censored samples. Comput Stat Data Anal 50:3222–3242
Sanhueza A, Leiva V, Balakrishnan N (2008) The generalized Birnbaum–Saunders distribution and its theory, methodology, and application. Commun Stat Theory Methods 37:645–670
Shaked M, Shanthikumar JG (2007) Stochastic orders. Springer, New York
Zhu X, Balakrishnan N (2015) Birnbaum–Saunders distribution based on Laplace kernel and some properties and inferential issues. Stat Probab Lett 101:1–10
Zhao P, Zhang Y (2014) On the maxima of heterogeneous gamma variables with different shape and scale parameters. Metrika 77:811–836
Zhao P, Hu Y, Zhang Y (2015) Some new results on largest order statistics from multiple-outlier gamma models. Probab Eng Inf Sci 29:597–621
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Provincial Natural Science Research Project of Anhui Colleges (Nos. KJ2016A263, KJ2017ZD27), the National Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (No. 1608085J06), and the PhD research startup foundation of Anhui Normal University (No. 2014bsqdjj34). The research work of the last author was supported by an Individual Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fang, L., Balakrishnan, N. Ordering properties of the smallest order statistics from generalized Birnbaum–Saunders models with associated random shocks. Metrika 81, 19–35 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00184-017-0632-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00184-017-0632-1