Study of Some Improved Ratio Type Estimators Under Second Order Approximation

Prayas Sharma, Rajesh Singh Department of Statistics, Banaras Hindu University Varanasi-221005, India

Florentin Smarandache University of New Mexico Gallup, USA

Study of Some Improved Ratio Type Estimators Under Second Order Approximation

Published in: Rajesh Singh, Florentin Smarandache (Editors) ON IMPROVEMENT IN ESTIMATING POPULATION PARAMETER(S) USING AUXILIARY INFORMATION Educational Publishing (Columbus) & Journal of Matter Regularity (Beijing), USA - China, 2013 ISBN: 978-1-59973-230-5 pp. 25 - 41

Abstract

Chakrabarty (1979), Khoshnevisan et al. (2007), Sahai and Ray (1980), Ismail et al. (2011) and Solanki et al. (2012) proposed estimators for estimating population mean Y .

Up to the first order of approximation and under optimum conditions, the minimum mean squared error (MSE) of all the above estimators is equal to the MSE of the regression estimator. In this paper, we have tried to found out the second order biases and mean square errors of these estimators using information on auxiliary variable based on simple random sampling.

Finally, we have compared the performance of these estimators with some

numerical illustration.

Keywords: Simple Random Sampling, population mean, study variable, auxiliary variable,

exponential ratio type estimator, exponential product estimator, Bias and MSE.

1.

Introduction

Let U= (U1 ,U2 , U3, ‌..,Ui, ‌.UN ) denotes a finite population of distinct and identifiable units. For estimating the population mean Y of a study variable Y, let us consider

X be the auxiliary variable that are correlated with study variable Y, taking the

corresponding values of the units. Let a sample of size n be drawn from this population using simple random sampling without replacement (SRSWOR) and yi , xi (i=1,2,‌..n ) are the values of the study variable and auxiliary variable respectively for the i-th unit of the sample.

25

In sampling theory the use of suitable auxiliary information results in considerable reduction in MSE of the ratio estimators. Many authors suggested estimators using some known population parameters of an auxiliary variable. Upadhyaya and Singh (1999), Singh and Tailor (2003), Kadilar and Cingi (2006), Khoshnevisan et al. (2007), Singh et al. (2007), Singh et al. (2008) and Singh and Kumar (2011) suggested estimators in simple random sampling. Most of the authors discussed the properties of estimators along with their first order bias and MSE. Hossain et al. (2006) studied some estimators in second order approximation. In this study we have studied properties of some estimators under second order of approximation.

2.

Some Estimators in Simple Random Sampling

For estimating the population mean Y of Y, Chakrabarty (1979) proposed ratio type estimator -

t 1 = (1 − α )y + αy

where y =

X x

(2.1)

1 n 1 n y and x =  i  xi. n i =1 n i =1

Khoshnevisan et al. (2007) ratio type estimator is given by

  X t 2 = y   β x + (1 − β )X 

g

(2.2)

where β and g are constants.

Sahai and Ray (1980) proposed an estimator t3 as

  x W  t 3 = y 2 −      X  

(2.3)

Ismail et al. (2011) proposed and estimator t4 for estimating the population mean Y of Y as

26

 x + a (X − x ) t 4 = y   x + b(X − x )

p

(2.4)

where p, a and b are constant.

Also, for estimating the population mean Y of Y, Solanki et al. (2012) proposed an estimator t5 as

  x  λ δ(x − X ) t 5 = y 2 −   exp  ( x + X )    X 

(2.5)

where λ and δ are constants, suitably chosen by minimizing mean square error of the estimator t 5 .

3. Notations used y−Y

Let us define, e 0 = Y

and e1 =

x−X , then E(e 0 ) = E(e1 ) =0.

