Abstract
In this paper, a new class of goodness of fit tests for exponential distribution is proposed. The tests use the equidistribution characterizations of exponential distribution. Based on the U-empirical Laplace transforms of equidistributed statistics, test statistics of the integral type are formed. They are U-statistics with estimated parameters. Their asymptotic properties are derived. Two families of exponentiality tests from this class, based on two selected characterizations, are presented. The approximate Bahadur efficiency is used to assess their quality. Finally, their simulated powers are calculated and the tests are compared with different exponentiality tests.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The exponential distribution is one of the most widely used distributions for modeling data in reliability theory, queuing theory, and many other fields. For this reason, and due to its simple and suitable form there are many characterizations of this distribution that can be expressed conveniently. Some of them can be found in, among others, Ahsanullah and Hamedani (2010), Arnold et al. (2008), Balakrishnan and Rao (1998) and Galambos and Kotz (1978).
In recent times, these characterizations have increased their popularity due to the fact that they are useful in construction of goodness-of-fit tests. Some goodness-of-fit tests for exponentiality are studied in Ahmad and Alwasel (1999), Angus (1982), Jansen van Rensburg and Swanepoel (2008), Koul (1977, (1978), Nikitin (1996), Nikitin and Volkova (2010), Volkova (2010), Jovanović et al. (2015), Milošević (2016).
There exist different approaches when constructing the test statistics. One of them uses Laplace transforms. Baringhaus and Henze (1991) considered the test based on the differential equation that Laplace transform of exponential distribution satisfies. The analogous tests for Rayleigh and Gamma distribution were proposed in Meintanis and Iliopoulos (2003) and Henze et al. (2012), respectively. The approach of comparison of theoretical and empirical Laplace transform was considered in Henze (1993) and Henze and Meintanis (2002a) for exponential, and Henze and Klar (2002) for inverse Gaussian distribution. Meintanis et al. (2007) considered the exponentiality tests based on characterization involving moments.
Worth mentioning are also similar tests based on empirical characteristic functions considered, e.g. in Henze and Meintanis (2002b) and Gürtler and Henze (2000).
Our approach in this paper is to create a test based on equidistribution characterization and the corresponding U-empirical Laplace transforms.
Consider a characterization of the exponential distribution of the form
where \(\omega _1(X_1,\ldots ,X_m)\) and \(\omega _2(X_1,\ldots ,X_m)\) are non-negative homogeneous functions of i.i.d. random variables \(X_1,...,X_m\) , i.e. for every real number \(c>0\)
Let \(X_1,X_2,\ldots ,X_n\) be a sample from a non-negative continuous distribution function F. For testing the composite hypothesis of exponentiality \(H_0: \;F(x)=1-e^{-\lambda x},\;\lambda >0,\) we propose the family of scale-free test statistics of the integral type
where \(\bar{X}\) is the sample mean, a is some positive constant and
where \(n^{[m]}=m!\left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}}\right) \) and \(\mathrm \Pi (m)\) is the set of all one-to-one mappings \(\pi : \{1,\ldots ,m\}\mapsto \{1,\ldots ,m\}\), are U-empirical Laplace transforms. The exponential weight function ensures the convergence of the integral while the role of the sample mean is to make the statistic scale free under null hypothesis. The tuning parameter a can be chosen in order to increase the power of the test against some particular alternatives.
We consider both large positive and large negative values of \(J_{n,a}\) to be significant. The tests will be consistent against all alternatives where the theoretical counterpart of \(J_{n,a}\) is not equal to zero, which includes all distributions of practical interest.
To compare the quality of our tests with some other tests we shall use the approximate Bahadur efficiency. This method has been considered in Meintanis et al. (2007) and Henze et al. (2009).
