7.
Product and Process Comparisons
7.3. Comparisons based on data from two processes
|
|||||||||||||||
Comparing two exponential distributions is to compare the means or hazard rates |
The comparison of two (or more) life distributions is a common
objective when performing statistical analyses of lifetime data.
Here we look at the one-parameter exponential distribution case.
In this case, comparing two exponential distributions is equivalent to comparing their means (or the reciprocal of their means, known as their hazard rates). |
||||||||||||||
Type II Censored data | |||||||||||||||
Definition of Type II censored data | Definition: Type II censored data occur when a life test is terminated exactly when a pre-specified number of failures have occurred. The remaining units have not yet failed. If \(n\) units were on test, and the pre-specified number of failures is \(r\) (where \(r\) is less than or equal to \(n\)), then the test ends at \(t_r\), the time of the \(r\)-th failure. | ||||||||||||||
Two exponential samples oredered by time | Suppose we have Type II censored data from two exponential distributions with means \(\theta_1\) and \(\theta_2\). We have two samples from these distributions, of sizes \(n_1\) on test with \(r_1\) failures and \(n_2\) on test with \(r_2\) failures, respectively. The observations are time to failure and are therefore ordered by time. $$ t_{1(1)} \, < \, \ldots \, < t_{1(n)} \,\,\,\,\, (r_1 \le n_1) $$ $$ t_{2(1)} \, < \, \ldots \, < t_{2(n)} \,\,\,\,\, (r_2 \le n_2) $$ | ||||||||||||||
Test of equality of \(\theta_1\) and \(\theta_2\) and confidence interval for \(\theta_1 / \theta_2\) |
Letting
$$ T_i = \sum_{j=1}^{r_i} t_{i(j)} + (n_i - r_i) t_{i(r_i)} \,\,\,\,\, i = 1, \, 2 \, .$$
Then $$ \frac{2T_1}{\theta_1} \approx \chi_{2r_1}^2 \,\,\,\,\, \mbox{ and } \,\,\,\,\, \frac{2T_2}{\theta_2} \approx \chi_{2r_2}^2 \, , $$ with \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) independent. Thus $$ U = \frac{2T_1 / (2 r_1 \theta_1)}{2T_2 / (2 r_2 \, \theta_2)} = \frac{\hat{\theta}_1 \theta_2}{\hat{\theta}_2 \, \theta_1} \, , $$ where $$ \hat{\theta}_1 = \frac{T_1}{r_1} \,\,\,\,\, \mbox{ and } \,\,\,\,\, \hat{\theta}_2 = \frac{T_2}{r_2} \, . $$ \(U\) has an \(F\) distribution with \((2 r_1, \, 2 r_2)\) degrees of freedom. Tests of equality of \(\theta_1\) and \(\theta_2\) can be performed using tables of the \(F\) distribution or computer programs. Confidence intervals for \(\theta_1 / \theta_2\), which is the ratio of the means or the hazard rates for the two distributions, are also readily obtained. |
||||||||||||||
Numerical example |
A numerical application will illustrate the concepts outlined
above.
For this example, $$ H_0: \,\, \theta_1 / \theta_2 = 1 $$ $$ H_a: \,\, \theta_1 / \theta_2 \ne 1 $$ Two samples of size 10 from exponential distributions were put on life test. The first sample was censored after 7 failures and the second sample was censored after 5 failures. The times to failure were:
Then \(T_1\) = 4338 and \(T_2\) = 3836. The estimator for \(\theta_1\) is 4338 / 7 = 619.71 and the estimator for \(\theta_2\) is 3836 / 5 = 767.20. The ratio of the estimators = \(U\) = 619.71 / 767.20 = 0.808. If the means are the same, the ratio of the estimators, \(U\), follows an \(F\) distribution with \((2 r_1, \, 2 r_2)\) degrees of freedom. The \(P(F < 0.808) = 0.348\). The associated p-value is 2(0.348) = 0.696. Based on this \(p\)-value, we find no evidence to reject the null hypothesis (that the true but unknown ratio = 1). Note that this is a two-sided test, and we would reject the null hyposthesis if the \(p\)-value is either too small (i.e., less or equal to 0.025) or too large (i.e., greater than or equal to 0.975) for a 95 % significance level test. We can also put a 95 % confidence interval around the ratio of the two means. Since the 0.025 and 0.975 quantiles of \(F_{14, \, 10}\) are 0.3178 and 3.5504, respectively, we have $$ P(U/3.5504 < \theta_1 / \theta_2 < U/0.3178) = 0.95 $$ and (0.228, 2.542) is a 95 % confidence interval for the ratio of the unknown means. The value of 1 is within this range, which is another way of showing that we cannot reject the null hypothesis at the 95 % significance level. |