Abstract
This paper presents the exponentiated alpha-power log-logistic (EAPLL) distribution, which extends the log-logistic distribution. The EAPLL distribution emphasizes its suitability for survival data modeling by providing analytical simplicity and accommodating both monotone and non-monotone failure rates. We derive some of its mathematical properties and test eight estimation methods using an extensive simulation study. To determine the best estimation approach, we rank mean estimates, mean square errors, and average absolute biases on a partial and overall ranking. Furthermore, we use the EAPLL distribution to examine three real-life survival data sets, demonstrating its superior performance over competing log-logistic distributions. This study adds vital insights to survival analysis methodology and provides a solid framework for modeling various survival data scenarios.
Keywords: Log-logistic distribution, Alpha-power family, Survival data, Maximum likelihood estimation, Order statistics
Subject terms: Engineering, Mathematics and computing
Introduction
In recent years, the most commonly used probability distributions in modeling lifetime data are the Weibull, log-normal, log-logistic (LL), and gamma distributions. The popularity of these distributions in a wide range of applications has been motivated by the nature of their HR functions, which range from monotone to non-monotone shapes1–3. Specifically, the LL and log-normal families are popular for modeling non-monotone (unimodal or bathtub) HR functions, whereas the Weibull family is popular for modeling monotone (increasing, decreasing or constant) HR functions4.
The availability of survival data with diverse characteristics has spurred the development of new flexible models to accommodate both monotone and non-monotone HR functions2. These models extend classical distributions to provide greater flexibility for modeling real-world survival data across various fields. For example, the multivariate skew-normal distribution was introduced by Azzalini and Valle5 by incorporating a shape parameter, while the beta-generated method by6 offers a broader scope for fitting symmetric and skewed distributions with varying tail weights7. To address limitations of existing families, Cordeiro and de Castro8 introduced the Kumaraswamy-G class, while other notable families like the exponentiated family9, transformed-transformer family10, exponentiated Weibull-H family11, and alpha-power transformation (APT) method12 have also been proposed. The LL distribution has emerged as a compelling alternative to the Weibull and log-normal distributions for modeling survival data due to its non-monotone hazard function13. This characteristic enhances its effectiveness in modeling complex survival data such as cancer data14. The LL distribution offers several advantages over other distributions, including a closed-form cumulative distribution function (CDF) that facilitates modeling censored time-to-event data and the ability to analyze skewed data, while its density and HR functions resemble those of the log-normal distribution. The LL distribution features heavier tails, with inference often focused on tail properties. Moreover, the LL distribution can exhibit both non-monotone and monotone-decreasing hazard functions based on its shape parameter, making it versatile for various applications in engineering, economics, survival analysis, actuarial science, and social sciences. Recent applications include modeling melanoma and AIDS data15, minification processes16, breast cancer data analysis17, and examining censored survival data18,19. Additionally, the LL distribution has been used for modeling positive real-world uncensored data20, analyzing right-censored data, and breaking stress data21, among other applications.
In this regard, many researchers have embarked on extending the LL distribution to provide more flexible LL extensions, which can simultaneously accommodate different HR shapes encountered in many applied fields13. These extensions are motivated by the availability of lifetime data that exhibit varied characteristics. Some extensions of the LL distribution are presented in the literature including the exponentiated LL distribution22,23, Marshall–Olkin LL distribution16,19,24, gamma LL distribution25, beta LL distribution18, alpha-power LL distribution21, transmuted four parameters generalized LL distribution26, logistic LL Cauchy distribution27, and Weibull LL exponential distribution28.
This article proposes a new modification of the LL distribution, which is capable of modeling real-life data characterized by both monotone and non-monotone HR shapes. The new proposed model is constructed using the exponentiated alpha-power-G (EAP-G) family, which was introduced and studied by Mead et al.29 and Kariuki et al.30. The main goal of this paper is to provide a useful toolkit for the scope of the LL distribution and its application in modeling lifetime data. The proposed model is called the exponentiated alpha-power log-logistic (EAPLL) distribution. The EAPLL distribution offers a highly flexible model for survival analysis, capable of capturing a wide variety of hazard function shapes, increasing, decreasing, reversed-J, shaped, J-shaped, modified bathtub, increasing-decreasing-increasing, bathtub, decreasing-increasing-decreasing, and inverted bathtub. This adaptability makes it particularly valuable for accurately modeling complex time-to-event data found in fields such as medical research and reliability engineering, where traditional distributions may fall short. This paper aims to explore the properties and applications of the EAPLL distribution.