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we derive asymptotic distribution and other asymptotic properties of our test statistics needed for calculation of local approximate Bahadur efficiency. In the next section we present two well-known characterizations and use the results from Sect. 2 to construct appropriate goodness-of-fit tests based on them. We compare these tests among each other and with some other tests via approximate Bahadur efficiency. In Sect. 4 we perform a simulation study in order to compare the powers of our tests with other exponentiality tests.
2 Asymptotic properties of \(J_{n,a}\)
After integration, the expression (1) becomes
In order to find the asymptotic distribution of \(J_{n,a}\) under \(H_0\) we consider the auxiliary function
where \(\mu =\lambda ^{-1}\). For every fixed \(\mu >0\) \(J^{*}_{n,a}(\mu )\) is an U-statistic whose distribution does not depend on \(\mu \). Therefore we can put \(\mu =1.\)
The U-statistic \(J^{*}_{n,a}(1)\) has symmetric kernel
If the kernel is non-degenerate we may apply the Hoeffding’s theorem (1948) and get the asymptotic distribution of \(\sqrt{n}J^{*}_{n,a}(1)\). Precisely, the asymptotic distribution of \(\sqrt{n}J^{*}_{n,a}(1)\) is normal \(\mathcal {N}(0,m^2\sigma ^2_{\varPhi }(a))\). Here, \(\sigma ^2_{\varPhi }(a)\) is the variance of the kernel projection on \(X_1\), i.e.
It is known that the sample mean has the following limiting distribution
It is not difficult to show that the conditions 2.3 and 2.9A of Randles’ theorem (1982, Theorem 2.13) are satisfied. Hence we can conclude that the asymptotic distribution of \(J^{*}_{n,a}(\mu )\) and \(J_{n,a}\) coincide. Since the distribution of \(J_{n,a}\) does not depend of parameter \(\lambda =\mu ^{-1}\), we have that the asymptotic distribution is:
Therefore, we should reject our null hypothesis at asymptotic level of significance \(\alpha \) if
where \(u_{1-\alpha /2}\) denotes \(1-\alpha /2\)-th quantile of the standard normal distribution.
2.1 Local approximate Bahadur efficiency
For Bahadur theory, we refer to Bahadur (1971) and Nikitin (1995). For two tests with the same null and alternative hypotheses, \(H_0(\theta \in \Theta _0)\) and \(H_1(\theta \in \Theta _1)\), the asymptotic relative Bahadur efficiency is defined as the ratio of sample sizes needed to reach the same test power when the level of significance approaches zero. It can be expressed as the ratio of Bahadur exact slopes, functions proportional to exponential rate for a sequence of test statistics. The calculation of these slopes depends on large deviation functions which are often hard to obtain.
For this reason in many situations the tests are compared using approximate Bahadur efficiency. In some situations, when the limiting distribution is normal, approximate Bahadur efficiency and classical Pitman efficiency coincide (Wieand 1976.)
Suppose that \(T_n=T_n(X_1,\ldots ,X_n)\) is a test statistic and its large values are significant, i.e. the null hypothesis is rejected whenever \(T_n>t_n\). Let the distribution function of the test statistic \(T_n\) converge weakly, under \(H_0\), to a distribution function \(F_T\), such that, \(\log (1-F_T(t))=-\frac{a_Tt^2}{2}(1+o(1))\), where \(a_T\) is positive real number, and \(o(1)\rightarrow 0\) as \(t\rightarrow \infty \). Suppose that the limit in probability \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }T_n/\sqrt{n}=b_T(\theta )>0\) exists for \(\theta \in \varTheta _1\).
The relative approximate Bahadur efficiency of \(T_n\) with respect to another test statistic \(V_n\) (whose large values are significant) is
where \(c^{*}_T=a_Tb_T^2(\theta )\) and \(c^{*}_V=a_Vb_V^2(\theta )\) are the approximate Bahadur slopes of \(T_n\) and \(V_n\), provided that, similarly to the previous case, the distibution function of \(V_n\) converges weakly to \(F_V\) and \(\log (1-F_V(t))=-\frac{a_Vt^2}{2}(1+o(1))\).
In our case, \(T_{n}=\sqrt{n}|J_{n,a}|\). Let \(F_0(t)\) be the distribution function of the normal \(\mathcal {N}(0,m^2\sigma ^2_{\varPhi }(a))\) , i.e. \(F_0\) is the limiting distribution function of \(\sqrt{n}J_{n,a}\). Since for normal distribution, the coefficient \(a_T\) is the inverse of the variance, using the convergence symbol o(1), we have
which enables us to apply the mentioned concept of the relative approximate Bahadur efficiency to the investigated testing problem.
It remains to find the limit in probability under close alternatives. Let \(\mathcal {G}=\{G(x,\theta ),0<\theta <C\}\) be a class of distribution functions such that G(x, 0) is exponential and regularity condition from Nikitin and Peaucelle (2004), including differentiability along \(\theta \) in the neighbourhood of zero, are satisfied. Denote \(h(x)=\frac{\partial }{\theta }g(x,\theta )|_{\theta =0}\).
Lemma 1
For a given alternative density \(g(x;\theta )\) whose distribution belongs to \(\mathcal {G}\) we have that the limit in probability of statistic \(J_{n,a}\) is
Proof
Since under alternative the sample mean converges almost surely to its expected value \(\mu (\theta )\), using the law of large numbers for U-statistics with estimated parameters (see, Iverson and Randles 1989) we have that the limit in probability of statistic \(J_{n,a}\) is equal to the one of \(J^{*}_{n,a}(\mu (\theta ))\). Without loss of generality we may take \(\mu (0)=1\).
Denote for brevity \(\mathbf {x}=(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) and \(\mathbf {G}(\mathbf {x},\theta )=\prod _{i=1}^{m}G(x_i,\theta )\). We have
The first derivative of \(b(\theta )\) along \(\theta \) at zero is
Since the integrand is bounded the first summand is equal to zero due to the characterization. On the second summand we may apply the result from Nikitin and Peaucelle (2004) and obtain
Expanding \(b_J(\theta )\) into Maclaurin series we complete the proof. \(\square \)
Note that \(T_n/\sqrt{n}\) converges in probability to \(|b_J(\theta )|\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \).
Lacking a theoretical upper bound, the approximate Bahadur slopes are often compared (see e.g., Meintanis et al. 2007) with the approximate Bahadur slopes of the likelihood ratio tests, which are known to be optimal parametric tests in terms of Bahadur efficiency. Hence, we may consider the approximate Bahadur efficiencies against the likelihood ratio tests as “absolute” local approximate Bahadur efficiencies.
Under very general conditions the likelihood ratio tests have the approximate slopes equivalent to the double Kullback–Leibler distance from the alternative to the null set of distributions. It can be shown (see, Nikitin and Tchirina 1996) that, in the case of the alternatives from \(\mathcal {G}\), for small \(\theta \), they can be expressed as
3 Characterizations and tests
In this section, we present two new tests of exponentiality based on the following characterizations. They come from Desu (1971) and Puri and Rubin (1970).
Characterization 1
(Desu (1971)) Let X be random variable with distribution function \(F(\cdot )\). Let \(X_1,X_2,\ldots X_n\) be a sample from F and let \(W=\min (X_1,\ldots ,X_n)\). If \(F(\cdot )\) is a nondegenerate distribution function, then for each positive integer n, nW and X are identically distributed if and only if \(F(x)=1-e^{-\lambda x}\), for \(x\ge 0\), where \(\lambda \) is a positive constant.
Characterization 2
(Puri and Rubin (1970)) Let \(X_1\) and \(X_2\) be two independent copies of a random variable X with pdf f(x). Then X and \(|X_1-X_2|\) have the same distribution if and only if for some \(\lambda >0\) \(f(x)=\lambda e^{-\lambda x}\), for \(x\ge 0\).
