arXiv:1612.00571v1 [math.ST] 2 Dec 2016

Reliability study of series and parallel systems of heterogeneous
component lifetimes under proportional odds model
Pradip Kundu1 , Nil Kamal Hazra2 and Asok K. Nanda1∗
1
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, IISER Kolkata
Mohanpur 741246, India
2
Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science
University of the Free State, 339 Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa

Abstract
In this paper, we investigate various stochastic orderings for series and parallel systems
with independent and heterogeneous components having lifetimes following the proportional
odds model. We also investigate comparisons between system with heterogeneous components and that with homogeneous components. This paper also studies relative ageing orders
for two systems in the framework of components having lifetimes following the proportional
odds model.

Keywords: Majorization, Schur-concave function, Schur-convex function, Stochastic order, Relative ageing.
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010: Primary: 90B25, 62N05; secondary: 60E15.

1

Introduction

There is an extensive literature on different stochastic orderings among order statistics where
the observations come from different family of distributions. Some of these contributions
are due to Balakrishnan and Zhao (2013), Bon and Pǎltǎnea (2006), Dykstra et al. (1997),
Fang and Zhang (2012, 2015), Gupta et al. (2015), Khaledi and Kochar (2000), Khaledi et al.
(2011), Kochar and Xu (2007a,b), Kundu et al. (2016), Li and Li (2016), Misra and Misra (2013),
Pledger and Proschan (1971), Zhao and Balakrishnan (2011, 2012). A one-to-one correspondence between an order statistic and the lifetime of a k-out-of-n system is well known. A
k-out-of-n : G system (generally called k-out-of-n system) is a system consisting of n components which survives as long as at least k of the n components survive. Let Xk:n be the kth
∗

Corresponding author, e-mail: asok.k.nanda@gmail.com

1

smallest order statistic corresponding to the random variables X1 , X2 , ..., Xn , k = 1, 2, ..., n.
Then the lifetime of a (n − k + 1)-out-of-n : G system corresponds to the order statistic Xk:n .

So, Xn−k+1:n represents lifetime of an k-out-of-n : G system. In particular, X1:n and Xn:n
represent lifetimes of the series and the parallel systems, respectively.

The proportional odds (PO) model introduced by Bennet (1983) is a very important model in
survival analysis context, mainly for its property of convergent hazard functions. The PO model,
as discussed by Bennet (1983) and latter by Kirmani and Gupta (2001) guarantees that the ratio
of hazard rates converges to unity as time tends to infinity. This is in contrast to the proportional
hazards model where the ratio of the hazard rates remains constant with time. The convergent
property of hazard functions makes the PO model reasonable in many practical applications as
discussed by Bennet (1983), Kirmani and Gupta (2001) and Rossini and Tsiatis (1996). They
also noticed that assumption of constant hazard ratio is unreasonable in many practical cases.
For more applications of PO model one may refer to Collett (2004), Dinse and Lagakos (1983),
Kirmani and Gupta (2001), Pettitt (1984).
Let X and Y be two random variables with distribution functions F (·), G(·), survival functions F̄ (·), Ḡ(·), probability density functions f (·), g(·) and hazard rate functions rX (·) =
f (·)/F̄ (·), rY (·) = g(·)/Ḡ(·) respectively. Let the odds functions of X and Y be defined respectively by θX (t) = F̄ (t)/F (t) and θY (t) = Ḡ(t)/G(t). The random variables X and Y are said
to satisfy PO model with proportionality constant α if θY (t) = αθX (t). It is observed that, in
terms of survival functions, the PO model can be represented as
Ḡ(t) =

αF̄ (t)
,
1 − ᾱF̄ (t)

(1.1)

where ᾱ = 1 − α. From the above representation we have
1
G(t)
rY (t)
=
,
=
rX (t)
F (t)
1 − ᾱF̄ (t)
so that the hazard ratio is increasing (resp. decreasing) for α > 1 (resp. α < 1) and it
converges to unity as t tends to ∞. Also the model (1.1), with 0 < α < ∞, gives a method

of introducing new parameter α to a family of distributions for obtaining more flexible new

family of distributions as discussed by Marshall and Olkin (1997). The family of distributions
so obtained is also known as Marshall-Olkin family of distributions or Marshall-Olkin extended
distributions (for details see Marshall and Olkin (1997, 2007) and Cordeiro et al. (2014) among
others).
Stochastic comparison of different systems with components following proportional hazard
rates (PHR) model have been discussed by Pledger and Proschan (1971), Dykstra et al. (1997),
Khaledi and Kochar (2000), Kochar and Xu (2007a,b), Li and Li (2016) among others. How-

2

ever, not much work have been done on stochastic comparison of systems with components
following PO model. In this paper, we investigate stochastic comparisons of series and parallel
systems with heterogeneous components having lifetimes following the PO model. We also obtain some stochastic comparison results between system with heterogeneous components and
that with homogeneous ones. The comparisons are done with respect to the usual stochastic ordering, the hazard rate ordering, the reversed hazard rate ordering, the likelihood ratio
ordering, and the relative ageing orderings.
Throughout the paper, by a =sign b we mean that a and b have the same sign and by a =def b
we mean that b is defined as a. We also write R = (−∞, ∞) and R+ = {x : x > 0}.

2

Definitions and Preliminaries

Majorization is a preorder on vectors of real numbers. Let I ⊆ R denote a subset of the real

line. Further let, for any vector x = (x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ Rn , x(1) ≤ x(2) ≤ ... ≤ x(n) denote the

increasing arrangement of the components of the vector x. Below we give a couple of definitions
to be used throughout the paper.
Definition 2.1 Let x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) ∈ I n and y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ) ∈ I n be any two vectors.
m

(i) The vector x is said to majorize the vector y (written as x  y) if (cf. Marshall et al.,
2011)

j
X
i=1

x(i) ≤

j
X
i=1

y(i) , for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, and

n
X
i=1

x(i) =

n
X

y(i) .

i=1

w

(ii) The vector x is said to weakly supermajorize the vector y (written as x  y) if (cf.
Marshall et al., 2011)

j
X
i=1

x(i) ≤

j
X

y(i) , for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n.

i=1

(iii) The vector x is said to weakly submajorize the vector y (written as x w y) if (cf.
Marshall et al., 2011)

n
X
i=j

x(i) ≥

n
X

y(i) , for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n.

i=j

p

(iv) The vector x is said to be p-larger than the vector y (written as x  y) if (cf. Bon and Pǎltǎnea,

3

1999)
j
Y
i=1

x(i) ≤

j
Y

y(i) , for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n.

i=1

rm

(v) The vector x is said to reciprocally majorize the vector y (written as x  y) if (cf.
Zhao and Balakrishnan, 2009)

j
j
X
X
1
1
≥
, for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
x(i)
y(i)
i=1

It can be seen that

i=1

m

p

w

rm

x  y ⇒ x  y ⇒ x  y ⇒ x  y.