There are two main motivations for the proposed model. First, the continuous growth of data-driven decision-making and the escalating complexity of real-world problems within probability theory. These factors underscore the pivotal role played by advanced probability distributions. As data volume and diversity expand across various disciplines, the necessity for flexible distributions and innovative statistical approaches becomes increasingly paramount. Secondly, determining the best estimation approach for the parameters of the EAPLL distribution is crucial to engineers and statisticians. The study shows how different classical estimators of the parameters perform for various sample sizes and parameter combinations. Additionally, existing LL distributions often lack the flexibility needed to accurately model real-life data. The proposed EAPLL distribution addresses these limitations by offering a more flexible modeling capability. Its simple analytical form enables it to effectively capture a wider range of data behaviors, making it a valuable tool for statistical modeling and analysis in fields such as engineering and medical research.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The proposed distribution is given in “The EAPLL distribution ” and its properties are derived in “Mathematical properties”. “Parameter estimation” gives eight different estimation methods for the parameters of the EAPLL distribution. An extensive Monte Carlo simulation study is given in “Monte Carlo simulations”. In “Applications to survival data”, the proposed model is applied to three real data to assess its suitability and adaptability. Some concluding remarks are given in “Conclusions”.
The EAPLL distribution
In this section, we employed the EAP-G method and the baseline LL distribution to construct the EAPLL distribution. The four-parameter EAPLL distribution denoted as EAPLL, has three positive shape parameters , and and a positive scale parameter .
The CDF of the EAP-G family takes the form
1 |
The PDF of the EAP-G family is reduced to
2 |
where is a vector of parameters of the baseline distribution.
A random variable X is said to have the EAPLL model, EAPLL, where is a vector of parameters, if its PDF is given by
3 |
Figure 1 indicates that the PDF of the EAPLL distribution can take on different shapes including symmetric, asymmetric (both left-skewed and right-skewed), unimodal, J-shaped, reversed-J, shapes. The different shapes allow the EAPLL distribution to be more versatile in the modeling of different types of data sets. The corresponding CDF of the EAPLL model is
4 |
The HRF of the EAPLL model is reduced to
5 |
Figure 2 shows that the HRF of the EAPLL distribution can be increasing, decreasing, reversed-J shaped, J-shaped, modified bathtub, increasing-decreasing-increasing, bathtub, and inverted bathtub. This indicates an improved flexibility of the distribution in modeling data. Different hazard shapes may also increase the precision of inferences made by utilizing the distribution and improve the robustness of the results through the ability to capture different patterns exhibited by real-life data.
Figure 1.
The shapes of the EAPLL PDF for different parameter combinations.
Figure 2.
The shapes of the EAPLL HRF for different parameter combinations.
Mathematical properties
In this section, we derived various properties of the EAPLL distribution, which include its linear representation, quantile function (QF), moments, and order statistics.
Useful expansion
In this section, the EAPLL density can be expressed as a linear mixture of exponentiated LL (ELL) densities.
Using the binomial expansion, we can write
6 |
The EAPLL PDF can be expressed as
7 |
Using power series for the last term of Eq. (7), we obtain
8 |
Therefore Eq. (7) becomes
9 |
Hence, the EAPLL density is reduced to
10 |
where
11 |
and is the ELL density function with power parameter . Equation (11) indicates that the EAPLL PDF is a linear combination of the ELL distribution and hence, some of its properties can be derived from those of the ELL distribution.
Quantile function
By utilizing the inverse transformation method, the QF can be obtained by inverting the CDF of the EAPLL distribution.
The QF of the EAPLL distribution follows as
12 |
The QF is useful in the simulation of random variables from the EAPLL distribution and in getting quartiles, skewness, and kurtosis. Table 1 gives numerical values of the EAPLL QF for some parameter combinations.