X

For obtaining the bias and MSE the following lemmas will be used: Lemma 3.1 N−n 1

(i) V(e 0 ) = E{(e 0 ) 2 } = C 02 = L1C 02 N −1 n N−n 1

(ii) V(e1 ) = E{(e1 ) 2 } = C 20 = L1C 20 N −1 n (iii) COV(e 0 , e1 ) = E{(e 0 e1 )} =

N−n 1 C11 = L1C11 N −1 n

Lemma 3.2 (iv)

E{(e12 e 0 )} =

(v)

( N − n ) ( N − 2n ) 1 C 21 = L 2 C 21 ( N − 1) ( N − 2) n 2

( N − n ) ( N − 2n ) 1 E{(e13 )} = C 30 = L 2 C 30 ( N − 1) ( N − 2) n 2

Lemma 3.3

(vi)

E(e13 e 0 ) = L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11

(vii)

E{(e14 )} =

(viii)

E(e12 e 0 2 ) = L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20

Where

L3 =

( N − n ))( N 2 + N − 6nN + 6n 2 ) 1 C 30 = L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 2 ( N − 1)( N − 2)( N − 3) n3

( N − n ))( N 2 + N − 6nN + 6n 2 ) 1 ( N − 1)( N − 2)( N − 3) n3

27

, L4 =

N( N − n ))( N − n − 1)(n − 1) 1 ( N − 1)( N − 2)( N − 3) n 3

and Cpq =

(Xi - X) p (Yi - Y) q .

Xp Yq

Proof of these lemma’s are straight forward by using SRSWOR (see Sukhatme and Sukhatme (1970)).

4.

First Order Biases and Mean Squared Errors

The expression for the biases of the estimators t1, t2, t3 ,t4 and t5 are respectively given by 1  Bias( t 1 ) = Y  αL1C 20 − αL1 C11  2 

(4.1)

  g (g + 1) Bias( t 2 ) = Y  L1C 20 − gβ L1C11    2

(4.2)

 w (w − 1)  Bias( t 3 ) = Y − L1 C 20 − wL1 C11  2  

(4.3)

D(b − a )(p − 1)   Bias( t 4 ) = Y bDL1 C 20 − DL1 C11 + L1 C 20  2  

(4.4)

 K (K − 1)  Bias( t 5 ) = Y − L1 C 20 − KL1 C11  2  

(4.5)

and k =

where, D =p (b-a)

(δ + 2λ ) .

2

Expression for the MSE’s of the estimators t1, t2 t3 t4 and t5 are, respectively given by

[ ) = Y [L C ) = Y [L C

MSE ( t 1 ) = Y 2 L1C 02 + α 2 L1C 20 − 2αL1C11 MSE ( t 2 MSE( t 3

2

]

(4.6)

1

02

+ g 2 β 2 L1C 20 − 2gβL1C11

1

02

+ w 2 L1 C 20 − 2wL1 C11

2

]

]

MSE ( t 4 ) = Y 2 [L1C 02 + DL1C 20 − 2DL1C11 ]

[

MSE ( t 5 ) = Y 2 L1C 02 + k 2 L1C 20 − 2kL1C11

5.

]

Second Order Biases and Mean Squared Errors

Expressing estimator ti’s (i=1,2,3,4) in terms of e’s (i=0,1), we get

{

t 1 = Y (1 + e 0 ) (1 − α ) + α(1 + e1 )

−1

}

Or 28

(4.7) (4.8) (4.9) (4.10)

e α 2 α α α   2 3 t 1 − Y = Y e 0 + 1 + e1 − αe 0 e1 + αe 0 e1 − e 3 − e 0 e1 + e 4  2 2 6 6 24  

(5.1)

Taking expectations, we get the bias of the estimator t 1 up to the second order of approximation as α α α Bias 2 ( t 1 ) = Y  L1C 20 − αL1C11 − L 2 C 30 + αL 2 C 21 − (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 6 6 2 +

α 2  (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 24 

(5.2)

Similarly, we get the biases of the estimator’s t2, t3, t4 and t5 up to second order of approximation, respectively as g(g + 1) 2 g (g + 1)(g + 2) 3  g (g + 1) 2 Bias 2 ( t 2 ) = Y  β L 2 C 30 β L 1 C 20 − gβL 1 C 11 − β L 2 C 21 − 2 2 6 

−

g(g + 1)(g + 2) 3 β (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 6

+

g(g + 1)(g + 2)(g + 3) 4 2  β (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 24 

(5.3)

w ( w − 1) w ( w − 1)( w − 2)  w ( w − 1) Bias 2 ( t 3 ) = Y − L 1 C 20 − wL 1 C 11 − L 2 C 21 − L 2 C 30 2 2 6 