Remark 2.1 Definition 3.1(i) can equivalently be written as
m

x  y if

j
X
i=1

x[i] ≥

j
X
i=1

y[i] , for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, and

n
X

x[i] =

i=1

n
X

y[i] ,

i=1

where x[1] ≥ x[2] ≥ · · · ≥ x[n] is a decreasing arrangement of x1 , x2 , · · · , xn .
Definition 2.2 A function φ : I n → R is said to be Schur-convex (resp. Schur-concave) on I n

if

m

x  y ⇒ φ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤)φ(y).
Below we give some definitions of stochastic orders. The details of usual stochastic order,
failure rate order, reversed hazard rate order and likelihood ratio orders may be obtained in
Shaked and Shanthikumar (2007), whereas the relative ageing ordering with respect to hazard
rate is given in Sengupta and Deshpande (1994), and Rezaei et al. (2015) discuss the relative
ageing ordering with respect to reversed hazard rate.
Definition 2.3 Let X and Y be two absolutely continuous random variables with cumulative
distribution functions F (·), G(·), survival functions F̄ (·), Ḡ(·), probability density functions
f (·), g(·), hazard rate functions r1 (·), r2 (·), and the reversed failure (hazard) rate functions
r̃1 (·) and r̃2 (·), respectively. Then
1. X is said to be smaller than Y in the
(i) usual stochastic order (denoted as X ≤st Y ) if F̄ (t) ≤ Ḡ(t) for all t;

(ii) failure (hazard) rate order (denoted as X ≤hr Y ) if Ḡ(t)/F̄ (t) is increasing in t ≥ 0, or
equivalently if r1 (t) ≥ r2 (t) for all t ≥ 0;

4

(iii) reversed failure (hazard) rate order (denoted as X ≤rhr Y ) if G(t)/F (t) is increasing in
t > 0, or equivalently if r̃1 (t) ≤ r̃2 (t) for all t > 0;

(iv) likelihood ratio order (denoted as X ≤lr Y ) if f (x)/g(x) decreases in x over the union of
the supports of X and Y .

2. X is said to age faster than Y in terms of the
(i) hazard rate (denoted as X .hr Y ), if r1 (t)/r2 (t) is increasing in t > 0;
(ii) reversed hazard rate, denoted as X .rhr Y , if r̃2 (t)/r̃1 (t) is increasing in t > 0.

✷

The following notation is used throughout the paper.
(i) D = {(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ Rn : x1 ≥ x2 ≥ · · · ≥ xn }.

(ii) D+ = {(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ Rn : x1 ≥ x2 ≥ · · · ≥ xn > 0}.

(iii) E = {(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ Rn : x1 ≤ x2 ≤ · · · ≤ xn }.

(iv) E+ = {(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ Rn : 0 < x1 ≤ x2 ≤ · · · ≤ xn }.

Before we start, we mention below, for completeness, a few lemmas to be used in sequel. The
first four lemmas are due to Marshall et al. (2011). Below we take z = (z1 , z2 , ..., zn ) and
ϕ(k) (z) = ∂ϕ(z)/∂zk , the partial derivative of ϕ with respect to its kth argument.
Lemma 2.1 Let ϕ : D → R be a function, continuously differentiable on the interior of D.

Then, for x, y ∈ D,

m

x  y =⇒ ϕ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤) ϕ(y)
if, and only if,
ϕ(k) (z) is decreasing (resp. increasing) in k = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Lemma 2.2 Let ϕ : E → R be a function, continuously differentiable on the interior of E.
Then, for x, y ∈ E,

m

x  y =⇒ ϕ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤) ϕ(y)
if, and only if,
ϕ(k) (z) is increasing (resp. decreasing) in k = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Lemma 2.3 Let I ⊆ Rn be an open interval and let ϕ : I n → R be continuously differentiable.

Necessary and sufficient conditions for ϕ to be Schur-convex (resp. Schur-concave) on I n are

5

ϕ is symmetric on I n , and for all i 6= j

(zi − zj ) ϕ(i) (z) − ϕ(j) (z) ≥ (resp. ≤)0 for all z ∈ I n .

Lemma 2.4 Let S ⊆ Rn . Further, let ϕ : S → R be a function. Then, for x, y ∈ S,
x w y =⇒ ϕ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤) ϕ(y)
if, and only if, ϕ is both increasing (resp. decreasing) and Schur-convex (resp. Schur-concave)
on S. Similarly,

w

x  y =⇒ ϕ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤) ϕ(y)
if, and only if, ϕ is both decreasing (resp. increasing) and Schur-convex (resp. Schur-concave)
on S.
The following lemma is taken from Khaledi and Kochar (2002) and Kundu et al. (2016).
Lemma 2.5 Let ϕ : R+n → R be a function. Then,
p

x  y =⇒ ϕ(x) ≥ (resp. ≤) ϕ(y)
if, and only if, the following two conditions hold:
(i) ϕ(ea1 , . . . , ean ) is Schur-convex (resp. Schur-concave) in (a1 , . . . , an ),
(ii) ϕ(ea1 , . . . , ean ) is decreasing (resp. increasing) in each ai , for i = 1, . . . , n,
where ai = ln xi , for i = 1, . . . , n.
Following lemma is adapted from Bon and Pǎltǎnea (2006) (See also Gupta et al., 2015).
Lemma 2.6 Let φ : (0, ∞)n → (0, ∞) be a symmetrical and continuously differentiable map-

ping. If, for x = (x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ∈ (0, ∞)n with xp = min1≤i≤n xi and xq = max1≤i≤n xi , we

have

(xp − xq )
for xp 6= xq , then
where x =

3

√
n

1

1
∂φ
∂φ
Q
−Q
i6=p xi ∂xp
i6=q xi ∂xq

!

< (>)0,

φ(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) ≤ (≥)φ(x, x, ..., x),

x1 x2 · · · xn .

Series systems with component lifetimes following PO model

In this section we compare the lifetimes of two series systems, each of heterogeneous components
having lifetimes following the proportional odds (PO) model, with respect to some stochastic
6

orders. We also compare lifetimes of two series systems, one comprising of heterogeneous
components and another comprising of homogeneous components.
Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent random variables, each following PO model, denoted as X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , µ), where F̄ is the

baseline survival function, λ = (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) and µ = (µ1 , µ2 , ..., µn ) with λi > 0 and µi > 0,
for all i = 1, 2, ..., n. We have the survival functions of X1:n and Y1:n , respectively, as
F̄X1:n (x) =

n
Y

F̄Xi (x) =

n
Y

n
Y

F̄Yi (x) =

n
Y

i=1

and
F̄Y1:n (x) =

i=1

λi F̄ (x)
,
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)
i=1

µi F̄ (x)
,
1
−
µ̄
F̄
(x)
i
i=1

where λ̄i = 1 − λi and µ̄i = 1 − µi , for i = 1, 2, ..., n.

The hazard rate functions of X1:n and Y1:n are, respectively, obtained as
rX1:n (x) =

n
X

rXi (x) =

i=1

and
rY1:n (x) =

n
X

rYi (x) =

n
X
i=1

r(x)
,
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

n
X

r(x)
.
1 − µ̄i F̄ (x)

i=1

i=1

If X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1), where 1 = (1, 1, ..., 1), λ > 0, then the survival function and the hazard
rate function of X1:n are, respectively,

F̄X1:n (x) =

λn F̄ n (x)
,
(1 − λ̄F̄ (x))n

and
rX1:n (x) =

nr(x)
.
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

The following theorem compares the lifetimes of two series systems formed out of n heterogeneous components following PO model.
Theorem 3.1 Suppose the lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , µ). Then
p

λ  µ implies X1:n ≤st Y1:n .

7

Proof: Write ai = ln λi , i = 1, 2, ..., n. Then
F̄X1:n (x) =

n
Y

eai F̄ (x)
1 − (1 − eai )F̄ (x)
i=1

= φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean ), (say).
Note that φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean ) is symmetric with respect to (a1 , a2 , ..., an ) ∈ Rn . Now,
∂φ
1 − F̄ (x)
φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean ),
=
∂ai
1 − (1 − eai )F̄ (x)
so that φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean ) is increasing in each ai , for i = 1, 2, ..., n. Now, for 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ n,
(ai − aj )



∂φ
∂φ
−
∂ai ∂aj



(ai − aj )(eaj − eai )F̄ (x)(1 − F̄ (x))
φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean )
(1 − (1 − eai )F̄ (x))(1 − (1 − eaj )F̄ (x))
≤ 0.
=

So, from Lemma 2.3, φ(ea1 , ea2 , ..., ean ) is Schur-concave in (a1 , a2 , ..., an ) ∈ Rn . Thus, from
p

Lemma 2.5, we have φ(λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ≤ φ(µ1 , µ2 , ..., µn ) whenever λ  µ.

✷

Corollary 3.1 Suppose that the lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then,
√
X1:n ≤st Y1:n if λ ≥ n λ1 λ2 · · · λn .
✷
The following counterexample shows that the condition of p-larger order given in the above
theorem cannot be replaced by reciprocal majorization order.
Counterexample 3.1 Let X = (X1 , X2 , X3 ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , Y3 ) be two sets of independent
random variables, such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λi ) and Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µi ), i = 1, 2, 3, where the baseline

survival function is given by F̄ (x) = e−2x . Take (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) = (2.2, 3, 5) and (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) =
p

rm

(2.8, 3.2, 3.3) so that (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) but (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ). It is observed

that for x = 0.2, F̄X1:3 (x) = 0.63929 and F̄Y1:3 (x) = 0.641646. Again for x = 0.8, F̄X1:3 (x) =

0.0861549 and F̄Y1:3 (x) = 0.084394. So X1:3 st Y1:3 .
Theorem 3.2 Suppose that the lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , µ). Then
w

λ  µ implies X1:n ≤hr Y1:n .
Proof: We have
rX1:n (x) =

n
X
i=1

8

r(x)
,
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

which is symmetric with respect to (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ∈ Rn . Now,
r(x)F̄ (x)
∂rX1:n (x)
=−
,
∂λi
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2
so that rX1:n (x) is decreasing in each λi , i = 1, 2, ..., n. For 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ n,
(λi − λj )



∂rX1:n (x) ∂rX1:n (x)
−
∂λi
∂λj



=
sign

=

≥



1
1
−
(λi − λj )r(x)F̄ (x)
2
¯
(1 − λj F̄ (x))
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2


(λi − λj ) (1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2 − (1 − λ¯j F̄ (x))2



0.

So, from Lemma 2.3, it follows that rX1:n (x) is Schur-convex in λ = (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ∈ Rn . Thus,
w

by Lemma 2.4, we have rX1:n (x) ≥ rY1:n (x) whenever λ  µ. Hence the theorem follows.

✷

Corollary 3.2 Suppose lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then, X1:n ≤hr
P
✷
Y1:n if λ ≥ n1 ni=1 λi .
The following counterexample shows that the condition of weakly supermojorization order given
in the above theorem cannot be replaced by p-larger order.
Counterexample 3.2 Let X = (X1 , X2 , X3 ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , Y3 ) are two sets of independent
random variables, such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λi ) and Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µi ), i = 1, 2, 3, where the baseline

survival function is given by F̄ (x) = e−1.2x . Take (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) = (2, 3, 5) and (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) =
w

p

(2.8, 3.2, 3.4) so that (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) but (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ). It is observed that,

for x = 0.2, rX1:3 (x) = 1.2297 and rY1:3 (x) = 1.1687. Again, for x = 1.8, rX1:3 (x) = 2.3935 and

rY1:3 (x) = 2.4089. So X1:3 hr Y1:3 .

✷

In case of multiple-outlier model, below we study the relative ageing of two series systems with
heterogeneous components in terms of the hazard rate.
Theorem 3.3 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model with Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ), Yi ∼

P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , λ2 ), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , µ2 ), for j = n1 + 1, n1 + 2, ..., n1 +
n2 (= n). Then

m

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , µ2 , µ2 , ..., µ2 ) ⇒ X1:n &hr Y1:n ,
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

provided {(λ1 , λ2 ) ∈ E+ , (µ1 , µ2 ) ∈ E+ , n1 ≥ n2 } or {(λ1 , λ2 ) ∈ D+ , (µ1 , µ2 ) ∈ D+ , n1 ≤ n2 }.
Proof: We denote
A = {λ = (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) : λi = λ1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n1 and λj = λ2 , for n1 + 1 ≤ j ≤ n}
9

and
B = {µ = (µ1 , µ2 , ..., µn ) : µi = µ1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n1 and µj = µ2 , for n1 + 1 ≤ j ≤ n}.
We have to show that, under the given majorization order,
Pn
i=1
rX1:n (x)
= Pn
rY1:n (x)
i=1

1
1−λ̄i F̄ (x)
1
1−µ̄i F̄ (x)

(3.1)

is decreasing in x > 0 for λ ∈ A, µ ∈ B, which can be shown to be equivalent to
Pn

λ̄i
i=1 (1−λ̄i F̄ (x))2
Pn
1
i=1 1−λ̄i F̄ (x))

Pn

µ̄i
i=1 (1−µ̄i F̄ (x))2
Pn
1
i=1 1−µ̄i F̄ (x)

≥

.

Now to show the above inequality, it suffices to show that, for λ ∈ A and µ ∈ B,
φ(λ̄1 , λ̄2 , ..., λ̄n ) =

def

Pn

λ̄i
i=1 (1−λ̄i F̄ (x))2
Pn
1
i=1 1−λ̄i F̄ (x)

is Schur-convex in (λ̄1 , λ̄2 , ..., λ̄n ) ∈ A. Writing u(x) = 1/(1 − x) and v(x) = x/(1 − x), we have
1
φ(λ̄1 , λ̄2 , ..., λ̄n ) =
F̄ (x)
For 1 ≤ i ≤ n1 ,

Pn

u(λ̄i F̄ (x))v(λ̄i F̄ (x))
i=1P
.
n
i=1 u(λ̄i F̄ (x))

n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x))v′ (λ̄1 F̄ (x))[n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))u′ (λ̄1 F̄ (x))[v(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ̄2 F̄ (x))]
∂φ
,
=
2
∂ λ̄i
n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))

and, for n1 + 1 ≤ j ≤ n,
∂φ
n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))v′ (λ̄2 F̄ (x))[n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x))u′ (λ̄2 F̄ (x))[v(λ̄2 F̄ (x)) − v(λ̄1 F̄ (x))]
.
=
2
∂ λ̄j
n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))

Now, for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n1 or n1 + 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, we have

n1 + 1 ≤ j ≤ n, we have
∂φ
∂φ
−
∂ λ̄i ∂ λ̄j

∂φ
∂ λ̄i

−

∂φ
∂ λ̄j

= 0. Again, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n1 and

=sign [n1 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))][n1 u(λ̄1 F̄ (x))v ′ (λ̄1 F̄ (x)) − n2 u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))v ′ (λ̄2 F̄ (x))]
+n1 n2 [v(λ̄1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ̄2 F̄ (x))][u(λ̄2 F̄ (x))u′ (λ̄1 F̄ (x)) + u(λ̄1 F̄ (x))u′ (λ̄2 F̄ (x))].

As v(x) and u(x)v ′ (x) are both increasing and nonnegative in x, we have, for n1 ≥ (resp. ≤) n2

10

and λ̄1 ≥ (resp. ≤) λ̄2 ,

∂φ
∂φ
−
≥ (resp. ≤) 0.
∂ λ̄i ∂ λ̄j

So, from Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2, we have
m

(λ̄1 , λ̄1 , ..., λ̄1 , λ̄2 , λ̄2 , ..., λ̄2 )  (µ̄1 , µ̄1 , ..., µ̄1 , µ̄2 , µ̄2 , ..., µ̄2 ) ⇒ X1:n &hr Y1:n .
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

m

Then the result follows from the fact that (λ̄1 , λ̄1 , ..., λ̄1 , λ̄2 , λ̄2 , ..., λ̄2 )  (µ̄1 , µ̄1 , ..., µ̄1 , µ̄2 , µ̄2 , ..., µ̄2 )
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
|
m

n1

n2

n1

n2

is equivalent to (λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , µ2 , µ2 , ..., µ2 ), which follows from
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

Remark 2.1.

Corollary 3.3 Let, for i = 1, 2, the two independent random variables Xi and Yi follow PO
model with parameters λi and µi , respectively. Then
m

(λ1 , λ2 )  (µ1 , µ2 ) ⇒ X1:2 &hr Y1:2 .
Below we give another set of sufficient conditions for Theorem 3.3 to hold.
Theorem 3.4 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model with Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ), Yi ∼

P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , λ2 ), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , µ2 ), for j = n1 + 1, n1 + 2, ..., n1 +
n2 (= n). Then

max{λ1 , λ2 } ≤ min{µ1 , µ2 } ⇒ X1:n &hr Y1:n .
Proof: We have to show that
rX1:n (x)
=
rY1:n (x)

n1
1−λ¯1 F̄ (x)
n1
1−µ¯1 F̄ (x)

+
+

n2
1−λ¯2 F̄ (x)
n2
1−µ¯2 F̄ (x)

is decreasing in x > 0.

(3.2)

Writing u(x) = 1/(1 − x) and v(x) = x/(1 − x), (3.2) is equivalent to
n21 u(µ¯1 F̄ (x))u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯1 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(µ¯1 F̄ (x))u(λ¯2 F̄ (x))

[v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯2 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(µ¯2 F̄ (x))u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯2 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯1 F̄ (x))]

+n22 u(µ¯2 F̄ (x))u(λ¯2 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯2 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯2 F̄ (x))] ≤ 0.

As both u(x) and v(x) are increasing in x, so the above inequality holds if the condition
max{λ1 , λ2 } ≤ min{µ1 , µ2 } holds.

✷

A result on relative ageing is given next in terms of weakly majorization order.
11

Theorem 3.5 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model with Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ), Yi ∼

P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), for j = n1 + 1, n1 + 2, ..., n1 +
n2 (= n). Then

w

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , η, η, ..., η )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , η, η, ..., η ) ⇒ X1:n &hr Y1:n .
|
{z
} | {z }
{z
} | {z }
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

Proof: We have to show that

rX1:n (x)
=
rY1:n (x)

n1
1−λ¯1 F̄ (x)
n1
1−µ¯1 F̄ (x)

+
+

n2
1−η̄ F̄ (x)
n2
1−η̄ F̄ (x)

= γ(x), say,

(3.3)

is decreasing in x > 0. As earlier, let us take u(x) = 1/(1 − x) and v(x) = x/(1 − x), which are

increasing in x. Now differentiating γ(x) with respect to x, we have

γ ′ (x) =sign n21 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))u(µ¯1 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯1 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))u(η̄ F̄ (x))
[v(η̄ F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯1 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 u(η̄ F̄ (x))u(µ¯1 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(η̄ F̄ (x))]

=

ψ(x), say.
w

Now the condition (λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , η, η, ..., η )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , η, η, ..., η ) is equivalent to the fact
{z
} | {z }
{z
} | {z }
|
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

that λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 or λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ η or η ≤ λ1 ≤ µ1 .