Table 1.
Some values of the EAPLL QF for different parameter combinations .
p | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1.2,10,1.9,0.05) | 0.008 | 0.016 | 0.026 | 0.037 | 0.050 | 0.066 | 0.087 | 0.116 | 0.165 |
(0.1,1.2,1.1,1.05) | 0.483 | 1.023 | 1.636 | 2.343 | 3.179 | 4.202 | 5.522 | 7.381 | 10.560 |
(0.5,7,0.5,1.1) | 0.028 | 0.060 | 0.096 | 0.137 | 0.186 | 0.245 | 0.323 | 0.431 | 0.617 |
(0.1,1.3,1.05,1.1) | 0.494 | 1.046 | 1.671 | 2.394 | 3.248 | 4.294 | 5.642 | 7.542 | 10.790 |
(1.3,7,1.1,2.1) | 0.010 | 0.020 | 0.032 | 0.046 | 0.063 | 0.083 | 0.109 | 0.146 | 0.209 |
(1.2,10,1.9,1.05) | 0.390 | 0.189 | 0.109 | 0.066 | 0.041 | 0.024 | 0.013 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
(0.5,1,5,1.1) | 5460.352 | 396.053 | 81.188 | 24.685 | 9.015 | 3.549 | 1.385 | 0.479 | 0.111 |
(1,10,1.1,1.05) | 0.084 | 0.039 | 0.021 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
(0.1,1,1.01,1.1) | 0.505 | 0.061 | 0.009 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
(1.1,1,2.01,1.1) | 2444.340 | 221.640 | 51.128 | 16.751 | 6.439 | 2.629 | 1.052 | 0.370 | 0.086 |
(2.1,2,1.01,1.1) | 36.384 | 9.371 | 3.775 | 1.785 | 0.897 | 0.452 | 0.215 | 0.088 | 0.024 |
(2,1,1.01,1.1) | 1440.694 | 150.545 | 37.391 | 12.831 | 5.089 | 2.124 | 0.863 | 0.306 | 0.071 |
The Galton’s skewness and Moors’ kurtosis are preferred as they are less sensitive to outliers. They are also known to exist even if distributions have no moments.
Galton’s skewness (also called Bowley’s skewness) is given as
13 |
The Moors’ kurtosis31 is given as
14 |
Figure 3 illustrates the variation of Moors’ kurtosis for different values of the parameter , where the additional shape parameter influences the kurtosis of the EAPLL distribution. Moreover, Fig. 4 shows the plots of Bowley’s skewness. It indicates that the skewness of the EAPLL distribution is affected by the extra shape parameter. It is noted that the increasing of for fixed values of and , increases both the values of skewness and kurtosis indicating asymmetry and heavy tails in the distribution.
Figure 3.
Plots of Moors’ kurtosis for the EAPLL distribution with fixed values of , , and .
Figure 4.
Plots of Galton skewness for the EAPLL distribution with fixed values of , , and .
Moments
The rth raw moment of the EAPLL distribution is defined as
15 |
Let and substituting into Eq. (15), we obtain
16 |
Hence, for the EAPLL model can be written, in terms of beta function, as
17 |
where is defined in Eq. (11).
Table 2 presents a summary of moments of the EAPLL distribution for various combinations of , , , and . The moments listed in the table include the first five raw moments, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), coefficient of skewness (CS), and coefficient of kurtosis (CK). These moments aid in the understanding and characterization of the EAPLL distribution under various scenarios. Across the various combinations of , , , and , we observe notable differences in the moments. For instance, by adjusting the parameter values, we observe a corresponding change in the SD indicating a change in variability in the distribution. Additionally, for various parameter combinations, we observe asymmetry in the EAPLL distribution.
Table 2.
A summary of moments of the EAPLL distribution for different parameter combinations .
SD | CV | CS | CK | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.98 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.57 | 0.0723 | 0.0481 | 0.0360 | 0.0288 | 0.0239 | 0.2071 | 2.8648 | 2.9628 | 10.7386 |
1 | 0.6 | 4.75 | 0.2054 | 0.1280 | 0.0927 | 0.0726 | 0.0596 | 0.2928 | 1.4254 | 1.2410 | 3.1952 | |
1 | 1 | 0.57 | 0.0714 | 0.0481 | 0.0362 | 0.0290 | 0.0242 | 0.2073 | 2.9037 | 2.9873 | 10.8569 | |
3 | 0.6 | 0.57 | 0.5220 | 0.3245 | 0.2341 | 0.1827 | 0.1497 | 0.2283 | 0.4373 | 0.8645 | 0.6740 | |
3 | 0.6 | 4.75 | 0.0669 | 0.0419 | 0.0304 | 0.0237 | 0.0195 | 0.1935 | 2.8942 | 3.1116 | 11.9081 | |
1.1 | 1 | 0.95 | 4.25 | 0.4592 | 0.3116 | 0.2354 | 0.1891 | 0.1580 | 0.3173 | 0.6910 | −0.0034 | 1.7216 |
1 | 0.99 | 4.75 | 0.4849 | 0.3316 | 0.2516 | 0.2026 | 0.1695 | 0.3105 | 0.6404 | −0.0906 | 1.7775 | |
1 | 0.95 | 4.75 | 0.5108 | 0.3468 | 0.2622 | 0.2107 | 0.1760 | 0.2931 | 0.5739 | −0.1089 | 1.8529 | |
1 | 1 | 4.72 | 0.4750 | 0.3253 | 0.2470 | 0.1990 | 0.1666 | 0.3157 | 0.6647 | −0.0689 | 1.7438 | |
1 | 1 | 4 | 0.4775 | 0.3270 | 0.2484 | 0.2001 | 0.1675 | 0.3147 | 0.6590 | −0.0761 | 1.7514 | |
1.8 | 7 | 0.6 | 2.75 | 0.0728 | 0.0394 | 0.0264 | 0.0197 | 0.0157 | 0.1847 | 2.5370 | 2.9507 | 11.3585 |
7 | 0.6 | 0.57 | 0.0108 | 0.0056 | 0.0036 | 0.0027 | 0.0021 | 0.0738 | 6.8454 | 8.6215 | 85.3383 | |
7 | 1 | 2.75 | 0.2558 | 0.1710 | 0.1280 | 0.1021 | 0.0848 | 0.3250 | 1.2703 | 0.8793 | 2.2813 | |
7 | 1 | 0.57 | 0.0188 | 0.0105 | 0.0071 | 0.0054 | 0.0043 | 0.1007 | 5.3600 | 6.4319 | 47.3815 |
Order statistics
Consider the order statistics of a random sample from the EAPLL distribution, denoted by
. The PDF of the ith order statistic is given as
18 |
By utilizing the generalized binomial expansion and the power series, we get
19 |
Hence, we can write
20 |
Combining the last equation with Eq. (18), we obtain
21 |
where
22 |
and . and denotes the ELL density with power parameter . Consequently, the PDF of the EAPLL order statistics can be expressed as a linear combination of the ELL densities. Based on Eq. (21), some structural characteristics of can be obtained from those ELL properties.
Parameter estimation
The existing extensions of the LL distribution in the literature rely on a single estimation method. This might fall short of enhancing parameter estimation accuracy. Consequently, in this section, we explore eight different classical estimation methods to estimate the EAPLL parameters called the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs), maximum product of spacing estimators (MPSEs), ordinary least-squares estimators (OLSEs), weighted least-squares estimators (WLSEs), Anderson–Darling estimators (ADEs), Cramér–von Mises estimators (CVMEs), percentiles estimators (PCEs), and right-tail ADEs (RADEs). To improve the clarity of the estimation methods, we have included a more detailed context for each equation, explaining how they are derived. This enhancement aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the estimation techniques, making the section more informative and accessible to readers.
Maximum likelihood
In this subsection, the maximum likelihood (ML) approach is employed to estimate the EAPLL parameters. Hence, the log-likelihood function reduces to
23 |
where
The score functions are derived by taking the first partial derivatives of the log-likelihood function with respect to and as indicated below.