−

w ( w − 1)( w − 2) (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 6

−

w ( w − 1)( w − 2)( w − 3) 2  (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 24 

(5.4)

 ( D bD) (bD + D 1 ) (b 2 D + 2bD 1 + D 2 ) Bias 2 ( t 4 ) = Y  1 L 1 C 20 − DL 1 C 11 + L 2 C 21 − L 2 C 30  2

− (b 2 D + 2bD1 )(L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) +

(b 3 D + 3b 2 D1 + 3bD 2 + D 3 )

2  (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 

29

(5.5)

where,

D1 = D

(b − a )(p − 1) 2

D 2 = D1

(b − a )(p − 2) .

3

k ( k − 1)  k ( k − 1) Bias 2 ( t 5 ) = Y  − L 1 C 20 − kL 1 C 11 − L 2 C 21 − ML 2 C 30 − M (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C 11 ) 2 2  2

− N(L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 )

]

(5.6)

1  (δ 3 − 6δ 2 ) (α(δ 2 − 2δ ) λ(λ − 1) λ(λ − 1)(λ − 2)  Where, M=  + + δ+ , 2 24 4 2 3  k=

(δ + 2λ ) , 2

λ(λ − 1)(λ − 2)(λ − 3)  1  (δ 4 − 12δ 3 + 12δ 2 ) (α(δ 3 − 6δ ) λ(λ − 1) 2 + + N=  (δ − 2δ) + .

8 48 6 2 3 

The MSE’s of the estimators t1, t2, t3, t4 and t5 up to the second order of approximation are, respectively given by

[

MSE 2 ( t 1 ) = Y 2 L1C 02 + α 2 L1C 20 − 2αL1C11 − α 2 L 2 C 30 + (2α 2 + α)L 2 C 21 − 2α 2 (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 )

(

)

2 + α(α + 1) L 3 C 22 + 3L 4 (C 20 C 02 + C11 )+

5 2 2  α (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 24 

(5.7)

[

MSE 2 ( t 2 ) = Y 2 L1C 02 + g 2 β 2 L1C 20 − 2βgL1C11 − β 3 g 2 (g + 1)L 2 C 30 + g (3g + 1)β 2 L 2 C 21

 7 g 3 + 9g 2 + 2g  3 − 2β gL 2 C12 −  β (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 3  

(

2 + g(2g + 1)β 2 L 3 C 22 + 3L 4 (C 20 C 02 + C11 )

)

 2g 3 + 9g 2 + 10g + 3  4 2 + β (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20  6   

30

(5.8)

[

MSE 2 ( t 3 ) = Y 2 L1 C 02 + w 2 L1 C 20 − 2wL1 C11 − w 2 ( w − 1)L 2 C 30 + w ( w + 1)L 2 C 21 − 2wL 2 C12

 5 w 3 − 3w 2 − 2 w  + (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 3  

 7 w 4 − 18w 3 + 11w 2  2  2 + w L 3 C 22 + 3L 4 (C 20 C 02 + C11 )+ (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 24   

(

)

(5.9)

[

MSE 2 ( t 4 ) = Y 2 L 1 C 02 + D 2 L 1 C 20 − 2DL1C11 − 4DD1 L 2 C 30 + (2bD + 2D 1 + 2D 2 )L 2 C 21 − 2DL 2 C12

{ } + {D + 2D + 2bD}(L C + 3L (C C + {3b D + D + 2DD + 12bDD }(L C

+ 2D 2 + 2b 2 D + 2DD1 + 4bD1 + 4bD 2 (L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) 2

1

2

2

3

2 1

22

4

2

20

1

02

3

40

2 + C11 )

)

+ 3L 4 C 220 )

]

(5.10)

[

MSE 2 ( t 5 ) = Y 2 L 1 C 02 + k 2 L 1 C 20 − 2kL 1 C11 + kL 2 C 21 − 2kL 2 C12 + k 2 (k − 1)L 2 C 30

(

2 + 2k 2 (k − 1)(L 3 C 31 + 3L 4 C 20 C11 ) + k L 3 C 22 + 3L 4 (C 20 C 02 + C11 )

+

6.

(k 2 − k ) 2 2  (L 3 C 40 + 3L 4 C 20 ) 4 

) (5.11)

Numerical Illustration

For a natural population data, we have calculated the biases and the mean square error’s of the estimator’s and compare these biases and MSE’s of the estimator’s under first and second order of approximations.

Data Set The data for the empirical analysis are taken from 1981, Utter Pradesh District Census Handbook, Aligar. The population consist of 340 villages under koil police station, with Y=Number of agricultural labour in 1981 and X=Area of the villages (in acre) in 1981. The following values are obtained

31

Y = 73.76765, X = 2419.04, N = 340, n = 70, n ′ = 120, n=70, C02=0.7614, C11=0.2667, C03=2.6942, C12=0.0747, C12=0.1589, C30=0.7877, C13=0.1321, C31=0.8851, C04=17.4275 C22=0.8424, C40=1.3051

Table 6.1: Biases and MSE’s of the estimators

Estimator

Bias

MSE Second order

First order

Second order

0.004424

39.217225

39.45222

-0.00036

39.217225 (for g=1)

39.33552 (for g=1)

-0.04922

-0.04935

39.217225

39.29102

0.2809243

-0.60428

39.217225

39.44855

-0.027679

-0.04911

39.217225

39.27187

First order

t1 0.0044915

t2 0

t3

t4

t5

In the Table 6.1 the biases and MSE’s of the estimators t1, t2, t3, t4 and t5 are written under first order and second order of approximations. For all the estimators t1, t2, t3, t4 and t5, it was observed that the value of the biases decreased and the value of the MSE’s increased for second order approximation. MSE’s of the estimators up to the first order of approximation under optimum conditions are same. From Table 6.1 we observe that under

32

second order of approximation the estimator t5 is best followed by t3,and t2 among the estimators considered here for the given data set.

7.

Estimators under stratified random sampling In survey sampling, it is well established that the use of auxiliary information results in

substantial gain in efficiency over the estimators which do not use such information.

However, in planning surveys, the stratified sampling has often proved needful in improving the precision of estimates over simple random sampling. Assume that the population U consist of L strata as U=U1, U2,…,UL . Here the size of the stratum Uh is Nh, and the size of simple random sample in stratum Uh is nh, where h=1, 2,---,L. The Chakrabarty(1979) ratio- type estimator under stratified random sampling is given by

t 1′ = (1 − α )y st + αy st

X x st

(7.1)

where,

yh =

1 nh  y hi , n h i =1 L

y st =  w h y h , h =1

xh =

1 nh

nh

x

hi

,

i =1

L

x st =  w h x h , and h =1

L

X =  w h Xh. h =1

Khoshnevisan et al. (2007) ratio- type estimator under stratified random sampling is given by

  X t ′2 = y st    β x st + (1 − β )X 

g

(7.2)

where g is a constant, for g=1 , t ′2 is same as conventional ratio estimator whereas for g = 1, it becomes conventional product type estimator.

Sahai and Ray (1980) estimator t3 under stratified random sampling is given by

  x st  W  ′ t 3 = y st 2 −      X  

(7.3)

Ismail et al. (2011) estimator under stratified random sampling t ′4 is given by 33

 x + a (X − x st ) t ′4 = y st    x + b(X − x st )

p

(7.4)

Solanki et al. (2012) estimator under stratified random sampling is given as   x  λ δ(x st − X ) t ′5 = y st 2 −  st  exp  X  ( x st + X )    

(7.5)

where λ and δ are the constants, suitably chosen by minimizing MSE of the estimator t ′5 .

