Asymptotic generalized bivariate extreme with random index

arXiv:1701.04682v1 [math.ST] 17 Jan 2017

M. A. Abd Elgawada,b , A. M. Elsawaha,c,d,∗, Hong Qina and Ting Yana
a

Faculty of Mathematics and Statistics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
b

c

d

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Benha University, Benha 13518, Egypt

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt

Division of Science and Technology, BNU-HKBU United International College, Zhuhai 519085, China

Abstract
In many biological, agricultural, military activity problems and in some quality
control problems, it is almost impossible to have a fixed sample size, because some
observations are always lost for various reasons. Therefore, the sample size itself is
considered frequently to be a random variable (rv). The class of limit distribution
functions (df’s) of the random bivariate extreme generalized order statistics (GOS)
from independent and identically distributed rv’s are fully characterized. When the
random sample size is assumed to be independent of the basic variables and its df is
assumed to converge weakly to a non-degenerate limit, the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the weak convergence of the random bivariate extreme GOS are obtained. Furthermore, when the interrelation of the random size and the basic rv’s
is not restricted, sufficient conditions of the convergence and the forms of the limit
df’s are deduced. Illustrative examples are given which lend further support to our
theoretical results.

Keywords: Weak convergence; Random sample size; Generalized order statistics; Generalized bivariate extreme.

1

Introduction

The concept of generalized order statistics (GOS) have been introduced by Kamps (1995).
It’s enable a unified approach to ascendingly ordered random variables (rv’s) as ordinary
order statistics (oos), sequential order statistics (sos), order statistics with non integral
sample size, progressively type II censored order statistics (pos), record values, kth record
∗

Corresponding author. E-mail: amelsawah@uic.edu.hk, a.elsawah@zu.edu.eg, a elsawah85@yahoo.com

1

values and Pfeifer’s records. Let γn = k > 0, γr = k+n−r+

Pn−1
j=r

mj > 0, r = 1, 2, ..., n−1,

and m̃ = (m1 , m2 , · · · , mn−1 ) ∈ ℜn−1 . Then the rv’s Xr:n ≡ X(r, n, m̃, k), r = 1, 2, ..., n,
are called GOS based on the distribution function (df) F with density function f which
are defined by their probability density function (pdf)



n
n−1
Y
Y
(m̃,k)
f1,2,...,n:n(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) = 
γj   (1 − F (xj ))γj −γj+1 −1 f (xj )
j=1

j=1

× (1 − F (xn ))γn −1 f (xn ),

where F −1 (0) ≤ x1 ≤ ... ≤ xn ≤ F −1 (1).
In this work, we consider a wide subclass of GOS , by assuming γj − γj+1 = m + 1 > 0.
This subclass is known as m−GOS. Clearly many important practical models of m−GOS
are included such as oos, order statistics with non integer sample size and sos. The
marginal df’s of the rth and r̀th m−GOS (Nasri- Roudsari, 1996 and Barakat, 2007) are
(m,k)

(m,k)

represented by Φr:n (x) = ILm (x) (r, N − r + 1) and Φr̀:n (x) = ILm (x) (N − Rr + 1, Rr ),
R x a−1
1
(1 −
respectively, where r̀ = n − r + 1, Lm (x) = 1 − (1 − F (x))m+1 , Ix (a, b) = β(a,b)
0 t
t)b−1 dt denotes the incomplete beta ratio function, N = ℓ + n − 1, Rr = ℓ + r − 1 and

ℓ=

k
m+1 .

Moreover, by using the results of Kamps (1995), we can write explicitly the joint

df’s of the rth and sth m−GOS, m 6= −1, 1 ≤ r < s ≤ n, as:
Z F (x) Z F (y)
m
m+1 r−1 m+1
(m,k)
Φr,s:n
(x, y) = Cn⋆
ξ η γs −1 (1 − ξ
) (ξ
− η m+1 )s−r−1 dηdξ, x ≤ y,
0

ξ

(1.1)

where Cn⋆ =

(m+1)2 Γ(N +1)
Γ(N −s+1)(r−1)!(s−r−1)!

and Γ(.) is the usual gamma function. Recently Barakat

et al. (2014a) studied the limit df’s of joint extreme m−GOS, for a fixed sample size.
Moreover, the asymptotic behavior for bivariate df of the lower-lower (l-l), upper-upper
(u-u) and lower-upper (l-u) extreme m−GOS in Barakat et al. (2014b).
In the last few years much efforts had been devoted to investigate the limit df’s of
independent rv’s with random sample size. The appearance of this trend is naturally
because many applications require the consideration of such problem. For example, in
many biological, agricultural and in some quality control problems, it is almost impossible
to have a fixed sample size because some observations always get lost for various reasons.
Therefore, the sample size n itself is considered frequently to be a rv νn , where νn is
independent of the basic variables (i.e., the original random sample) or in some applications
the interrelation of the basic variables and the random sample size is not restricted. Limit
theorems for extremes with random sample size indexes have been thoroughly studied in
the above mentioned two particular cases :
2

1. The basic variables and sample size index are independents (see, Barakat, 1997).
2. The interrelation of the basic variables and the random sample size is not restricted
(see, Barakat and El Shandidy, 1990, Barakat, 1997 and Barakat et al., 2015a).
Our aim in this paper is to characterize the asymptotic behavior of the bivariate df’s
of the (l-l), (u-u) and (l-u) extreme m− GOS with random sample size. When the random
sample size is assumed to be independent of the basic variables and its df is assumed to
converge weakly to a non-degenerate limit, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
weak convergence of the random bivariate extreme m−GOS are obtained. Furthermore,
when the interrelation of the random size and the basic rv’s is not restricted, sufficient
conditions of the convergence and the forms of the limit df’s are deduced. An illustrative
examples are given which lend further support to our theoretical results. Throughout this
paper the convergence in probability and the weak convergence, as n → ∞, respectively,
p
w ”.
denoted as ” −→ ” and ” −→
n
n

2

Asymptotic random bivariate extreme under m−GOS

2.1

Random sample size and basic rv’s are independents

In this subsection we deal with the weak convergence of bivariate df’s of the (u-u), (l-l) and
(l-u) extreme m−GOS are fully characterized in Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, respectively.
When the sample size itself is a rv νn , which is assumed to be independent of the basic
variables Xr:n , r = 1, 2, ..., n.
Theorem 2.1. Consider the following three conditions :
(m,k)

(n)

(n)

(n)

w

(m,k)
Φ̂r,s
(x, y), x ≤ y,
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn ) = P (Zr̀,s̀:n < x) = P (Zr̀:n < x, Zs̀:n < y) −→
n

Hn (nz) = P (
(m,k)

νn
w H(z),
< z) −→
n
n
(n)

(n)

(n)

(i)
(ii)

w

(m,k)
Ψ̂r,s
(x, y)
Φr̀,s̀:νn (xn , yn ) = P (Zr̀,s̀:νn < x) = P (Zr̀:νn < x, Zs̀:νn < y) −→
n
Z ∞
(m,k)
=
(iii)
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z).
0

Then any two of the above conditions imply the remaining one, where xn = x1n = an x1 +
bn , yn = x2n = an x2 + bn , an > 0, bn are suitable normalizing constants, x = (x1 , x2 ) =
(n)

(x, y), r̀ = n − r + 1 < n − s + 1 = s̀, Zr`i :n =

Xr` :n −bn
i
,i
an

3

(m,k)

= 1, 2, (r`1 , r`2 ) = (r̀, s̀), Φ̂r,s

(x, y)

is a non-degenerate df, H(z) is a df with H(+0) = 0,

(m,k)
Ωr,s (κ1 , κ2 )

Γr (x) =

1
Γ(r)

=

Rx
0





1 − ΓRs (κm+1
),
2

m+1

 1 − ΓRr (κ1 ) −

1
Γ(Rr )

x ≥ y,

R∞

κm+1
1

I κm+1  (Rs , Rr − Rs )uRr −1 e−u du, x ≤ y,
2

u

θ r−1 e−θ dθ denotes the incomplete gamma ratio function, κi = Uj;α(xi ), i =

α
1, 2, j ∈ {1, 2, 3}, U1;α (xi ) = x−α
i , xi ≤ 0; U2;α (xi ) = (−xi ) , xi > 0, α > 0 and U3 (xi ) =

U3;α (xi ) = e−xi , ∀ xi .

(m,k)

Remark 2.1. The continuity of the limit df Φ̂r,s
(m,k)

the limit Ψ̂r,s

(x, y) in (i) implies the continuity of

(x, y). Hence the convergence in (iii) is uniform with respect to x and y.

Remark 2.2. It is natural to look for the limitations on νn , under which we get the
(m,k)

relation Φ̂r,s

(m,k)

(x, y) ≡ Ψ̂r,s

(x, y) ∀ x, y. In view of Theorem 2.1, the last equation is

satisfied if and only if the df H(z) is degenerate at one, which means the asymptotically
almost randomlessness of νn . We assume, due to Remark 2.2, that H(z) is a non-degenerate
df and H(+0) = 0, i.e., continuous at zero.
(m,k)

Proof of the implication (i) + (ii) ⇒ (iii): First, we note that Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn ) can be
written in the form (see, Theorem 2.3 in Barakat et al., 2014b)
Z N
1
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn ) = 1 − ΓRr (N Lm (xn )) −
I NLm (yn ) (Rs , Rr − Rs )uRr −1 e−u du,
Γ(Rr ) N Lm (xn )
u
(2.1)
where Lm (.) = 1 − Lm (.). Now by using the total probability rule we get,
(m,k)

Φr̀,s̀:νn (xn , yn ) =

∞
X

(m,k)

Φr̀,s̀:t (xn , yn )P (νn = t).

(2.2)

t=r

Assume that Hn (z) =

P

t≤z

P (νn = t) = P (νn ≤ z) and z = [ nt ], where [θ] denotes the

greatest integer part of θ. Thus, the relation (2.1) show that the sum term in (2.2) is a
Riemann sum of the integral
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:νn (xn , yn )

=

Z

∞
0

(m,k)

Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz),

(2.3)

where, for sufficiently large n, we have
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)

1
= 1−ΓRr (z Ǹ Lm (xn ))−
Γ(Rr )

Z

z Ǹ
z ǸLm (xn )

I zǸLm (yn ) (Rs , Rr −Rs )uRr −1 e−u du,
u

where Ǹ = ( ℓ−1
z + n) ∼ n. Appealing to the condition (i), Theorem 2.3 in Barakat et al.
(2014b) and Remark 2.2, we get
(m,k)
w Ω(m,k) (zκ , zκ ),
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z) −→
1
2
r,s
n

4

(2.4)

where the convergence is uniform with respect to x and y, over any finite interval of z.
Now, let ξ be a continuity point of H(z) such that 1 − H(ξ) < ǫ, (ǫ is an aribtary small
value). Then, we have
Z ∞
Z
(m,k)
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z) ≤
ξ

∞
ξ

dH(z) = 1 − H(ξ) < ǫ.

(2.5)

In view of the condition (ii) we get, for sufficiently large n, that
Z ∞
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz) ≤ 1 − Hn (nξ) ≤ 2(1 − H(ξ)) < 2ǫ.

(2.6)

ξ

On the other hand, by the triangle inequality, we get
Z ξ
Z ξ
(m,k)
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz) −
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z)
0

≤
+

Z

0

ξ
0

Z

ξ
0

(m,k)

Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz) −

Z

(m,k)
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dHn (nz) −

ξ

0

Z

ξ
0

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dHn (nz)

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z) ,

(2.7)

where the convergence in (2.4) is uniform over the finite interval 0 ≤ z ≤ ξ. Therefore, for
arbitrary ǫ > 0 and for sufficiently large n, we have
Z ξh
i
(m,k)
(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z) − Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 ) dHn (nz) ≤ ǫHn (nξ) ≤ ǫ.

(2.8)

0

In order to estimate the second difference on the right hand side of (2.7), we construct
Riemann sums which are close to the integral there. Let T be a fixed number and 0 =
ξ0 < ξ1 < ... < ξT = ξ be continuity points of H(z). Furthermore, let T and ξi be such
that
Z

ξ
0

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dHn (nz) −

T
X

(m,k)

Ωr,s

i=1

(ξi κ1 , ξi κ2 )(Hn (nξi ) − Hn (nξi−1 )) < ǫ

and
Z

ξ
0

(m,k)
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z)

−

T
X

(m,k)

Ωr,s

i=1

(ξi κ1 , ξi κ2 )(H(ξi ) − H(ξi−1 )) < ǫ.

w H(ξ ), 0 ≤ i ≤ T, the two Riemann sums are closer
Since, by the assumption Hn (nξi ) −→
i
n
to each other than ǫ for all n sufficiently large. Thus, once again by the triangle inequality,
the absolute value of the difference of the integrals is smaller than 3ǫ. Combining this fact
with (2.8), the left hand side of (2.7) becomes smaller than 4ǫ for all large n. Therefore,
in view of (2.5), (2.6) and (2.4), we have
Z
Z ξ
(m,k)
(m,k)
(m,k)
(x, y) <
Φr̀,s̀:νn (xn , yn ) − Ψ̂r,s
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz) −
0

5

ξ
0

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z)

+

Z

∞
ξ

(m,k)
Φr̀,s̀:n (xn , yn , z)dHn (nz) +

Z

∞
ξ

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dH(z) < 7ǫ.

This completes the proof of the first part of the theorem.
Proof of the implication

(i) + (iii) ⇒ (ii): Starting with the relation (2.3), we

select a subsequence {n′ } of {n} for which Hn′ (n′ z) converges weakly to an extended

df H ′ (z) (i.e., H ′ (∞) − H ′ (0) ≤ 1 and such a subsequence exists by the compactness

of df’s). Then, by repeating the first part of the theorem for the subsequence {n′ },
(m,k)

with the exception that we choose ξ so that H ′ (∞) − H ′ (ξ) < ǫ, we get Ψ̂r,s (x, y) =
R ∞ (m,k)
(m,k)
(m,k)
′
0 Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH (z). Since the function Ψ̂r,s (x, y) is a df, we get Ψ̂r,s (∞, ∞) =
R∞
1 = 0 dH ′ (z) = H ′ (∞) − H ′ (0), which implies that H ′ (z) is a df. Now, if Hn (nz)

did not converge weakly, then we can select two subsequences {n′ } and {n′′ } such that
w
w
H ′′ (z), where H ′ (z) and H ′′ (z) are df’s. In this
H ′ (z) and Hn′′ (n′′ z) −→
Hn′ (n′ z) −→
′′
′
n

n

case, we get
(m,k)
Ψ̂r,s
(x, y)

=

Z

∞
0

Z

(m,k)
Ωr,s (zκ1 , zκ2 )dH ′ (z)=

∞
0

(m,k)

Ωr,s

(zκ1 , zκ2 )dH ′′ (z).

Thus, let (y → ∞), we get
Z

0

∞

ΓRr (zκm+1
)dH ′ (z)
1

=

Z

∞
0

ΓRr (zκm+1
)dH ′′ (z).
1

(2.9)

Appealing to equation (2.9) and by using the same argument which is applied in the proof
of the second part of Theorem 2.1 in Barakat, 1997, we can easily prove H ′ (z) = H ′′ (z).
This complete the proof of the second part.
Proof of the implication (ii) + (iii) ⇒ (i): For proving this part, we need first present
the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1. For all xi , i = 1, 2, we have
(n)

(2.10)

(n)

(2.11)

[1 − ΓRri (N Lm (xin ))] − σi,N ≤ P (Zr̀i :n < xi ) ≤ [1 − ΓRri (N Lm (xin ))] + ρi,N
and
ΓRri (N Lm (xin )) − ρi,N ≤ P (Zr̀i :n ≥ xi ) ≤ ΓRri (N Lm (xin )) + σi,N ,

where 0 < ρi,N , σi,N −→
0 (or equivalently, as n −→ ∞), (Rr1 , Rr2 ) = (Rr , Rs ) and
N
(r1 , r2 ) = (r, s).
Proof. Since 0 ≤ ΓRri (x) ≤ 1 ∀ x, the proof of the lemma will immediately follow from
the result of Smirnov (1952) (Theorem 3, p. 133, or Lemma 2.1 in Barakat, 1997).
We now turn to the proof of the last part of Theorem 2.1. In view of Remark 2.1, we can
(m,k)

assume, without any loss of generality, that the df Ψ̂r,s
6

(x, y) is continuous. Therefore,

(m,k)

the condition (iii) will be satisfied for all univariate marginals of Ψ̂r,s

(x, y), i.e., we have

(m,k)
w Ψ̂(m,k) (x ), i = 1, 2,
Φr`i :νn (xin ) −→
i
ri
n
(m,k)

where Ψ̂ri

(xi ) =

We shall now prove

R∞
0

(2.12)
(m,k)

)]dH(z), i = 1, 2, is the marginals df’s of Ψ̂r,s
[1−ΓRri (zκm+1
i

(m,k)
w Φ̂(m,k) (x ) = 1 − Γ (κm+1 ), i = 1, 2.
Φr`i :n (xin ) −→
i
Rri i
ri
n

(x, y).

(2.13)

(n)

In view of Lemma 2.1, we first show that the sequence {Zr`i :n }n , i = 1, 2, is stochastically
bounded (see, Feller, 1979). If we assume the contrary, we would find εi,1 , εi,2 > 0 such
that at least one of the two following relations
(a)
(b)

lim

n→∞

hni

P (Zr`i :n ≥ xi ) ≥ εi,1 > 0, ∀ xi > 0, i = 1, 2,
hni

lim P (Zr`i :n < xi ) ≥ εi,2 > 0, ∀ xi < 0, i = 1, 2

n→∞

(n)

is satisfied. The assertions (a) and (b) mean that the sequence {Zr`i :n }n , is not stochastically bounded at the left (−∞) and at the right (+∞), respectively. Let the assumption
(a) be true. Since H(z) is non-degenerate df, we find ε0 > 0 and β > 0 such that
P

ν

n

n


≥ β ≥ ε0 , for sufficiently large n.

(2.14)

Using the following well known inequality, for i = 1, 2,




hni
(n)
P Zr`i :n1 ≥ xi ≥ P Zr`i :n2 ≥ xi ,

∀ n1 ≥ n2 .

(2.15)

We thus get the following inequalities, for sufficiently large n,




X
(n)
(n)
P Zr`i :t ≥ xi P (νn = t)
P Zr`i :νn ≥ xi ≥
t≥[nβ]





(n)
hni
≥ P Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi P (νn ≥ [nβ]) ≥ ε0 P Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi , i = 1, 2,

(note that P (νn ≥ [nβ]) ≥ P (νn ≥ nβ)). Therefore,
lim
n→∞

hni

(n)

P (Zr`i :νn ≥ xi ) ≥ ε0 lim P (Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi ).
n→∞
hni

Now, if we find ε′i,1 > 0 such that lim P (Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi ) ≥ ε′i,1 > 0, we get
n→∞

hni

lim P (Zr`i :νn ≥

n→∞

xi ) ≥ ǫ0 ε′i,1 > 0, which contradicts the right stochastic boundedness of the sequence
(n)

{Zr`i :νn }n and consequently contradicts the relation (2.12). However, if such an ε′i,1 > 0
does not exist we have

lim
n→∞

hni

P (Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi ) = 0, which in view of Lemma 2.1 (relation
hni

(2.10)) leads to the following chain of implications (∀ xi > 0) P (Zr`i :[nβ] ≥ xi ) → 0 ⇒
ΓRri ([N β]Lm (xin )) → 0 ⇒ [N β]Lm (xin ) → 0 ⇒ N Lm (xin ) → 0 (since N Lm (xin ) → 0)
7

(n)

⇒ ΓRri (N Lm (xin )) → 0 ⇒ P (Zr`i :n ≥ xi ) → 0, which contradicts the assumption (a).
Consider the assumption (b). Since H(z) is a df we can find a positive integer δ and real
number α > 0 such that
P(

νn
≤ δ) ≥ α,
n

for sufficiently large n.

(2.16)

Therefore, in view of (2.16) and the inequality (2.15), we have
(n)

P (Zr`i :νn < xi ) ≥

δn
X
t=r

(n)

(n)

P (Zr`i :t < xi )P (νn = t) ≥ P (Zr`i :δn < xi )P (

νn
≤ δ)
n

(n)

≥ αP (Zr`i :δn < xi ), i = 1, 2.
hni

hni

lim P (Zr`i :νn < xi ) ≥ α n→∞
lim P (Zr`i :δn < xi ). By using Lemma 2.1

Hence, we get

n→∞

(relation (2.11)) and applying the same argument as in the case (a), it is easy to show that
the last inequality leads to a contradiction (the last inequality, in view of the assumption
(n)

(b)), which yields that the sequences {Zr`i :n }n , i = 1, 2, is not stochastically bounded at
(n)

the left. This completes the proof that the sequences {Zr`i :n }n , i = 1, 2, are stochastically
(m,k)

bounded. Now, if Φr`i :n (xin ), i = 1, 2, did not converge weakly, then we could select two
′ (m,k)

(m,k)

subsequences {n′ } and {n′′ } such that Φr`i :n′ (xin′ ) would converge weakly to Φ̂ri
and

′′ (m,k)

(m,k)
Φr`i :n′′ (xin′′ )

to another limit df Φ̂ri

(xi )

(xi ). In this case we get (by repeating the
′

′′

first part of Theorem 2.1 for the univariate case and for the two subsequences {n }, {n })
(m,k)
Ωri (xi )

=

Z

0

∞h

′ (m+1)

1 − ΓRri (zκi

Z
i
) dH(z) =

0

∞h

′′ (m+1)

1 − ΓRri (zκi

i
) dH(z).

However, Lemma 3.2 in Barakat (1997) shows that the last equalities, cannot hold unless
′

′′

κi ≡ κi , i = 1, 2. Hence the relation (2.13) is proved. Hence, the proof of Theorem 2.1 is
completed.
Let G and Gν be the classes of all possible limit df’s in (i) and (iii), respectively.
The class G is fully determined by Barakat et al. (2014b). Furthermore, let S and Sν
be the necessary and sufficient conditions for the validity of the relations (i) and (iii),
respectively. The following corollary characterizes the class Gν .

Corollary 2.1. For every df Ψ̂(m,k) (x, y) in Gν there exists a unique df Φ̂(m,k) (x, y) in

G , such that Ψ̂(m,k) (x, y) is uniquely determined by the representation (iii). Moreover,
S = Sν .
′ (m,k)

Proof of corollary 2.1. Let us first prove the implication {Φ̂r,s
′ (m,k)

=⇒ {Ψ̂r,s
′′ (m,k)

Ψ̂r,s

′′ (m,k)

(x, y) 6= Ψ̂r,s

′ (m,k)

(x, y), while Φ̂r,s

′′ (m,k)

(x, y) 6= Φ̂r,s

′ (m,k)

(x, y)}. If we assume the contrary, we get Ψ̂r,s
′′ (m,k)

(x, y) 6= Φ̂r,s

(x, y)}

(x, y) =

(x, y). Appealing to the first part of Theorem
8

2.1 , we get

R∞h
0

′ (m+1)

1 − ΓRri (zκi

i
i
R∞h
′′ (m+1)
) dH(z), i = 1, 2.
) dH(z) = 0 1 − ΓRri (zκi

The last equalities, as we have seen before, from Lemma 3.2 in Barakat (1997), cannot
hold unless κ′i = κ′′i , i = 1, 2. Therefore, Corollary 2.1 is followed as a consequence of
Theorem 2.1 and the last implication. This completes the proof of Corollary 2.1.
Theorem 2.2. Consider the following three conditions :
w

(m,k)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(m,k)
Φr,s:n
(xn , yn ) = P (Zr,s:n
< x) = P (Zr:n
< x, Zs:n
< y) −→
Φr,s
(x, y), x ≤ y,
n

Hn (nz) = P (

νn
w H(z),
< z) −→
n
n

(i)
(ii)

w

(m,k)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(m,k)
< y) −→
Ψr,s
(x, y)
< x, Zs:ν
< x) = P (Zr:ν
(xn , yn ) = P (Zr,s:ν
Φr,s:ν
n
n
n
n
n
Z ∞
(m,k)
Ωr,s
=
(zρ1 , zρ2 )dH(z).

(iii)

0

Then any two of the above conditions imply the remaining one, where xn = cn x + dn , yn =
(n)

cn y +dn , cn > 0, dn are suitable normalizing constants, 1 ≤ r < s ≤ n, Zri :n =
(m,k)

1, 2, Φr,s

Xri :n −dn
,i
cn

=

(x, y) is a non-degenerate df, H(z) is a df with H(+0) = 0,

 Γs (ρ2 ),
x ≥ y,
(m,k)
Ωr,s
(ρ1 , ρ2 ) =
R
ρ1
 1
r−1 e−u du, x ≤ y,
(r−1)! 0 Γs−r (ρ2 − u)u

ρi = Vj;β (xi ), i = 1, 2, j ∈ {1, 2, 3}, V1;β (xi ) = (−xi )−β , xi ≤ 0; V2;β (xi ) = xβi , xi > 0, β > 0
and V3 (xi ) = V3;β (xi ) = exi , ∀ xi .
Theorem 2.3. Consider the following three conditions :
(n)

(n)

(m,k)

w

(n)
Φr(m,k) (x)Φ̂s(m,k) (y)
< x, Zs̀:n < y) −→
Φr,s̀:n (xn , yn ) = P (Zr,s̀:n < x) = P (Zr:n
n

= Γr (ρ1 ))[1 − ΓRs (κm+1
), 1 ≤ r, s ≤ n,
2
Hn (nz) = P (

νn
w H(z),
< z) −→
n
n
(n)

(n)

(m,k)

(i)
(ii)
(m,k)

w

(n)
Ωr(m,k) (zρ1 )Ωs
< x, Zs̀:νn < y) −→
Φr,s̀:νn (xn , yn ) = P (Zr,s̀:νn < x) = P (Zr:ν
n
n

(zκ2 ).
(iii)

Then any two of the above conditions imply the remaining one, where xn = cn x+dn , yn =
(n)

an y + bn , an , cn > 0, bn , dn are suitable normalizing constants, Zr:n =

(n)
Xr:n −dn
, Zs̀:n
cn

=

Xs̀:n −bn
(m,k)
(m,k)
, Φr
(x), Φ̂s
(y)
an

are non-degenerate df’s, H(z) is a df with H(+0) = 0,
Z ∞
Z ∞


(m,k)
(m,k)
Ωr
Γr (zρ1 )dH(z) and Ωs
(zρ1 ) =
(zκ2 ) =
1 − ΓRs (zκm+1
) dH(z).
2
0

0

Proof of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3. Without significant modifications, the method of the
proof of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 are the same as that Theorem 2.1, except only the obvious
changes. Hence, for brevity the details of the proof are omitted.
9

2.2

The interrelation of νn and the basic rv’s is not restricted

When the interrelation between the random index and the basic variables is not restricted,
parallel theorem of Theorem 2.1 may be proved by replacing the condition (ii) by a stronger
one. Namely, the weak convergence of the df Hn (nz) must be replaced by the convergence
νn
n

in probability of the rv

to a positive rv T . However, the key ingredient of the proof

of this parallel result is to prove the mixing property, due to Rényi (see, Barakat and
Nigm, 1996) of the sequence of order statistics under consideration. In the sense of Rényi
a sequence {un } of rv’s is called mixing if for any event E of positive probability, the
conditional df of {un }, under the condition E, converges weakly to a non-degenerate df,
which does not depend on E, as n → ∞. The following lemma proves the mixing property
(n)

for the sequence {Zr̀,s̀:n }n .

(n)

Lemma 2.2. Under the condition (i) in Theorem 2.1 the sequence {Zr̀,s̀:n }n is mixing.
(l)

(n)

Proof. The lemma will be proved if one shows the relation P (Zr̀,s̀:n < x | Zr̀,s̀:l <
w Φ̂(m,k) (x, y), for all integers l = r, r + 1, .... The sufficiency of the above relation
x) −→
r,s
n
can easily be proved as a direct multivariate extension of Lemma 6.2.1, of Galambos
(1987). However, this relation is equivalent to
hli
(n)
w Φ(m,k) (x, y),
P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) −→
r,s
n
(m,k)

where Φr,s

(m,k)

(x, y) is the survival function of the limit df Φ̂r,s
(m,k)

Φr,s

(2.17)

(x, y), i.e.,

(m,k)
(x, y) = 1 − Φ̂r(m,k) (x) − Φ̂s(m,k) (y) + Φ̂r,s
(x, y).

Therefore, our lemma will be established if one proves the relation (2.17). Now, we can
write
(l)

(n)

(n)

(l)

(n)

P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) = P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l < x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x)
(n)

(l)

(n)

+ P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x).

(2.18)

Bearing in mind that all Xr:n , r = 1, 2, ..., n, are i.i.d rv’s, the first term in (2.18) can be
written in the form
(n)

(n)

(l)

(n)

∗(n)

(l)

P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l < x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) = P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l < x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x)
(n)

∗(n)

∗(n)

(l)

= P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x) − P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x),
where
∗(n)

∗(n)

∗(n)

Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) = (Zr̀:(n−l) , Zs̀:(n−l) ),
10

∗(n)

Zr̀:(n−l) = ((rth largest of X1,l+1:n−l , X1,l+2:n−l , ..., X1,n:n−l ) − bn )/an ,
∗(n)

Zs̀:(n−l) = ((sth largest of X2,l+1:n−l , X2,l+2:n−l , ..., X2,n:n−l ) − bn )/an .
Therefore, in view of (2.18), we have
∗(n)

(l)

(n)

P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) = P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x) − ∆n (x),

(l)

(n)

∗(n)

(l)

(l)

(n)

(2.19)

where ∆n (x) = P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) − P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x, Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x | Zr̀,s̀:l ≥
T
T
(n)
∗(n)
x). By using the well-known inequalities Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≤ Zr̀,s̀:n and P (B C) − P (A C) ≤

P (B) − P (A), for any three events A, B and C, for which A ⊆ B, we get
∗(n)

(n)

(l)

0 ≤ ∆n (x)P (Zr̀,s̀:l ≥ x) ≤ P (Zr̀,s̀:n ≥ x) − P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x).

(2.20)

On the other hand, by virtue of the condition (i) in Theorem 2.1, it is easy to prove that
∗(n)

(n)

(m,k)

lim P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x) = lim P (Zr̀,s̀:(n−l) ≥ x) = Φr,s

n→∞

n→∞

(x, y)

(2.21)

m+1
m+1
⇒ (N − l)Lm (xin ) −→
, ∀ x′i s for which κi <
(note that N Lm (xin ) −→
n κi
n κi

∞, i = 1, 2 ). By combining the relations (2.19)-(2.21), the proof of the relation (2.17)
follows immediately. Hence the required result.
Considering the facts that the normalizing constants, which may be used in the bivari(m,k)

ate extreme case are the same as those for the univariate case, and the limit df Φ̂r,s

(x, y)

is continuous, we can easily by using Lemma 2.2, show that the proof of the following theorem follows without any essential modifications as a direct multivariate extension of the
proof of Theorem 2.1 in Barakat and El Shandidy (1990), except only the obvious changes.
Theorem 2.4. Consider the condition
νn p
−→ T ,
n n

(ii)′

where T is a positive rv. Under the conditions of Theorem 2.1 , we have the implication
(i) + (ii)′ ⇒ (iii).

3

Illustrative examples

The range and midrange are widely used, particularly in statistical quality control as an
estimator of the dispersion tendency and in setting confidence intervals for the population
standard deviation as well as in Monte Carlo methods. In fact, the range itself is a very
simple measure of dispersion, gives a quick and easy to estimate indication about the
11

spread of data. Let us defines the random generalized ranges Rνn (m, k) = Xνn :νn −X1:νn
and the random generalized midranges Vνn (m, k) =

X1:νn +Xνn :νn
, X1:νn
2

= X(1, νn , m, k)

and Xνn :νn = X(νn , νn , m, k). The normalized generalized ranges and the normalized gen(n)

(n)

eralized midranges are defined by Rνn (m, k) = A−1
n:r (Rνn (m, k) − Bn:r ) and Vνn (m, k) =

A−1
n:υ (Vνn (m, k) − Bn:υ ), respectively, where An:r = 2An:υ = an > 0, Bn:r = bn − dn and
Bn:υ =

1
2 (bn

+ dn ) are suitable normalizing constants. In this section, some illustrative

examples for the most important distribution functions are obtained, which lend further
support to our theoretical results. In the following examples we consider an important
practical situation when νn has a geometric distribution with mean n. In this case we can
w H(z) = 1 − e−z (z ≥ 0).
easily show that P ( νnn < z) −→
n
Example 3.1 (standard Cauchy distribution). Let F (x) =

1
2

+

1
π

tan−1 x. Then

α = β = 1. In view of Theorems 1.1 and 2.1, Part 1, in Barakat et al. (2015b), we get,
after some algebra,



1,



an
=
η = lim ηn = lim
0,
n→∞
n→∞ cn



 ∞,

if m = 0,
if m > 0,
if − 1 < m < 0.

The random generalized ranges and midranges, for standard Cauchy distribution are given
by, if m = 0,
P (R(n)
νn (0, k)

≤ r)

w
−→
n

Z

0

and
(0, k)
P (Vν(n)
n

≤ v)

w
−→
n

Z

0

∞Z ∞
0

∞Z ∞

−∞


−1
1 − Γk (z(r − y)−1 ) y −2 ze−z(1+y ) dydz



−1
1 − Γk (z(v − y)−1 ) y −2 ze−z(1−y ) dydz,

respectively, with An:r = 2An:υ = an , Bn:r = Bn:υ = 0. Moreover, if m > 0,
w

1 − e−r
P (R(n)
νn (m, k) ≤ r) −→
n

−1

and
w

−1

e−(−v) ,
(m, k) ≤ v) −→
P (Vν(n)
n
n
respectively, with An:r = 2An:υ = cn , Bn:r = Bn:υ = 0. Finally, when −1 < m < 0,
Z ∞h
i
w
−(m+1)
1
−
Γ
(zr
)
e−z dz
P (R(n)
(m,
k)
≤
r)
−→
ℓ
νn
n
0

(n)

and the df of Vνn (m, k) converge weakly to the same limit, with An:r = 2An:υ = an , Bn:r =
Bn:υ = 0.
12

Example 3.2 (Pareto distribution). It can be shown that, for the Pareto distribution
F (x) = (1 − x−σ )I[1,∞) (x), σ > 0. Therefore, in view of Theorems 1.1 and 2.1, Part 1, in
cn
an

Barakat et al. (2015b), since

−→
n 0, ∀ m. Then
w

P (R(n)
νn (m, k) ≤ r) −→
n

Z

0

∞h

i
1 − Γℓ (zr −σ(m+1) ) e−z dz

(n)

and the df of Vνn (m, k) converge weakly to the same limit, where An:r = 2An:υ =
an , Bn:r = Bn:υ = 0.
Example 3.3 (uniform distribution). For the uniform (−θ, θ) distribution, by using
Theorem 2.1, Part 1, in Barakat et al. (2015b), since
(0, k)
P (Rν(n)
n

Z

w
−→
n

≤ r)

0

and
Z

w

(0, k) ≤ v) −→
P (Vν(n)
n
n

0

∞Z 0

−∞

∞Z ∞

−∞

an
cn

−→
n 1, if m = 0. Then

[1 − Γk (z(y − r))] zez(y−1) dydz

[1 − Γk (z(y − v))] ze−z(y+1) dydz,

respectively, with An:r = 2An:υ = an , Bn:r = Bn:υ = 0.
Example 3.4 (Beta(α, β) distribution). For the beta distribution F (x; α, β), 0 ≤ x ≤
1, α, β > 0. Therefore, in view of Theorem 2.2, Part 5, in Barakat et al. (2015b), if
α = (m + 1)β. Then
(m, k)
P (Rν(n)
n

≤ r)

w
−→
n

Z

0

∞Z 0

α

−∞

[1 − Γℓ (z(y − r)α )] zηα(−ηy)α−1 e−z(1+(−ηy) ) dydz

and
P (Vν(n)
(m, k)
n

≤ v)

Z

w
−→
n

0

∞Z ∞

−∞

1

α

[1 − Γℓ (z(y − v)α )] zηα(ηy)α−1 e−z(1+(ηy) ) dydz,

1

α
respectively, where η = ( βc ) β ( m+1
cα ) , c =

Γ(α+β)
Γ(α)Γ(β) .

Clearly, the same result holds for the

power distribution F (x; α, 1).
Example 3.5 (standard normal, logistic, Laplace, and log-normal distributions).
After some algebra, we get,


√ 1 ,
for the normal distribution,


m+1

c
n
η −1 = lim
= 1,
for the logistic and Laplace distribution,
n→∞ an



 0,
for the log-normal distribution.
Moreover, for the standard normal, logistic, and Laplace distributions, we get
w

P (R(n)
νn (m, k) ≤ r) −→
n

Z

0

∞Z ∞

−∞

h

i
−ηy
1 − Γℓ (ze(y−r)(m+1) ) zηe−ηy e−z(1+e ) dydz
13

and
w

P (Vν(n)
(m, k) ≤ v) −→
n
n

Z

0

∞Z ∞

−∞

h

i
ηy
1 − Γℓ (ze(y−v)(m+1) ) zηeηy e−z(1+e ) dydz,

for the standard normal distribution (m = 0, k = 1). Then



f (r),

Z ∞
 1
2
y
dy
w
2
P (Rνn (0, 1) ≤ an r + 2bn ) −→
=
n
2 + y + e−r )2
3,

(y
0


 f (r),
2

r < ln 4,
r=ln 4,
r > ln 4,

where


4e−r
1
−1
√
f1 (r) = (4e − 1)
cot ( √
)−1 ,
4e−r − 1
4e−r − 1
#
"
√
1 + 1 − 4e−r
2e−r
−r −1
√
ln
,
1− √
f2 (r) = (1 − 4e )
1 − 4e−r 1 − 1 − 4e−r
−r

−1



√
1
an = √
, bn = 2 ln n −
2 ln n

and
P (Vνn (0, 1) ≤ an v)

w
−→
n

1−

Z

0

∞

(y(e2v

ln ln n + ln 4π
√
2 2 ln n

dy
= (1 + e−2v )−1 .
+ 1) + 1)2

Finally, for the log-normal distribution,

R∞
w
(n)
(n)
1 − Γℓ (ze−r(m+1) ) e−z dz and the df of Vνn (m, k) converge
P (Rνn (m, k) ≤ r) −→
0
n

weakly to the same limit.

Example 3.6 (exponential (σ) and Rayleigh (σ) distributions). In view of Theorem
2.2, Part 4 in Barakat et al. (2015b). Then
R∞

w
(n)
(n)
1 − Γℓ (ze−r(m+1) ) e−z dz and the df of Vνn (m, k) converge
P (Rνn (m, k) ≤ r) −→
0
n

weakly to the same limit, for exponential (σ) and Rayleigh (σ) distributions.
Acknowledgements

Elsawah’s work was partially supported by the UIC GRANT R201409 and the Zhuhai
Premier Discipline Grant and Qin’s work was partially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11271147, 11471135, 11471136).

References
[1] Barakat, H. M. (1997). Asymptotic properties of bivariate random extremes. J. Stat.
Plann. Inference, 61, 203-217.
[2] Barakat, H. M. (2007). Limit theory of generalized order statistics. J. Statist. Plann.
Inference. Vol. 137, No. 1,1-11.
14

[3] Barakat, H. M. and El Shandidy, M. A. (1990). On the limit distribution of the
extremes of a random number of independent random variables. J. Statist. Plann.
Inference, 26, 353-361.
[4] Barakat, H. M. and Nigm, E. M. (1996). The mixing property of order ststistics with
some applications. Bull. Malaysian Math. Soc. (Second Series) 19, 39-52.
[5] Barakat, H. M., Nigm, E. M. and Abd Elgawad, M. A. (2014a). Limit theory for joint
generalized order statistics, REVSTAT Statistical Journal 12(3), 199-220.
[6] Barakat, H. M., Nigm, E. M. and Abd Elgawad, M. A. (2014b). Limit theory for
bivariate extreme generalized order statistics and dual generalized order statistics,
ALEA, Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 11 (1), 331-340.
[7] Barakat, H. M., Nigm, E. M. and Al-Awady, M. A. (2015a). Asymptotic properties of
multivariate order statistics with random index. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 38(1),
289-301.
[8] Barakat, H. M., Nigm, E. M. and Elsawah, A. M. (2015b). Asymptotic distributions
of the generalized range, midrange, extremal quotient, and extremal product, with a
comparison study. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods, 44, 900-913.
[9] Cramer, E. (2003). Contributions to Generalized Order Statistics. Habililationsschrift, Reprint, University of Oldenburg.
[10] Feller, W. (1979). An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Vol. 2,
John Wiley & Sons. Inc. (Wiley Eastern University edition).
[11] Galambos, J. (1978, 1987). The asymptotic theory of extreme order statistics, New
York, Wiley, (1st ed.) Kreiger. FI (2nd ed.).
[12] Kamps, U. (1995). A Concept of Generalized Order Statistics. Teubner, Stuttgart.
[13] Nasri-Roudsari, D. (1996). Extreme value theory of generalized order statistics, J.
Statist. Plann. Inference, 55, 281-297.
[14] Smirnov, N.V. (1952). Limit distribution for terms of a variational series. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. I. 11, 82-143.

15