Case I: Let λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 . Then ψ(x) ≤ 0.

Case II: Let λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ η. Then we have u(λ¯1 F̄ (x)) ≥ u(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) ≥ u(η̄ F̄ (x)) and v(λ¯1 F̄ (x)) ≥

v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) ≥ v(η̄ F̄ (x)), so that

ψ(x) ≤ n1 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))[v(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(λ¯1 F̄ (x))][n1 u(µ¯1 F̄ (x)) + n2 u(η̄ F̄ (x))]
≤ 0.
Case III: η ≤ λ1 ≤ µ1 . Then the proof follows in the same line as that of Case II.
Hence the theorem follows.

✷

Corollary 3.4 Let X1 and X2 be independent following PO model with parameters λ1 and η
respectively, and let Y1 and Y2 be independent following PO model with parameters µ1 and η
respectively. Then

w

(λ1 , η)  (µ1 , η) ⇒ X1:2 &hr Y1:2 .
The following lemma, required to prove the next theorem, has been borrowed from Kundu et al.
(2016).

12

Lemma 3.1 If λ1 ≥ µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 or λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ µ2 ≤ λ2 , and n1 λ1 + n2 λ2 = n1 µ1 + n2 µ2 ,
then

m

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , µ2 , µ2 , ..., µ2 ).
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

The following theorem shows that under certain restriction on the model parameters the condition of majorization order in Theorem 3.3 can be replaced by the weak supermajorization
order.
Theorem 3.6 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model with Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ), Yi ∼

P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , λ2 ), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , µ2 ), for j = n1 + 1, n1 + 2, ..., n1 +
n2 (= n). Then, for {λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ µ2 ≤ λ2 and n1 ≥ n2 } or {λ1 ≥ µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 and n1 ≤ n2 }
w

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , µ2 , µ2 , ..., µ2 ) ⇒ X1:n &hr Y1:n .
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

Proof: Suppose that the first set of conditions holds. The weak supermajorization order
gives that λ1 ≤ µ1 and n1 λ1 + rλ2 ≤ n1 µ1 + rµ2 , for r = 1, 2, ..., n2 . If n1 λ1 + n2 λ2 =

n1 µ1 +n2 µ2 holds then, under the given condition, the result follows from Theorem 3.3. Suppose

that n1 λ1 + n2 λ2 < n1 µ1 + n2 µ2 . Then there exists an η satisfying λ1 < η ≤ µ1 such that

∗ be the lifetime of a series system formed by n components
n1 η + n2 λ2 = n1 µ1 + n2 µ2 . Let X1:n

having lifetimes X1∗ , X2∗ , ..., Xn∗ , where Xi∗ ∼ P O(F̄ , η), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 and Xj∗ ∼ P O(F̄ , λ2 ),

for j = n1 + 1, n1 + 2, ..., n1 + n2 (= n). Then, from Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.3, we have

∗ &
X1:n
hr Y1:n , when n1 ≥ n2 . Again λ1 < η ≤ λ2 and
w

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (η, η, ..., η , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 ).
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
}
| {z } |
n1

n2

n1

n2

∗ . Hence X
So, from Theorem 3.5, it follows that X1:n &hr X1:n
1:n &hr Y1:n . The proof for the

second set of conditions can be done in a similar way.

✷

Corollary 3.5 Let X1 and X2 be independent following PO model with parameters λ1 and λ2
respectively, and let Y1 and Y2 be independent following PO model with parameters µ1 and µ2
respectively. Then

w

(λ1 , λ2 )  (µ1 , µ2 ) ⇒ X1:2 &hr Y1:2 ,
where {λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ µ2 ≤ λ2 } or {λ1 ≥ µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 }.

✷

The following theorem shows that, under certain condition, a series system with homogeneous
components ages faster than that with heterogeneous ones in terms of the hazard rate.

13

Theorem 3.7 Suppose lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then, X1:n &hr
P
Y1:n if λ ≥ n1 ni=1 λi .
Proof: We have

n

1 − λ̄F̄ (x) X
1
rX1:n (x)
=
.
rY1:n (x)
n
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)
i=1

Now, differentiating the above expression with respect to x, we have, for x > 0,
d
dx



rX1:n (x)
rY1:n (x)

so that



rX1:n (x)
rY1:n (x)

f (x)(1 − λ̄F̄ (x))
=
n

"

λ̄
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

 X
n
i=1

1
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

!

−

n
X
i=1

#
λ̄i
,
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2

is decreasing if


λ̄F̄ (x)
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

 X
n
i=1

1
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

!

≤

n
X
i=1

λ̄i F̄ (x)
.
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2

From Cebyšev’s inequality (cf. Mitrinović et al., 1993, p. 240), the above inequality holds if


λ̄F̄ (x)
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

 X
n
i=1

1
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

!

n
X

1
≤
n

i=1

or equivalently,

λ̄i F̄ (x)
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

!

n
X
i=1

1
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

!

n

1 X λ̄i F̄ (x)
λ̄F̄ (x)
≤
.
n
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)
i=1

(3.4)

Let φ(x) = x/(1 − x), which is increasing and convex in x. Now (3.4) holds if
n

1X
φ(λ̄F̄ (x)) ≤
φ(λ̄i F̄ (x)),
n
i=1

i.e. if
φ(λ̄F̄ (x)) ≤ φ

!
n
1X
λ̄i F̄ (x) ,
n
i=1

which follows from the fact that φ is convex. Now the theorem holds because φ is increasing.✷
In case of multiple-outlier model, below we study the likelihood ratio ordering between two
series systems with heterogeneous components. The result under majorization order follows
from Theorems 3.2 and 3.3, whereas the result under weak supermajorization order follows
from Theorems 3.2 and 3.6.
Theorem 3.8 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ),

Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , λ2 ), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , µ2 ), for j = n1 + 1, n1 +
14

2, ..., n1 + n2 (= n). Then
m

w

(λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , ..., λ2 )  (resp. ) (µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , µ2 , µ2 , ..., µ2 ) ⇒ X1:n ≤lr Y1:n ,
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
} |
{z
}
|
n1

n2

n1

n2

provided {(λ1 , λ2 ) ∈ E+ , (µ1 , µ2 ) ∈ E+ , n1 ≥ n2 } or {(λ1 , λ2 ) ∈ D+ , (µ1 , µ2 ) ∈ D+ , n1 ≤ n2 }
[resp. {λ1 ≤ µ1 ≤ µ2 ≤ λ2 and n1 ≥ n2 } or {λ1 ≥ µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ λ2 and n1 ≤ n2 }] holds.

