Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.29220/CSAM.2021.28.6.643

Quantile estimation using near optimal unbalanced ranked set sampling  

Nautiyal, Raman (Department of Statistics, Kumaun University)
Tiwari, Neeraj (Department of Statistics, Kumaun University)
Chandra, Girish (Division of Forestry Statistics, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education)
Publication Information
Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods / v.28, no.6, 2021 , pp. 643-653 More about this Journal
Abstract
Few studies are found in literature on estimation of population quantiles using the method of ranked set sampling (RSS). The optimal RSS strategy is to select observations with at most two fixed rank order statistics from different ranked sets. In this paper, a near optimal unbalanced RSS model for estimating pth(0 < p < 1) population quantile is proposed. Main advantage of this model is to use each rank order statistics and is distributionfree. The asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) for balanced RSS, unbalanced optimal and proposed near-optimal methods are computed for different values of p. We also compared these AREs with respect to simple random sampling. The results show that proposed unbalanced RSS performs uniformly better than balanced RSS for all set sizes and is very close to the optimal RSS for large set sizes. For the practical utility, the near optimal unbalanced RSS is recommended for estimating the quantiles.
Keywords
asymptotic relative efficiency; Neyman's allocation; order statistics; quantiles; ranked set sampling;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Cobby JM, Ridout MS, Bassett PJ, and Large RV (1985). An investigation into the use of ranked set sampling on grass and grass-clover swards, Grass and Forage Science, 40, 257-263.   DOI
2 Halls LK and Dell TR (1966). Trials of ranked set sampling for forage yields, Forest Science, 12, 22-26.
3 Kaur A, Patil GP, and Taillie C (2000). Optimal allocation for symmetric distributions in ranked sampling, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 52, 239-254.   DOI
4 Martin WL, Sharik TL, Oderwald RG, and Smith DW (1980). Evaluation of ranked set sampling for estimating shrub phytomass in Appalachian oak forests, Blacksburg, Virginia: School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, FWS, 4-80.
5 Rohatgi VK and Saleh AK (2000). An introduction to probability and statistics (2nd Ed), John Wiley and Sons.
6 Stokes SL and Sager TW (1988). Characterization of a ranked set sample with application to estimating distribution functions, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 374-381.   DOI
7 Zhu M and Wang Y (2005). Quantile estimation from ranked set sampling data, Sankhya, 67, 295-304.
8 Barnett V and Moore K (1997). Best linear unbiased estimates in ranked-set sampling with particular reference to imperfect ordering, Journal of Applied Statistics, 24, 697-710.   DOI
9 Nahhas RW, Wolfe DA, and Chen H (2002). Ranked set sampling: cost and optimal set size, Biometrics, 58, 964-971.   DOI
10 Stark GV and Wolfe DA (2002). Evaluating ranked-set sampling estimators with imperfect rankings, Journal of Statistical Studies, 77-103.
11 Stokes SL (1995). Parametric ranked set sampling, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 47, 465-482.   DOI
12 Tiwari N and Chandra G (2011). A systematic approach for unequal allocation for skewed distributions in ranked set sampling, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 65, 331-338.
13 Takahasi K and Wakimoto K (1968). On unbiased estimates of the population mean based on the sample stratified by means of ordering, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 20, 1-31.   DOI
14 Kaur A, Patil GP, and Taillie C (1997). Unequal allocation models for ranked set sampling with skew distributions, Biometrics, 53, 123-130.   DOI
15 Latpate R, Kshirsagar J, Gupta VK, and Chandra G (2021). Advanced Sampling Methods, Springer.
16 Chen Z (2000). On ranked set sample quantiles and their applications, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 83, 125-135.   DOI
17 Bohn LL and Wolfe DA (1994). The effect of imperfect judgment rankings on properties of procedures based on the ranked-set samples analog of the Mann Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 168--176.   DOI
18 Al-Omari AI and Bouza CN (2014). Review of ranked set sampling: modifications and applications, Revista Investigaci 'on Operacional, 35, 215-240.
19 Bhoj DS (1997). New parametric ranked set sampling, Journal of Applied Statistical Sciences, 6, 275-289.
20 Bhoj DS and Chandra G (2019). Simple unequal allocation procedure for ranked set sampling with skew distributions, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 18, eP2811.
21 Chandra G, Bhoj DS, and Pandey R (2018). Simple unbalanced ranked set sampling for mean estimation of response variable of developmental programs, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 17.
22 Chen Z (2001). The optimal ranked set sampling scheme for inference on population quantiles, Statistica Sinica, 11, 23-37.
23 David HA and Levine DN (1972). Ranked set sampling in the presence of judgment error, Biometrics, 28, 553--555.
24 Dell TR and Clutter JL (1972). Ranked set sampling theory with order statistics background, Biometrics, 28, 545--555.   DOI
25 Hettmansperger TP (1995). The ranked-set sampling sign test, Nonparametric Statistics, 4, 263-70.   DOI
26 Lam K, Sinha BK, and Wu Z (1996). Estimation of location and scale parameters of a logistic distribution using a ranked set sample, Statistical Theory and Applications, Springer, New York.
27 Chandra G, Tiwari N, and Nautiyal R (2015). Near optimal allocation models for symmetric distributions in ranked set sampling, Statistics in Forestry: Methods and Applications, 85-90.
28 McIntyre GA (1952). A method for unbiased selective sampling using ranked sets, Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 3, 385-390.   DOI
29 Bohn LL and Wolfe DA (1992). Nonparametric two-sample procedures for ranked set samples data, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 552-561.   DOI