The test statistics based on Characterizations 1 and 2 are, respectively
The projections of kernel of U-statistics \(J^{\mathcal {D}}_{n,a}\) and \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n,a}\) on \(X_1\) under \(H_0\) are
where \(Ei(z)=\int _{-z}^{\infty }u^{-1}e^{-u}du\) and \(\Gamma (a,z)=\int _{z}^{\infty }t^{a-1}e^{-t}dt\) are the exponential integral and the incomplete Gamma function, respectively.
It can be shown that the kernels are centered for every \(a>0\). It is not possible to obtain the variance in a closed form, however it can be calculated for each a. Some values are given in Table 1, and the plots of the variance functions are shown in Fig. 1. We can see that in these cases the kernels are non-degenerate and the asymptotic distributions of \(\sqrt{n}J_{n,a}^{\mathcal {D}}\) and \(\sqrt{n}J_{n,a}^{\mathcal {P}}\) follow from (2).
We shall compare our tests with the following integral-type tests based on the same characterizations. These types of tests have been proposed in some recent papers (see e.g., Nikitin and Volkova 2010; Volkova 2010; Jovanović et al. 2015).
where
The asymptotic distribution of these test statistics is also normal, so using the same method we can derive their Bahadur approximate slopes.
The common alternatives we are going to consider are
-
a Weibull distribution with density
$$\begin{aligned} g(x,\theta )=e^{-x^{1 + \theta }} (1 + \theta ) x^{\theta },\;\theta > 0,\; x\ge 0; \end{aligned}$$(6) -
a gamma distribution with the density
$$\begin{aligned} g(x,\theta )=\frac{x^{\theta }}{\varGamma (\theta +1)}e^{-x}, \theta > 0, x\ge 0; \end{aligned}$$(7) -
a Makeham distribution with density
$$\begin{aligned} g(x,\theta )=(1+\theta (1-e^{-x}))\exp (-x-\theta ( e^{-x}-1+x)),\;\theta > 0, \;x\ge 0; \end{aligned}$$(8) -
a linear failure rate distribution (LFR) with density
$$\begin{aligned} g(x,\theta )=(1 + \theta x)e^{-x - \theta \frac{x^2}{2}}, \theta > 0, x\ge 0; \end{aligned}$$(9)
In Tables 2 and 3, there are Bahadur approximate efficiencies for our statistics \(J^{\mathcal {D}}_{n.a}\) and \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n.a}\) against their integral counterparts \(I^{\mathcal {D}}_n\) and \(I^{\mathcal {P}}_n\) based on the same characterizations. We can see that practically in all cases our tests are more efficient.
Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the dependence of the local approximate Bahadur efficiencies \(\mathrm{eff}_a\) on the parameter \(a\in (0,10)\). Each figure shows the efficiencies of both statistics \(J^{\mathcal {D}}_{n,a}\) and \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n,a}\).
We can notice that the local efficiencies range from reasonable to high. It is also possible, for a fixed a, to construct the alternatives against which the test would be “fully efficient”, i.e. it would have the same efficiency as the likelihood ratio test. In our case it can be shown, employing the same reasoning as in e.g. Jovanović et al. (2015), that some such alternatives are of the form
Besides, the figures show that, in cases of a Makeham and a linear failure rate alternative, statistic \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n,a}\) is always more efficient than \(J^{\mathcal {D}}_{n,a}\), while in gamma case it is the other way around, except for some small values of a. In case of a Weibull alternative \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n,a}\) is more efficient for values of a up to 3.5, while \(J^{\mathcal {P}}_{n,a}\) gradually overtakes it for larger ones.
