Advertisement

Sankhya B

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 26–38 | Cite as

Characterizations of Proportional Hazard and Reversed Hazard Rate Models Based on Symmetric and Asymmetric Kullback-Leibler Divergences

  • Ghobad BarmalzanEmail author
  • Narayanaswamy Balakrishnan
  • Hadi Saboori
Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Kullback-Leibler divergence \((\mathcal {K}\mathcal {L})\) is widely used for selecting the best model from a given set of candidate parametrized probabilistic models as an approximation to the true density function h(·). In this paper, we obtain a necessary and sufficient condition to determine proportional hazard and reversed hazard rate models based on symmetric and asymmetric Kullback-Leibler divergences. Obtained results show that if h belongs to proportional hazard rate (reversed hazard) model, then the Kullback-Leibler divergence between h and baseline density function, f0, is independent of the choice of ξ, the cut point of left (right) truncated distribution.

Keywords and phrases

Symmetric Kullback-Leibler divergence Asymmetric Kullback-Leibler divergence Proportional hazard rate model Proportional reversed hazard rate model. 

AMS (2000) subject classification

Primary 62E10 Secondary 62F30 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, A.C. (1970). A method for discriminating between models. J.R. Stat. Soc. Series B32, 323–344.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, H., Savits, T. and Singh, H. (1998). The reversed hazard rate function. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci.12, 69–90.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandra, N.N. and Roy, D. (2001). Some results on reversed hazard rate. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci.15, 95–102.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gupta, R.C. and Gupta, R.D. (2007). Proportional reversed hazard rate model and its applications. J. Stat. Plan. Inf.137, 3525–3536.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jeffreys, H. (1946). An invariant form for the prior probability in estimation problems. Proc. R. Soc. Series A186, 453–461.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jeffreys, H. (1983). Theory of Probability, Third edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Kalbfleisch, J.D. and Lawless, J.F. (1989). Inference based on retrospective ascertainment: an analysis of the data on transfusion-related AIDS. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.84, 360–372.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kullback, S. and Leibler, R.A. (1951). Information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat.22, 79–86.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marshall, A.W. and Olkin, I. (2007). Life distributions. Springer, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Sengupta, D. and Nanda, A.K. (1999). Logconcave and concave distributions in reliability. Nav. Res. Logist.46, 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shimodaira, H. (1988). An application of multiple comparison techniques to model selection. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math.50, 1–13.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vuong, Q.H. (1989). Likelihood ratio test for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica57, 307–333.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Statistical Institute 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghobad Barmalzan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Narayanaswamy Balakrishnan
    • 2
  • Hadi Saboori
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of ZabolZabolIran
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations