Computational Statistics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 233–252 | Cite as

Bayesian analysis of Weibull distribution based on progressive type-II censored competing risks data with binomial removals

  • Manoj Chacko
  • Rakhi MohanEmail author
Original Paper


In medical studies or reliability analysis, the failure of individuals or items may be due to more than one cause or factor. These risk factors in some sense compete for the failure of the experimental units. Analysis of data in this circumstances is called competing risks analysis. In this paper, we consider the analysis of competing risk data under progressive type-II censoring by assuming the number of units removed at each stage is random and follows a binomial distribution. Bayes estimators are obtained by assuming the population under consider follows a Weibull distribution. A simulation study is carried out to study the performance of the different estimators derived in this paper. A real data set is also used for illustration.


Competing risks Progressive type-II censoring Bayes estimates MCMC method 


  1. Aggarwala R, Balakrishnan N (1996) Recurrence relations for single and product moments of progressive type-II right censored order statistics from exponential and truncated exponential distributions. Ann Inst Stat Math 48(4):757–771MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwasel IA (2009) Statistical inference of a competing risks model with modified Weibull distributions. Int J Math Anal 3(19):905–918MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashour S, Nassar M (2014) Analysis of generalized exponential distribution under adaptive type-II progressive hybrid censored competing risks data. Int J Adv Stat Probab 2(2):108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan N, Sandhu R (1995) A simple simulational algorithm for generating progressive type-II censored samples. Am Stat 49(2):229–230Google Scholar
  5. Balakrishnan N, Sandhu R (1996) Best linear unbiased and maximum likelihood estimation for exponential distributions under general progressive type-II censored samples. Sankhya Indian J Stat Ser B 58(1):1–9MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chacko M, Mohan R (2017) Estimation of parameters of Kumaraswamy-exponential distribution under progressive type-II censoring. J Stat Comput Simul 87(10):1951–1963MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramer E, Schmiedt AB (2011) Progressively type-II censored competing risks data from Lomax distributions. Comput Stat Data Anal 55(3):1285–1303MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Dey AK, Jha A, Dey S (2016) Bayesian analysis of modified Weibull distribution under progressively censored competing risk model. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06585
  9. Dey S, Dey T (2014) Statistical inference for the Rayleigh distribution under progressively type-II censoring with binomial removal. Appl Math Model 38(3):974–982MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hashemi R, Amiri L (2011) Analysis of progressive type-II censoring in the Weibull model for competing risks data with binomial removals. Appl Math Sci 5(22):1073–1087MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Hemmati F, Khorram E (2011) Bayesian analysis of the adaptive type-II progressively hybrid censoring scheme in presence of competing risks. Islam Ctries Soc Stat Sci 21:181–194Google Scholar
  12. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (2011) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, Hoboken, p 360Google Scholar
  13. Kundu D, Basu S (2000) Analysis of incomplete data in presence of competing risks. J Stat Plan Inference 87(2):221–239MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kundu D, Joarder A (2006) Analysis of type-II progressively hybrid censored data. Comput Stat Data Anal 50(10):2509–2528MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Lawless JF (2003) Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Murthy DP, Bulmer M, Eccleston JA (2004) Weibull model selection for reliability modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 86(3):257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pareek B, Kundu D, Kumar S (2009) On progressively censored competing risks data for Weibull distributions. Comput Stat Data Anal 53(12):4083–4094MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Rastogi MK, Tripathi YM (2012) Estimating the parameters of a Burr distribution under progressive type II censoring. Stat Methodol 9(3):381–391MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Roberts GO, Rosenthal JS (2009) Examples of adaptive MCMC. J Comput Graph Stat 18:349–367MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarhan AM (2007) Analysis of incomplete, censored data in competing risks models with generalized exponential distributions. IEEE Trans Reliab 56(1):132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarhan AM, Alameri M, Al-Wasel I (2008) Analysis of progressive censoring competing risks data with binomial removals. Int J Math Anal 2(20):965–976MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69:730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tse SK, Yang C, Yuen HK (2000) Statistical analysis of Weibull distributed lifetime data under type II progressive censoring with binomial removals. J Appl Stat 27(8):1033–1043CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Viveros R, Balakrishnan N (1994) Interval estimation of parameters of life from progressively censored data. Technometrics 36(1):84–91MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu SJ (2002) Estimations of the parameters of the Weibull distribution with progressively censored data. J Jpn Stat Soc 32(2):155–163MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of KeralaTrivandrumIndia

Personalised recommendations