4 Power study
In this section, we compare the powers of our tests for sample sizes \(n=20\) and \(n=50\) against some common alternative distributions with some well known exponentiality tests. The choice of tests comes from the review paper on exponentiality tests (Henze and Meintanis 2005). The tests include classical Kolomogorov–Smirnov (KS) and Cramer–von Mises (\(\omega ^2\)), Epps–Pulley test based on characteristic function (EP) (see, Epps and Pulley 1986), two tests based on a characterization via the mean residual life \(\overline{KS}\) and \(\overline{CM}\) (see, Baringhaus and Henze 2000), test based on spacing (S) (see, D’Agostino and Stephens 1986), Cox–Oakes test (see, Cox and Oakes 1984) and the test based on integrated empirical distribution function (KL) (Klar 2001). The alternative distributions are Weibull (W), gamma (\(\mathrm \Gamma \)), standard half-normal (HN), standard uniform (U), Chen (CH), linear failure rate (LF) and extreme value (EV), for the same choice of parameters as in Henze and Meintanis (2005). The level of significance is 0.05 and the number of Monte Carlo replications is 10,000.
The results are given in Tables 4 and 5. The general conclusion is that our tests perform better in case of small sample sizes. In particular, our tests are always better in case of W and \(\mathrm \Gamma \), and in vast majority of cases for HN, CH(1), LF(2) and LF(4). For other alternatives our tests are better in some cases and comparable in others, with the exception of CH(0.5) and CH(1.5). Moreover, we can notice that the powers of the tests increase with parameter a.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we introduced a new class of scale-free goodness-of-fit tests for exponential distribution based on U-empirical Laplace transforms of equidistributed sample functions.
For two tests from this class we calculated the approximate relative Bahadur efficiencies of our tests and some other tests, for some choice of common alternatives. The results are more than satisfactory. We also calculated their “absolute” local approximate Bahadur efficiencies, i.e. their relative approximate Bahadur efficiencies against the likelihood ratio tests, and they range from reasonable to high.
Finally, we compared the powers of our tests with some other goodness-of-fit tests and noticed that in most cases our tests were more powerful.
References
Ahmad I, Alwasel I (1999) A goodness-of-fit test for exponentiality based on the memoryless property. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 61(3):681–689
Ahsanullah M, Hamedani GG (2010) Exponential distribution: theory and methods. NOVA Science, New York
Angus JE (1982) Goodness-of-fit test for exponentiality based on loss of memory type functional equation. J Stat Plan Inference 6(3):241–251
Arnold BC, Balakrishnan N, Nagaraja HN (2008) A first course in order statistics. SIAM, Philadelphia
Bahadur RR (1971) Some limit theorems in statistics. SIAM, Philadelphia
Balakrishnan N, Rao CR (1998) Order statistics, theory and methods. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Baringhaus L, Henze N (1991) A class of consistent tests for exponentiality based on the empirical Laplace transform. Ann Inst Stat Math 43(3):551–564
Baringhaus L, Henze N (2000) Tests of fit for exponentiality based on a characterization via the mean residual life function. Stat Pap 41(2):225–236
Cox DR, Oakes D (1984) Analysis of survival data. Chapman and Hall, New York
D’Agostino R, Stephens M (1986) Goodness-of-fit techniques. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York
Desu MM (1971) A characterization of the exponential distribution by order statistics. Ann Math Stat 42(2):837–838
Epps TW, Pulley LB (1986) A test for exponentiality vs. monotone hazard alternatives derived from the empirical characteristic function. J R Stat Soc Ser B. Stat Methodol 48(2):206–213
Galambos J, Kotz S (1978) Characterizations of probability distributions. Springer, Berlin
Gürtler N, Henze N (2000) Goodness-of-fit tests for the Cauchy distribution based on the empirical characteristic function. Ann Inst Stat Math 52(2):267–286
Henze N (1993) A new flexible class of omnibus tests for exponentiality. Commun Stat Theory Methods 22(1):115–133
