• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.21 no.5
• /
• pp.967-972
• /
• 2010

We shall consider estimations of an exponetiated parameter of the exponentiated Pareto distribution with known scale and threshold parameters. A quotient distribution of two independent exponentiated Pareto random variables is obtained. We also derive the distribution of the ratio of two independent exponentiated Pareto random variables.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.33-55
• /
• 2007

The economic world is full of patterns, many of which exert a profound influence over society and business. One of the most contentious is the distribution of wealth. Way back in 1897, an Italian engineer-turned-economist named Vilfredo Pareto discovered a pattern in the distribution of wealth that appears to be every bit as universal as the laws of thermodynamics or chemistry. The present paper proposes some Bayes estimators of shape parameter of Pareto income distribution in censored sampling. Asymmetric LINEX loss function has been considered to study the effects of overestimation and underestimation. For the prior distribution of the parameter involved a number of priors including one and two-parameter exponential, truncated Erlang and doubly truncated gamma have been contemplated to express the belief of the experimenter s/he has regarding the parameter. The estimators thus obtained have been compared theoretically and empirically with the corresponding estimators under squared error loss function, some of which were reported by Bhattacharya et al. (1999).

• Journal of applied mathematics & informatics
• /
• v.29 no.5_6
• /
• pp.1435-1451
• /
• 2011

In this paper the estimation of the parameters as well as survival and hazard functions are presented for the two-parameter Pareto distribution by using Bayesian and non-Bayesian approaches under upper record values. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and interval estimation are derived for the parameters. Bayes estimators of reliability performances are obtained under symmetric (Squared error) and asymmetric (Linex and general entropy (GE)) losses, when two parameters have discrete and continuous priors, respectively. Finally, two numerical examples with real data set and simulated data, are presented to illustrate the proposed method. An algorithm is introduced to generate records data, then a simulation study is performed and different estimates results are compared.

• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.1213-1223
• /
• 2009

In this paper, we develop noninformative priors for two parameter Pareto distribution. Specially, we derive Jereys' prior, probability matching prior and reference prior for the parameter of interest. In our case, the probability matching prior is only a first order matching prior and there does not exist a second order matching prior. Some simulation reveals that the matching prior performs better to achieve the coverage probability. A real example is also considered.

• The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.713-723
• /
• 2013

An objective Bayesian estimation procedure of the two-parameter Pareto distribution is presented under the reference prior and the noninformative prior. Bayesian estimators are obtained by Gibbs sampling. The steps to generate parameters in the Gibbs sampler are from the shape parameter of the gamma distribution and then the scale parameter by the adaptive rejection sampling algorism. A numerical study shows that the proposed objective Bayesian estimation outperforms other estimations in simulated bias and mean squared error.

• 한국데이터정보과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2003.05a
• /
• pp.27-37
• /
• 2003

In this paper, we develop noninformative priors for two parameter Pareto distribution. Specially, we derive Jeffrey's prior, probability matching prior and reference prior for the parameter of interest. In our case, the probability matching prior is only a first order and there does not exist a second order matching prior. Some simulation reveals that the matching prior performs better to achieve the coverage probability. And a real example will be given.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.311-319
• /
• 2013

Cooray and Ananda (2005) proposed a composite lognormal-Pareto model to analyze loss payment data in the actuarial and insurance industries. Their model is based on a lognormal density up to an unknown threshold value and a two-parameter Pareto density. In this paper, we implement the minimum density power divergence estimation for the composite lognormal-Pareto density. We compare the performances of the minimum density power divergence estimator (MDPDE) and the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) by simulations and an example. The minimum density power divergence estimator performs reasonably well against various violations in the distribution. The minimum density power divergence estimator better fits small observations and better resists against extraordinary large observations than the maximum likelihood estimator.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.1069-1086
• /
• 2003

This article presents the asymptotic theory of triple sampling procedure as pertain to estimating the shape parameter of Pareto distribution. Both point and confidence interval estimation are considered within the same inference unified framework. We show that this group sampling technique possesses the efficiency of Anscome (1953), Chow and Robbins (1965) purely sequential procedure as well as reduce the number of sampling operations by utilizing Stein (1945) two stages procedure. The analysis reveals that the technique performs excellent as far as the accuracy is concerned. The present problem differs from those considered by many authors, in multistage sampling, in that the final stage sample size and the parameter's estimate become highly correlated and therefore we adopted different approach.

• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.67-76
• /
• 1990

For a two-parameter Pareto distribution, the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimateors(UMVUE) for the function of the two parameters are expressed in terms of confluent hypergeometric function. The variance of the UMVUE is also expressed in terms of hypergeometric function of several variables. UMVUE's for the ${\gamma}th$ moment about zero and several useful parametric functions, and their variances are obtained as special cases. The estimators of Baxter(1980) and Saksena and Johnson(1984) are special cases of our estimator.

• Journal of Korea Water Resources Association
• /
• v.43 no.12
• /
• pp.1011-1027
• /
• 2010

In hydrologic modeling, prediction uncertainty generally stems from various uncertainty sources associated with model structure, data, and parameters, etc. This study aims to assess the parameter uncertainty effect on hydrologic prediction results. For this objective, a distributed rainfall-sediment yield-runoff model, which consists of rainfall-runoff module for simulation of surface and subsurface flows and sediment yield module based on unit stream power theory, was applied to the mesoscale mountainous area (Cheoncheon catchment; 289.9 $km^2$). For parameter uncertainty evaluation, the model was calibrated by a multi-objective optimization algorithm (MOSCEM) with two different objective functions (RMSE and HMLE) and Pareto optimal solutions of each case were then estimated. In Case I, the rainfall-runoff module was calibrated to investigate the effect of parameter uncertainty on hydrograph reproduction whereas in Case II, sediment yield module was calibrated to show the propagation of parameter uncertainty into sedigraph estimation. Additionally, in Case III, all parameters of both modules were simultaneously calibrated in order to take account of prediction uncertainty in rainfall-sediment yield-runoff modeling. The results showed that hydrograph prediction uncertainty of Case I was observed over the low-flow periods while the sedigraph of high-flow periods was sensitive to uncertainty of the sediment yield module parameters in Case II. In Case III, prediction uncertainty ranges of both hydrograph and sedigraph were larger than the other cases. Furthermore, prediction uncertainty in terms of spatial distribution of erosion and deposition drastically varied with the applied model parameters for all cases.