✷

The following theorem gives a condition under which a series system with homogeneous components and that with heterogeneous ones are ordered in terms of the likelihood ratio order.
The proof follows from Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.2.
Theorem 3.9 Suppose lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then, X1:n ≤lr
P
Y1:n if λ ≥ n1 ni=1 λi .

4

Parallel systems with component lifetimes following PO model

In this section we compare lifetimes of two parallel systems of heterogeneous components having
lifetimes following the PO model with respect to some stochastic orders. We also compare
lifetimes of two parallel systems, one comprising of heterogeneous components and another of
homogeneous components.
Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent random variables, each following PO model. Let X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , µ), where F̄ is the baseline
survival function, λ = (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) and µ = (µ1 , µ2 , ..., µn ), λi > 0 and µi > 0, i = 1, 2, ..., n.
We have the survival functions of Xn:n and Yn:n , respectively, as

n 
n
Y
Y
1 − F̄ (x)
(1 − F̄Xi (x)) = 1 −
F̄Xn:n (x) = 1 −
,
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)
i=1
i=1
and

(4.1)


n 
n
Y
Y
1 − F̄ (x)
.
(1 − F̄Yi (x)) = 1 −
F̄Yn:n (x) = 1 −
1 − µ̄i F̄ (x)
i=1
i=1

Also the reversed hazard rate functions of Xn:n and Yn:n are obtained, respectively, as
r̃Xn:n (x) =

n
X

r̃Xi =

n
X

r̃Yi =

i=1

and
r̃Yn:n (x) =

n
X
i=1

λi r̃(x)
,
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

n
X

µi r̃(x)
.
1 − µ̄i F̄ (x)

i=1

i=1

(4.2)

If X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1), λ > 0, then the survival function and the reversed hazard rate function of
15

Xn:n are, respectively, given by
F̄Xn:n (x) = 1 −
and
r̃Xn:n (x) =



1 − F̄ (x)
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

n

,

nλr̃(x)
.
1 − λ̄F̄ (x)

The following theorem compares the lifetimes of two parallel systems formed out of n heterogeneous components following PO model.
Theorem 4.1 Suppose that lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , µ). Then
w

λ  µ implies Xn:n ≤rhr Yn:n .
Proof: Differentiating (4.2) with respect to λi we have
∂r̃Xn:n
∂λi

r̃(x)(1 − F̄ (x))
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2
≥ 0,
=

so that r̃Xn:n (x) is increasing in each λi , i = 1, 2, ..., n. Also r̃Xn:n (x) is symmetric with respect
to (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ∈ Rn . For 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ n,
(λi − λj )



∂r̃Xn:n
∂r̃Xn:n
−
∂λi
∂λj



=
sign

=

≤



1
1
−
(λi − λj )r̃(x)(1 − F̄ (x))
2
¯
(1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))
(1 − λj F̄ (x))2

(λi − λj ) (1 − λ¯j F̄ (x))2 − (1 − λ̄i F̄ (x))2



0.

So, from Lemma 2.3, it follows that r̃Xn:n (x) is Schur-concave in λ = (λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ∈ Rn .
w

Thus, from Lemma 2.4, we have r̃Xn:n (x) ≤ r̃Yn:n (x) whenever λ  µ.

✷

Corollary 4.1 Suppose lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then, Xn:n ≤rhr
P
Yn:n if λ ≥ n1 ni=1 λi .
✷
The following counterexample shows that even under usual stochastic order, the condition of
weakly supermojorization order given in the above theorem cannot be replaced by p-larger
order.
Counterexample 4.1 Let X = (X1 , X2 , X3 ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , Y3 ) be two sets of independent random variables, such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λi ) and Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µi ), i = 1, 2, 3, where the
baseline survival function is given by F̄ (x) = e−1.8x , x > 0. Take (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) = (2, 3, 5) and
p

w

(µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) = (2.6, 3.2, 3.7) so that (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) but (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ). It is
16

observed that, for x = 1.5, F̄X3:3 (x) = 0.471629 and F̄Y3:3 (x) = 0.459619. So X3:3 st Y3:3 . Now
p

take (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ) = (2.5, 3, 5) and (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) = (3, 3.8, 4.4) so that (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 )  (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ). It

is observed that, for x = 1.2, F̄X3:3 (x) = 0.67176 and F̄Y3:3 (x) = 0.69449. So X3:3 st Y3:3 .

✷

Theorem 4.2 Suppose that lifetime vectors X ∼ P O(F̄ , λ) and Y ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1). Then,
√
Xn:n ≥st Yn:n if λ = n λ1 λ2 · · · λn .
Proof: Write
F̄Xn:n (x) = φ(λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn )
Then we have

∂φ
1
.
= F̄ (x)[1 − F̄Xn:n (x)]
∂λi
1 − λ̄i F̄ (x)

Let λp = min1≤i≤n λi and λq = max1≤i≤n λi . Then
1
Q

i6=p λi

!

∂φ
−
∂λp

1
Q

i6=q

λi

!

∂φ
∂λq

1

=sign
=sign



Q

i6=p λi

!

1
−
¯
1 − λp F̄ (x)

λq
λp
−
1 − λ¯p F̄ (x) 1 − λ¯q F̄ (x)

=sign (λp − λq )(1 − F̄ (x))
<
So (λp −λq )



∂φ
i6=p λi ∂λp

Q 1

−

∂φ
i6=q λi ∂λq

Q 1



1
Q

i6=q



λi

!

1
¯
1 − λq F̄ (x)

0.

> 0. Thus, from Lemma 2.6, we have, for λ =

φ(λ1 , λ2 , ..., λn ) ≥ φ(λ, λ, ..., λ), i.e. Xn:n ≥st Yn:n .

√
n

λ1 λ2 · · · λn ,
✷

Following counterexample shows that even in case of multiple-outlier model, under the ma-

jorization order, two parallel systems of heterogeneous components may not be ordered with
respect to relative ageing in terms of reversed hazard rate.
Counterexample 4.2 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., X6 ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Y6 ) be two sets of independent random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , 2),

Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , 3), for i = 1, 2, Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , 6), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , 5.5), for j = 3, 4, 5, 6, where the basem

line survival function is given by F̄ (x) = e−2x . Clearly, (2, 2, 6, 6, 6, 6)  (3, 3, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5).
However, it is observed from Figure 1(a) that r̃Y6:6 (x)/r̃X6:6 (x) is nonmonotone.

Remark 4.1 Taking the random variables as in Counterexample 4.2, we see from Figure 1(b)
that fY6:6 (x)/fX6:6 (x) is also nonmonotone. This gives that, in case of multiple-outlier model,
under the majorization order, two parallel systems with heterogeneous components may not be
ordered with respect to likelihood ratio order.

17

1.035

1.006
1.030

1.004
1.025

1.002
1.020

1.000
1.015

0.998
1.010

0.996
1.005

1.5
0.5

1.0

1.5

(a)

2.0

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(b)

,

Figure 1: (a) Curve r̃Y6:6 (x)/r̃X6:6 (x) (b) Curve fY6:6 (x)/fX6:6 (x) for x > 0.

1.040

1.014

1.035

1.012

1.030

1.010

1.025

1.008

0.5

1.0

1.5

(a)

2.0 ,

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

(b)

Figure 2: (a) Curve r̃Y4:4 (x)/r̃X4:4 (x) (b) Curve r̃Y4:4 (x)/r̃X4:4 (x) for x > 0.

Following counterexample shows that, a parallel system of heterogeneous components may not
be comparable with that of homogeneous components with respect to relative ageing in terms
of reversed hazard rate, irrespective of the condition in Corollary 4.1.
Counterexample 4.3 Let X = (X1 , X2 , X3 , X4 ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , Y3 , Y4 ) be two sets of independent random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model such that Xi ∼

P O(F̄ , λi ), i = 1, 2, 3, 4 and Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ), i = 1, 2, 3, 4, where the baseline survival funck

tion is given by F̄ (x) = e−(x/β) , β, k > 0. It is observed from Figure 2(a) that for λ1 = 2,

λ2 = 3, λ3 = 4, λ4 = 5, λ = 3.6, β = 0.8, and k = 2 r̃Y4:4 (x)/r̃X4:4 (x) is nonmonotone. Again
for λ1 = 2, λ2 = 3, λ3 = 4, λ4 = 5, λ = 3.4, β = 3 and k = 2 r̃Y4:4 (x)/r̃X4:4 (x) is also
nonmonotone as seen from Figure 2(b).

✷

In case of multiple-outlier model, following theorem gives a condition under which Xn:n ages
faster than Yn:n in terms of the reversed hazard rate.
Theorem 4.3 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ),

Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), for j = n1 + 1, n1 +

2, ..., n1 + n2 (= n). Then

λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 ⇒ Xn:n .rhr Yn:n .
18

Proof: We have to show that
r̃Yn:n (x)
=
r̃Xn:n (x)

n1 µ1
1−µ¯1 F̄ (x)
n1 λ1
1−λ¯1 F̄ (x)

+
+

n2 η
1−η̄ F̄ (x)
n2 η
1−η̄ F̄ (x)

= γ(x), say,

(4.3)

is increasing in x > 0. Let us write u(x) = 1/(1 − x) and v(x) = x/(1 − x), both of which are
increasing in x. Now differentiating γ(x) with respect to x, we have

γ ′ (x) =sign n21 λ1 µ1 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x))u(µ¯1 F̄ (x)[v(λ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(µ¯1 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 ηµ1 u(µ¯1 F̄ (x))u(η̄ F̄ (x))
[v(η̄ F̄ (x)) − v(µ¯1 F̄ (x))] + n1 n2 ηλ1 u(λ¯1 F̄ (x)u(η̄ F̄ (x))[v(λ¯1 F̄ (x)) − v(η̄ F̄ (x))]

≥

0,

if λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 . Hence the theorem follows.
Corollary 4.2 Let X1 and X2 be independent following PO model with parameters λ1 and η
respectively, and let Y1 and Y2 be independent following PO model with parameters µ1 and η
respectively. Then
λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 ⇒ X2:2 .rhr Y2:2 .
The following counterexample shows that Theorem 4.3 does not hold under the condition λ1 ≤

µ1 ≤ η.

Counterexample 4.4 Let X1 and X2 follow PO model with parameters λ1 and η respectively,
and Y1 and Y2 follow PO model with parameters µ1 and η respectively, where the baseline
distribution is exponential with parameter λ = 2. Now for λ1 = 0.2, µ1 = 0.4 and η = 0.9,
r̃Y2:2 (x)/r̃X2:2 (x) is nonmonotone as seen from Figure 3.
Theorem 4.4 Let X = (X1 , X2 , ..., Xn ) and Y = (Y1 , Y2 , ..., Yn ) be two sets of independent
random variables, each following the multiple-outlier PO model such that Xi ∼ P O(F̄ , λ1 ),

Yi ∼ P O(F̄ , µ1 ), for i = 1, 2, ..., n1 , Xj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), Yj ∼ P O(F̄ , η), for j = n1 + 1, n1 +

2, ..., n1 + n2 (= n). Then

λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 ⇒ Xn:n ≤lr Yn:n .
Proof: We have to show that
FYn:n (x) r̃Yn:n (x)
fYn:n (x)
=
fXn:n (x)
FXn:n (x) r̃Xn:n (x)

(4.4)
w

is increasing in x > 0. We have λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 , which implies (λ1 , λ1 , ..., λ1 , η, η, ..., η ) 
|
{z
} | {z }
n1

n2

(µ1 , µ1 , ..., µ1 , η, η, ..., η ). So, from Theorem 4.1, under the given condition, FYn:n (x)/FXn:n (x) is
{z
} | {z }
|
n1

n2

19

1.188
1.186
1.184
1.182
1.180
1.178

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Figure 3: Curve r̃Y2:2 (x)/r̃X4:4 (x) for x > 0.

increasing in x > 0. Again Theorem 4.3 gives that under the given condition, r̃Yn:n (x)/r̃Xn:n (x)
is increasing in x > 0. Hence the theorem follows.
Corollary 4.3 Let X1 and X2 be independent following PO model with parameters λ1 and η
respectively, and let Y1 and Y2 be independent following PO model with parameters µ1 and η
respectively. Then
λ1 ≤ η ≤ µ1 ⇒ X2:2 ≤lr Y2:2 .

5

Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied stochastic comparison of series and parallel systems formed from
independent heterogeneous components having lifetimes following the PO model. Most of the
results are obtained using different concepts of majorization. We have also compared a system
formed of heterogeneous components with another system of homogeneous components. We
have derived conditions under which two series systems with heterogeneous components are
ordered with respect to different stochastic orders; in case of multiple-outlier model, they are
compared with respect to likelihood ratio order and relative ageing in terms of hazard rate.
We have also derived conditions under which a series system with heterogeneous components
and that with homogeneous components are ordered with respect to the above mentioned
stochastic orderings. In case of parallel system, we have obtained conditions under which two
parallel systems with heterogeneous components are ordered with respect to usual stochastic
order and reversed hazard rate order. The comparison is also made in case of a parallel system
20

with heterogeneous components and that with homogeneous components. However, unlike
series system, with suitable counterexamples we have showed that even in case of multipleoutlier model, under majorization order, two parallel systems with heterogeneous components
may not be comparable with respect to likelihood ratio order and relative ageing in terms of
reversed hazard rate, although, under more restricted conditions, we are able to compare the
parallel systems with respect to those stochastic orderings.

Acknowledgements:
Pradip Kundu sincerely acknowledges the support received from the IISER Kolkata to carry
out this research work. The support received from the University of the Free State, South
Africa is gratefully acknowledged by Nil Kamal Hazra. The financial support from NBHM,
Govt. of India (vide Ref. No. 2/48(25)/2014/NBHM(R.P.)/R&D II/1393 dt. Feb. 3, 2015) is
duly acknowledged by Asok K. Nanda.

References
Balakrishnan, N., Zhao, P. (2013). Hazard rate comparison of parallel systems with heterogeneous gamma components, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 113, 153-160.
Bennett, S. (1983). Analysis of survival data by the proportional odds model, Statistics in
Medicine 2, 273-277.
Bon, J.L., Pǎltǎnea, E. (1999). Ordering properties of convolutions of exponential random
variables, Lifetime Data Analysis 5, 185-192.
Bon, J.L., Pǎltǎnea, E. (2006). Comparisons of order statistics in a random sequence to the
same statistics with i.i.d. variables, ESAIM: Probability and Statistics 10, 1-10.
Collett, D. (2004). Modelling survival data in medical research, 2nd edition, Chapman and
Hall/CRC.
Cordeiro, G.M., Lemonte, A.J., Ortega, E.M.M. (2014). The Marshall-Olkin family of distributions: mathematical properties and new models, Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice
8(2), 343-366.
Dinse, G.E., Lagakos, S.W. (1983). Regression analysis of tumour prevalence data, Applied
Statistics 32(3), 236-248.
Dykstra, R., Kochar, S.C., Rojo, J. (1997). Stochastic comparisons of parallel systems of heterogeneous exponential components, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 65, 203-211.

21

Fang, L., Zhang, X. (2012). New results on stochastic comparison of order statistics from
heterogeneous Weibull populations, Journal of Korean Statistical Society 41, 13-16.
Fang, L., Zhang, X. (2015). Stochastic comparison of parallel system with exponentiated Weibull
components, Statistics & Probability Letters 97, 25-31.
Gupta, N., Patra, L.K., Kumar, S. (2015). Stochastic comparisons in systems with Frèchet
distributed components, Operations Research Letters 43, 612-615.
Khaledi, B., Kochar, S.C. (2000). Some new results on stochastic comparisons of parallel systems, Journal of Applied Probability 37, 283-291.
Khaledi, B., Kochar, S.C. (2002). Dispersive ordering among linear combinations of uniform
random variables, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 100, 13-21.
Khaledi, B., Farsinezhad, S., Kochar, S.C. (2011). Stochastic comparisons of order statistics in
the scale models, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 141, 276-286.
Kirmani, S.N.U.A., Gupta, R.C. (2001). On the proportional odds model in survival analysis,
Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 53(2), 203-216.
Kochar, S.C., Xu, M. (2007a). Stochastic comparisons of parallel systems when components
have proportional hazard rates, Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences
21, 597-609.
Kochar, S.C., Xu, M. (2007b). Some recent results on stochastic comparisons and dependence
among order statistics in the case of PHR model, Journal of Iranian Statistical Society 6,
125-140.
Kundu, A., Chowdhury, S., Nanda, A.K., Hazra, N.K. (2016). Some results on majorization
and their applications, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 301, 161-177.
Li, C., Li, X. (2016). Relative ageing of series and parallel systems with statistically independent
and heterogeneous component lifetimes, IEEE Transactions on Reliability 65(2), 1014-1021.
Marshall, A.W., Olkin, I. (1997). A new method of adding a parameter to a family of distributions with applications to the exponential and Weibull families, Biometrika 84, 641-652.
Marshall, A.W., Olkin, I. (2007). Life Distributions, Springer, New York.
Marshall, A.W., Olkin, I., Arnold, B.C. (2011). Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its
Applications, Springer, New York.

22

Misra, N., Misra, A.K. (2013). On comparison of reversed hazard rates of two parallel systems
comprising of independent gamma components, Statistics & Probabability Letters 83, 15671570.
Mitrinović, D.S., Pečariá, J.E., Fink, A.M. (1993). Classical and New Inequalities in Analysis,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Pettitt, A.N. (1984). Proportional odds models for survival data and estimates using ranks,
Applied Statistics 33(2), 169-175.
Pledger, P., Proschan, F. (1971). Comparisons of order statistics and of spacings from heterogeneous distributions, in: J.S. Rustagi (Ed.), Optimizing Methods in Statistics, Academic
Press, New York, 89-113.
Rezaei, M., Gholizadeh, B., Izadkhah, S. (2015). On relative reversed hazard rate order, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 44, 300-308.
Rossini, A.J., Tsiatis, A.A. (1996). A Semiparametric proportional odds regression model for
the analysis of current status data, Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434),
713-721.
Sengupta, D., Deshpande, J.V. (1994). Some results on the relative ageing of two life distributions, Journal of Applied Probability 31, 991-1003.
Shaked, M., Shanthikumar, J.G. (2007). Stochastic Orders, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Zhao, P., Balakrishnan, N. (2009). Mean residual life order of convolutions of heterogeneous
exponential random variables, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 100, 1792-1801.
Zhao, P., Balakrishnan, N. (2011). New results on comparisons of parallel systems with heterogeneous gamma components, Statistics & Probability Letters 81, 36-44.
Zhao, P., Balakrishnan, N. (2012). Stochastic comparison of largest order statistics from
multiple-outlier exponential models, Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences 26, 159-182.

23