Henze N, Klar B (2002) Goodness-of-fit tests for the inverse Gaussian distribution based on the empirical Laplace transform. Ann Inst Stat Math 54(2):425–444
Henze N, Meintanis SG (2002) Tests of fit for exponentiality based on the empirical Laplace transform. Statistics 36(2):147–161
Henze N, Meintanis SG (2002) Goodness-of-fit tests based on a new characterization of the exponential distribution. Commun Stat Theory Methods 31(9):1479–1497
Henze N, Meintanis SG (2005) Recent and classical tests for exponentiality: a partial review with comparisons. Metrika 61(1):29–45
Henze N, Meintanis SG, Ebner B (2012) Goodness-of-fit tests for the gamma distribution based on the empirical Laplace transform. Commun Stat Theory Methods 41(9):1543–1556
Henze N, Nikitin Y, Ebner B (2009) Integral distribution-free statistics of Lp-type and their asymptotic comparison. Comput Stat Data Anal 53(9):3426–3438
Hoeffding W (1948) A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. Ann Math Stat 19(3):293–395
Iverson HK, Randles RH (1989) The effects on convergence of substituting parameter estimates into U-statistics and other families of statistics. Prob Theory Relat Fields 81(3):453–471
Jansen van Rensburg HM, Swanepoel JWH (2008) A class of goodness-of-fit tests based on a new characterization of the exponential distribution. J Nonparametr Stat 20(6):539–551
Jovanović M, Milošević B, Nikitin YY, Obradović M, Volkova KY (2015) Tests of exponentiality based on Arnold–Villasenor characterization, and their efficiencies. Comput Stat Data Anal 90:100–113
Klar B (2001) Goodness-of-fit tests for the exponential and the normal distribution based on the integrated distribution function. Ann Inst Stat Math 53:338–353
Koul HL (1977) A test for new better than used. Commun Stat Theory Methods 6(6):563–574
Koul HL (1978) Testing for new is better than used in expectation. Commun Stat Theory Methods 7(7):685–701
Meintanis SG, Iliopoulos G (2003) Tests of fit for the Rayleigh distribution based on the empirical Laplace transform. Ann Inst Stat Math 55(1):137–151
Meintanis SG, Nikitin YY, Tchirina AV (2007) Testing exponentiality against a class of alternatives which includes the RNBUE distributions based on the empirical Laplace transform. J Math Sci (NY) 145(2):4871–4879
Milošević B (2016) Asymptotic efficiency of new exponentiality tests based on a characterization. Metrika 79(2):221–236
Nikitin YY (1995) Asymptotic efficiency of nonparametric tests. Cambridge University Press, New York
Nikitin YY (1996) Bahadur efficiency of test of exponentiality based on loss of memory type functional equation. J Nonparametr Stat 6(1):13–26
Nikitin YY, Tchirina AV (1996) Bahadur efficiency and local optimality of a test for the exponential distribution based on the Gini statistic. Stat Methodol Appl 5(1):163–175
Nikitin YY, Peaucelle I (2004) Efficiency and local optimality of nonparametric tests based on U- and V-statistics. Metron 62(2):185–200
Nikitin YY, Volkova KY (2010) Asymptotic efficiency of exponentiality tests based on order statistics characterization. Georgian Math J 17(4):749–763
Puri PS, Rubin H, Characterization A (1970) Based on absolute difference of two I.I.D. random variables. Ann Math Stat 41(6):2113–2122
Randles RH (1982) On the asymptotic normality of statistics with estimated parameters. Ann Stat 10(2):462–474
Volkova KY (2010) On asymptotic efficiency of exponentiality tests based on Rossbergs characterization. J Math Sci (NY) 167(4):486–494
Wieand HS (1976) A condition under which the Pitman and Bahadur approaches to efficiency coincide. Ann Stat 4(5):1003–1011
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their important remarks which significantly improved the quality of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research of B. Milošević is supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia Grant no. 174012.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milošević, B., Obradović, M. New class of exponentiality tests based on U-empirical Laplace transform. Stat Papers 57, 977–990 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-016-0818-z
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-016-0818-z