24 |
25 |
26 |
and
27 |
The MLEs of the EAPLL parameters are obtained by equating the score functions to zero and solving the resulting system of equations. Since the score functions do not exist in closed form, numerical methods may be applied to solve them. This study has utilized the algorithm of the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno (BFGS) method for solving this non-linear system of equations.
Maximum product of spacing
The maximum product of spacing (MPS) method is used to estimate the parameters of continuous univariate models as an alternative to the ML method. The uniform spacings of a random sample of size n from the EAPLL distribution are defined by
28 |
where , and .
Consider the order statistics of a random sample from the EAPLL distribution, denoted by . Then, the MPSEs of the EAPLL parameters are obtained by maximizing the following function
29 |
with respect to the parameters , , and . Additionally, the MPSEs of the EAPLL parameters can be obtained by solving the following equations
30 |
where
31 |
32 |
33 |
and
34 |
where
Ordinary and weighted least-squares
The OLSEs of the unknown parameters of the EAPLL distribution are obtained by minimizing the following function
35 |
Substituting the EAPLL CDF into the above equation yields
36 |
Furthermore, the OLSEs of the EAPLL parameters can be obtained by solving the following system of non-linear equations (for )
37 |
where are defined in Eqs. (31)–(34) for .
The WLSEs of the EAPLL parameters can be calculated by minimizing the following function
38 |
Furthermore, the WLSEs of the EAPLL parameters can also be obtained by solving the following system of non-linear equations (for r=1,2,3,4,)
39 |
Anderson–Darling and right-tail Anderson–Darling
The Anderson–Darling (AD) method is used to estimate the parameters of any distribution based on observed data. Specifically, it measures the discrepancy between the observed data and the hypothesized distribution. It takes into account both the proximity of the data points to the theoretical distribution and the importance of the tails of the distribution. The ADEs belong to the category of minimum distance estimators.
To obtain the ADEs of the EAPLL parameters, one can minimize the following equation with respect to and :
40 |
Correspondingly, the ADEs for the EAPLL parameters are also obtained by solving the following system of non-linear equations (for )
41 |
The RADEs of the EAPLL parameters are obtained by minimizing the function
42 |
The RADEs are also determined by solving the system of non-linear equations (for r=1,2,3,4)
43 |
Cramér–von Mises and percentiles
The CVMEs belong to the minimum distance estimators and they exhibit less bias as compared to other estimators of the same type. These estimators can be derived by computing the difference between the estimated CDF and the empirical CDF. To obtain the CVMEs of the EAPLL parameters, one can minimize the following equation with respect to and :
44 |
Likewise, the CVMEs can also be determined by solving the following system of non-linear equations
(for )
45 |
where are defined in Eqs. (31)–(34) for .
Consider an unbiased estimator of . Then, the PCEs of the EAPLL parameters are obtained by minimizing the function
46 |
with respect to the parameters and .
Monte Carlo simulations
In this section, an extensive simulation study is conducted to explore the performance of different estimators of the EAPLL distribution parameters. Using the QF (12), we generate random samples of sizes from the EAPLL distribution. The simulations are replicated times for each sample size and the corresponding results are obtained for different parameter combinations, where and . The choice of initial parameter values in the simulation study was guided by the desire to capture and imitate real-world scenarios, with a focus on individual variations and the use of real-world data. This approach was taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the results, as well as to facilitate reproducibility and the use of pseudo-random number generators in the simulation process.
The numerical results are obtained using nlminb() function in R software. Furthermore, the average values of the estimates (AEs), absolute average bias (ABs), and mean square errors (MSEs) of the estimates are determined and presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Table 3.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
AEs | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
300 | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 4.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 5.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
0. | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 6.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
300 | ABs | |||||||||
AEs | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 7.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 8.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | ||||||||||
AEs | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | ||||||||||
AEs | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 9.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
0 | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
Table 10.
Simulation results of eight different estimators for .
n | Measures | Parameters | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
50 | AEs | |||||||||
0 | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
100 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
300 | AEs | |||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
500 | AEs | |||||||||
0 | ||||||||||
MSEs | ||||||||||
ABs | ||||||||||
To provide a valuable guideline in choosing the optimal estimation method for the EAPLL parameters, we calculate both partial and overall ranks for different parameter combinations across all considered estimation methods. The partial and overall ranks of various estimators for all parameter combinations are presented in Table 11.
Table 11.
Rankings of various estimators across all possible parameter combinations.
n | MLEs | MPSEs | OLSEs | WLSEs | ADEs | CVMEs | PCEs | RADEs | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 3.5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3.5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | |
50 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6.5 | 5 | 6.5 | 8 | |
100 | 3.5 | 1 | 2 | 3.5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | |
300 | 3 | 1 | 7.5 | 2 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 4 | 7.5 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
20 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | |
50 | 3.5 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 3.5 | 8 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 8 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | |
500 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | |
20 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | |
50 | 2.5 | 1 | 4 | 2.5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
100 | 3 | 1 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 6 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 2 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 8 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | |
20 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3.5 | 7 | 3.5 | 8 | |
50 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 8 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 5.5 | 4 | 5.5 | 3 | 7 | 8 | |
20 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5.5 | 3 | 5.5 | 7 | 8 | |
50 | 3.5 | 1 | 2 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 8 | 7 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 4.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 7 | 8 | |
500 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 8 | |
20 | 3.5 | 1 | 3.5 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
50 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 4.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | |
20 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | |
50 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 7 | 8 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 5.5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5.5 | 8 | |
20 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 2 | 8 | |
50 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | |
100 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 8 | |
300 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 8 | |
500 | 2 | 1 | 6.5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6.5 | 8 | |
119 | 40 | 181 | 146.5 | 205.5 | 210.5 | 227.5 | 308 | ||
Overall rank | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 present the AEs, MSEs, and ABs for the MLEs, MPSEs, OLSEs, WLSEs, ADEs, CVMEs, PCEs, and RADEs. These tables also display the rank of each estimator within each row, with superscripts serving as indicators. The symbol denotes the partial sum of ranks for each column and sample size. One key observation from the simulation results is that as the sample size increases, the MSEs and ABs decrease for all combinations of the parameters. This indicates that all estimation methods exhibit consistency, which is an important property for reliable parameter estimation. Consequently, the estimates of the EAPLL parameters obtained from the eight estimators are reliable, as they exhibit credible MSEs and small ABs in all considered cases. In other words, these estimates are highly reliable and closely approximate the actual values. Furthermore, as the sample size increases, the ABs approach zero, providing evidence that these estimates behave as asymptotically unbiased estimators.
The performance ordering of the estimators, from best to worst, based on overall ranks is as follows: MPSEs, MLEs, WLSEs, OLSEs, ADEs, CVMEs, PCEs, and RADEs. This ranking is determined by arranging the values in ascending order to obtain the overall rank, as shown in Table 11.
In summary, all classical estimators perform exceptionally well. In particular, the MPSEs outperform all other estimators, achieving an overall score of 40. Therefore, based on our study, we can confidently affirm the superiority of MPSEs and MLEs, with overall scores of 40 and 119, respectively, for estimating the parameters of the EAPLL distribution.
Applications to survival data
In this section, we demonstrate the significance and flexibility of the EAPLL distribution using three real-life sets of survival data. The first data set refers to Kevlar 49/epoxy strands (with pressure at 90%) failure times which are obtained from Al-Aqtash et al.32. This data set is positively skewed and leptokurtic (kurtosis). The data are: 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.02, 0.03, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.09, 0.10, 0.10, 0.11, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.18 ,0.19, 0.20, 0.23, 0.24, 0.24, 0.29, 0.34, 0.35, 0.36, 0.38, 0.40, 0.42, 0.43, 0.52, 0.54, 0.56, 0.60, 0.60, 0.63, 0.65, 0.67, 0.68, 0.72, 0.72, 0.72, 0.73, 0.79, 0.79, 0.80, 0.80, 0.83, 0.85, 0.90, 0.92, 0.95, 0.99, 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.05, 1.10, 1.10, 1.11, 1.15, 1.18, 1.20, 1.29, 1.31, 1.33, 1.34, 1.40, 1.43, 1.45, 1.50, 1.51, 1.52, 1.53, 1.54, 1.54, 1.55, 1.58, 1.60, 1.63, 1.64, 1.80 ,1.80, 1.81, 2.02, 2.05, 2.14, 2.17, 2.33, 3.03, 3.03, 3.34, 4.20, 4.69, 7.89.
The second data set is comprised of 100 observations of the breaking stress of carbon fibers which are measured in Gba33. The data are: 0.98, 5.56, 5.08, 0.39, 1.57, 3.19, 4.90, 2.93, 2.85, 2.77, 2.76, 1.73, 2.48, 3.68, 1.08, 3.22, 3.75, 3.22, 3.70, 2.74, 2.73, 2.50, 3.60, 3.11, 3.27, 2.87, 1.47, 3.11, 4.42, 2.40, 3.15, 2.67,3.31, 2.81, 2.56, 2.17, 4.91, 1.59, 1.18, 2.48, 2.03, 1.69, 2.43, 3.39, 3.56, 2.83, 3.68, 2.00, 3.51, 0.85, 1.61, 3.28, 2.95, 2.81, 3.15, 1.92, 1.84, 1.22, 2.17, 1.61, 2.12, 3.09, 2.97, 4.20, 2.35, 1.41, 1.59, 1.12, 1.69, 2.79, 1.89, 1.87, 3.39, 3.33, 2.55, 3.68, 3.19, 1.71, 1.25, 4.70, 2.88, 2.96, 2.55, 2.59, 2.97, 1.57, 2.17, 4.38, 2.03, 2.82, 2.53, 3.31, 2.38, 1.36, 0.81, 1.17, 1.84, 1.80, 2.05, 3.65.
The third data set represents time to failure of a 100 cm polyester/viscose yarn subjected to strain level in a textile experiment in order to assess the tensile fatigue characteristics of the yarn. The data are analyzed by34. The data are: 86, 146, 251, 653, 98, 249, 400, 292, 131, 169, 175, 176, 76, 264, 15, 364, 195, 262, 88, 264, 157, 220, 42, 321, 180, 198, 38, 20, 61, 121, 282, 224, 149, 180, 325, 250, 196, 90, 229, 166, 38, 337, 65, 151, 341, 40, 40, 135, 597, 246, 211, 180, 93, 315, 353, 571, 124, 279, 81, 186, 497, 182, 423, 185, 229, 400, 338, 290, 398, 71, 246, 185, 188, 568, 55, 55, 61, 244, 20, 289, 393, 396, 203, 829, 239, 236, 286, 194, 277, 143, 198, 264, 105, 203, 124, 137, 135, 350, 193, 188.
Some goodness-of-fit tests and information criterion (IC) measures are adopted to compare the fits of the EAPLL distribution and other competing distributions. The measures include the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test statistic and its corresponding p-value, Akaike IC (AIC), Bayesian IC (BIC), Hanna–Quinn IC (HQIC), and consistent AIC (CAIC). The EAPLL model is compared with some LL distributions including the Kumaraswamy LL (KwLL) distribution15, additive Weibull LL (AWLL) distribution35, extended odd Weibull LL (EOWLL) distribution36 Weibull generalized LL (WGLL) distribution33, extended LL (ExLL) distribution37, alpha-power LL (APLL) distribution21, exponentiated LL (ELL) distribution38, and LL distribution.
The total time on test (TTT) plots, histograms and box plots are provided in Figures 5, 6 and 7 for failure times, carbon fibers, and time to failure data, respectively. The TTT plots indicate that failure times data are characterized by a modified bathtub HR shape, while both the carbon fibers and time to failure data are characterized by increasing HRFs.
Figure 5.
The TTT plot, histogram, and box-plot for failure times data.
Figure 6.
The TTT plot, histogram, and box-plot for carbon fibers data.
Figure 7.
The TTT plot, histogram, and box-plot for time to failure data.
The ML estimates and their corresponding standard errors (SEs) in brackets for the parameters of all considered models are obtained for the three data sets. Tables 12, 14, and 16 present these values for the three data sets, respectively.