8. Notations used under stratified random sampling Let us define, e 0 =

y st − y x −x and e1 = st , then E(e 0 ) = E(e1 ) =0. y x

To obtain the bias and MSE of the proposed estimators, we use the following notations in the rest of the article:

such that, and

[

L

Vrs =  Whr +s E (x h − X h ) (y h − Yh ) h =1

r

s

]

Also L

E (e 02 ) =

w

E (e ) =

γ h S 2yh

h =1

Y2 L

2 1

2 h

w

2 h

= V20

γ h S 2xyh

h =1

X2

= V02

34

L

w

2 h

γ h S 2xyh

h =1

E (e 0 e1 ) =

= V11

XY

Where 2

Nh

S

2 yh

=

γh =

 (y

h

2

Nh

− Yh )

i =1

,

Nh −1

S

1− fh , nh

2 xh

=

fh =

 (x

h

Nh

− Xh )

i =1

S xyh =

,

Nh −1 nh , Nh

wh =

 (x i =1

h−

X h )( y h − Yh ) Nh −1

Nh . nh

Some additional notations for second order approximation, L

Vrs =  Whr +s h =1

[

1 s r E (y h − Yh ) (x h − X h ) s Y X r

]

Where, C rs ( h ) =

1 Nh

L

 [(y Nh

i =1

V12 =  Wh3

L

h =1

L

V04 =  W

4 h

h =1 L

V22 =  Wh4 h =1

r

k 1( h ) C12( h ) YX

h =1

V03 =  Wh3

− Yh ) (x h − X h ) s

h

L

V21 =  Wh3

2

h =1

k 1( h ) C 03( h ) X

] k 1( h ) C 21( h ) 2

Y X

L

V13 =  Wh4

3

h =1

2 k 2 ( h ) C 04 ( h ) + 3k 3( h ) C 02 (h)

X4

(

2 k 2( h ) C 22( h ) + k 3( h ) C 01( h ) C 02 ( h ) + 2C11 (h) 2

Y X

2

Where 35

)

L

V30 =  Wh3 h =1

k 1( h ) C 30( h ) Y3

k 2 ( h ) C13( h ) + 3k 3( h ) C 01( h ) C 02 ( h ) YX 3

k 1( h ) =

( N h − n h )( N h − 2n h ) n 2 ( N h − 1)( N h − 2)

k 2( h ) =

( N h − n h )( N h + 1) N h − 6n h ( N h − n h ) n 3 ( N h − 1)( N h − 2)( N h − 3)

k 3( h ) =

( N h − n h ) N h ( N h − n h − 1)(n h − 1) n 3 ( N h − 1)( N h − 2)( N h − 3)

9. First Order Biases and Mean Squared Errors

The biases of the estimators t 1′ , t ′2 , t ′3 , t ′4 and t ′5 are respectively given by

1  Bias( t 1′ ) = Y  αL1 V02 − αV11  2 

(9.1)

 g (g + 1) 2  Bias( t ′2 ) = Y  β V02 − gβV11   2 

(9.2)

  w (w − 1) Bias( t ′3 ) = Y − V02 − wV11  2  

(9.3)

D(b − a )(p − 1)   Bias( t ′4 ) = Y bDV02 − DV11 + V02  2  

(9.4)

  K (K − 1) Bias( t ′5 ) = Y − V02 − KV11  2  

(9.5)

Where, D =p(b-a)

and k =

(δ + 2λ ) .

2

The MSE’s of the estimators t 1′ , t ′2 , t ′3 , t ′4 and t ′5 are respectively given by

[ MSE ( t ′ ) = Y [V MSE ( t ′ ) = Y [V

MSE ( t 1′ ) = Y 2 V20 + α 2 V02 − 2αV11 2

2

(9.6)

20

+ g 2 β 2 V02 − 2gβ V11

20

+ w 2 V02 − 2 wV11

2

3

]

]

]

(9.8)

MSE ( t ′4 ) = Y 2 [V20 + DV02 − 2DV11 ]

[

MSE ( t ′5 ) = Y 2 V20 + k 2 V02 − 2kV11

(9.7)

(9.9)

]

(9.10)

36

10. Second Order Biases and Mean Squared Errors

Expressing estimator ti’s (i=1,2,3,4) in terms of e’s (i=0,1), we get

{

t 1′ = Y (1 + e 0 ) (1 − α ) + α(1 + e1 )

−1

}

Or e α 2 α α α   2 3 t 1′ − Y = Y e 0 + 1 + e1 − αe 0 e1 + αe 0 e1 − e 3 − e 0 e1 + e 4  2 2 6 6 24  

(10.1)

Taking expectations, we get the bias of the estimator t 1′ up to the second order of approximation as α α α α  Bias 2 ( t 1′ ) = Y  V02 − αV11 − V03 + αV12 − V13 + V04  6 6 24  2

(10.2)

Similarly we get the Biases of the estimator’s t ′2 , t ′3 , t ′4 and t ′5 up to second order of approximation, respectively as g(g + 1) 2 g(g + 1)(g + 2) 3  g (g + 1) 2 Bias 2 ( t ′2 ) = Y  β V02 − gβV11 − β V12 − β V30 2 6  2

−

g (g + 1)(g + 2) 3 g (g + 1)(g + 2)(g + 3) 4  β V31 + β V04  6 24 

(10.3)

w ( w − 1) w ( w − 1)( w − 2)  w ( w − 1) Bias 2 ( t ′3 ) = Y − V02 − wV11 − V12 − V03 2 2 6 

−

w ( w − 1)( w − 2) w ( w − 1)( w − 2)( w − 3)  V31 − V04  6 24 

(10.4)

 (D bD) Bias 2 ( t ′4 ) = Y  1 V02 − DV11 + (bD + D 1 )V12 − (b 2 D + 2bD 1 + D 2 )V03  2

− (b 2 D + 2bD1 )V31 + (b 3 D + 3b 2 D1 + 3bD 2 + D 3 )V04

Where,

D =p(b-a)

D1 = D

(b − a )(p − 1) 2

] D 2 = D1

  k ( k − 1)  k ( k − 1) Bias 2 ( t ′5 ) = Y   − V02 − kV11 − V12 − MV03 − MV31 − NV04  2 2  

37

(10.5)

(b − a )(p − 2) 3

(10.6)

(δ + 2λ ) 1  (δ 3 − 6δ 2 ) (α(δ 2 − 2δ ) λ (λ − 1) λ (λ − 1)(λ − 2)  Where, M=  + + δ+ , k = 2 2 24 4 2 3 

(

) (

)

α(δ 3 − 6δ λ(λ − 1) 2 λ(λ − 1)(λ − 2)(λ − 3)  1  δ 4 − 12δ 3 + 12δ 2 N=  + + (δ − 2δ) +  3 8 48 6 2 

Following are the MSE of the estimators t 1′ , t ′2 , t ′3 , t ′4 and t ′5 up to second order of approximation

[

MSE 2 ( t 1′ ) = Y 2 V20 + α 2 V02 − 2αV11 − α 2 V03 + (2α 2 + α)V12 − 2α 2 V31 + α(α + 1)V22 +

5 2  α V04  24 

(10.7)

[

MSE 2 ( t ′2 ) = Y 2 V20 + g 2 β 2 V02 − 2β gV11 − β 3 g 2 (g + 1)V03 + g(3g + 1)β 2 V12

 7 g 3 + 9g 2 + 2 g  3 2 − 2β gV21 −  β V31 + g (2g + 1)β V22 3  

  2g 3 + 9g 2 + 10g + 3  4 + β V04  6   

(10.8)

[

MSE 2 ( t ′3 ) = Y 2 V20 + w 2 V02 − 2wV11 − w 2 ( w − 1)V03 + w ( w + 1)V12 − 2wV21

 5w 3 − 3w 2 − 2 w   7 w 4 − 18w 3 + 11w 2   + V31 + wV22 +  V04  3 24     

(10.9)

[

MSE 2 ( t ′4 ) = Y 2 V20 + D 2 V02 − 2DV11 − 4DD1 V03 + (2bD + 2D1 + 2D 2 )V12 − 2DV21

{ + {3b D

} + 12bDD }V ]

{

}

+ 2D 2 + 2b 2 D + 2DD1 + 4bD1 + 4bD 2 V31 + D 2 + 2D1 + 2bD V22 2

2

+ D12 + 2DD 2

1

04

(10.10)

[

MSE 2 ( t ′5 ) = Y 2 V20 + k 2 V02 − 2kV11 + kV12 − 2kV21 + k 2 (k − 1)V03

+ 2k 2 (k − 1)V31 + kV22 +

 (k 2 − k ) 2 V04  4 

38

(10.11)

11. Numerical Illustration

For the natural population data, we shall calculate the bias and the mean square error of the estimator and compare Bias and MSE for the first and second order of approximation.

Data Set-1

To illustrate the performance of above estimators, we have considered the natural Data given in Singh and Chaudhary (1986, p.162).

The data were collected in a pilot survey for estimating the extent of cultivation and production of fresh fruits in three districts of Uttar- Pradesh in the year 1976-1977.

Table 11.1: Biases and MSE’s of the estimators

Estimator

MSE

Bias First order

Second order

First order

second order

-10.82707903

-13.65734654

1299.110219

1372.906438

t ′2

-10.82707903

6.543275811

1299.110219

1367.548263

t ′3

-27.05776113

-27.0653128

1299.110219

1417.2785

t ′4

11.69553975

-41.84516913

1299.110219

2605.736045

-22.38574093

-14.95110301

1299.110219

2440.644397

t 1′

t ′5

39

From Table 11.1 we observe that the MSE’s of the estimators t 1′ , t ′2 , t ′3 , t ′4 and t ′5 are same up to the first order of approximation but the biases are different. The MSE of the estimator t ′2 is minimum under second order of approximation followed by the estimator t 1′ and other estimators.

Conclusion

In this study we have considered some estimators whose MSE’s are same up to the first order of approximation. We have extended the study to second order of approximation to search for best estimator in the sense of minimum variance. The properties of the estimators are studied under SRSWOR and stratified random sampling. We have observed from Table 6.1 and Table 11.1 that the behavior of the estimators changes dramatically when we consider the terms up to second order of approximation.

REFERENCES

Bahl, S. and Tuteja, R.K. (1991) : Ratio and product type exponential estimator. Information and Optimization Science XIII 159-163.

Chakrabarty, R.P. (1979) : Some ratio estimators, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics 31(1), 49–57.

Hossain, M.I., Rahman, M.I. and Tareq, M. (2006) : Second order biases and mean squared errors of some estimators using auxiliary variable. SSRN. Ismail, M., Shahbaz, M.Q. and Hanif, M. (2011) : A general class of estimator of population mean in presence of non–response. Pak. J. Statist. 27(4), 467-476.

Khoshnevisan, M., Singh, R., Chauhan, P., Sawan, N., and Smarandache, F. (2007). A general family of estimators for estimating population mean using known value of some population parameter(s), Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics 22 181–191.

Ray, S.K. and Sahai, A (1980) : Efficient families of ratio and product type estimators, Biometrika 67(1) , 211–215.

Singh, D. and Chudhary, F.S. (1986): Theory and analysis of sample survey designs. Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi.

40

Singh, H.P. and Tailor, R. (2003). Use of known correlation coefficient in estimating the finite population mean. Statistics in Transition 6, 555-560.

Singh, R., Cauhan, P., Sawan, N., and Smarandache, F. (2007): Auxiliary Information and A

Priori Values in Construction of Improved Estimators. Renaissance High Press.

Singh, R., Chauhan, P. and Sawan, N. (2008): On linear combination of Ratio-product type exponential estimator for estimating finite population mean. Statistics in Transition,9(1),105-115.

Singh, R., Kumar, M. and Smarandache, F. (2008): Almost Unbiased Estimator for Estimating Population Mean Using Known Value of Some Population Parameter(s).

Pak. J. Stat. Oper. Res., 4(2) pp63-76.

Singh, R. and Kumar, M. (2011): A note on transformations on auxiliary variable in survey sampling. MASA, 6:1, 17-19.

Solanki, R.S., Singh, H. P. and Rathour, A. (2012) : An alternative estimator for estimating the

finite population mean using auxiliary information in sample surveys. ISRN Probability and Statistics doi:10.5402/2012/657682 Srivastava, S.K. (1967) : An estimator using auxiliary information in sample surveys. Cal. Stat. Ass. Bull. 15:127-134.

Sukhatme, P.V. and Sukhatme, B.V. (1970): Sampling theory of surveys with applications.

Iowa State University Press, Ames, U.S.A. Upadhyaya, L. N. and Singh, H. P. (199): Use of transformed auxiliary variable in estimating the finite population mean. Biom. Jour., 41, 627-636.

41