Table 12.
The ML estimates and SEs of the parameters of the EAPLL model and other models for failure times data.
Models | Estimates and SEs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL() | 0.2063 | 0.9124 | 3.0651 | 65.8673 | ||
( 0.0477) | (0.1828) | (0.5414) | (113.9647) | |||
KwLL() | 0.1225 | 0.5693 | 1.4285 | 4.8932 | ||
AWLL() | (0.0571) | (0.2099) | (0.2806) | (1.4836) | ||
3.3916 | 17.5295 | 14.3105 | 0.2730 | 3.5274 | 5.1604 | |
(27.1147) | (2568.1948) | (942.0435) | (2.1880) | (1631.0398) | (1033.3832) | |
EOWLL() | 8.6403 | −0.1080 | 11.2054 | 0.1005 | ||
(1.8790 ) | ( 0.0928) | (0.8629) | (0.0194) | |||
WGLL() | 6.2410 | 1.1403 | 0.1387 | |||
(0.0675) | (0.1795) | (0.0160) | ||||
ExLL() | 10.408 | 0.9784 | 99.6965 | |||
(2.3618) | (0.0849) | (125.3126) | ||||
APLL() | 0.5990 | 1.2703 | 1.1100 | |||
(0.9972) | (0.1080) | (4.7048) | ||||
ELL() | 1.8910 | 3.3261 | 0.2186 | |||
(0.2510) | (0.6710) | (0.0573) | ||||
LL() | 0.6240 | 1.2705 | ||||
(0.0850) | (0.1069) |
Table 14.
The ML estimates and SEs of the parameters of the EAPLL model and other models for carbon fibers data.
Models | Estimates and SEs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL() | 0.3350 | 0.3309 | 7.2540 | 5.4004 | ||
(0.0942) | (0.0524) | (1.4377) | (12.9625) | |||
KwLL() | 0.3467 | 1.0474 | 3.4115 | 7.2673 | ||
(0.3235) | (1.1470) | (0.7526) | (4.9640) | |||
AWLL() | 2.0217 | 14.5887 | 73.9629 | 1.3814 | 13.3971 | 1.3814 |
(77.9242) | (1954.4477) | (25467.6279) | (53.2548) | (16714.6989) | (53.2117) | |
EOWLL() | 1.4139 | 0.1386 | 4.3838 | 2.1496 | ||
(0.1652) | (0.0613) | (0.1890) | (1.0205) | |||
WGLL() | 1.0362 | 0.4971 | 3.5673 | |||
(0.8590) | (0.2432) | (2.0896) | ||||
ExLL() | 2.1198 | 3.4385 | 128.5259 | |||
(0.7267) | (0.3693) | (76.2269) | ||||
APLL() | 2.4831 | 4.1171 | 1.0510 | |||
(1.4920) | (0.3454) | (5.1946) | ||||
ELL() | 3.3710 | 7.3389 | 0.3370 | |||
(0.2114) | (1.3751) | (0.0925) | ||||
LL() | 2.4982 | 4.1178 | ||||
(0.1054) | (0.3441) |
Table 16.
The ML estimates and SEs of the parameters of the EAPLL model and other models for time to failure data.
Models | Estimates and SEs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL() | 0.3539 | 0.0047 | 3.8191 | 22.2591 | ||
(0.0875) | (0.0007) | (0.5553) | (38.2468 ) | |||
KwLL() | 13.0454 | 12.5961 | 16.3467 | 0.5788 | ||
(5.2746) | (6.8351) | (14.6750) | (0.0971) | |||
AWLL() | 1.1691 | 112.1240 | 0.2578 | 1.3723 | 0.0221 | 1.3723 |
(34.6008) | (1393.6688) | (114.8227) | (40.5069) | (114.5586) | (41.8737) | |
EOWLL() | 0.4755 | 0.1503 | 13.4163 | 3.7966 | ||
(0.06276) | (0.0153) | (2.4561) | 0.5744 | |||
WGLL() | 5.9828 | 0.0211 | 6.1978 | |||
(0.0135) | (0.8764) | (0.4470) | ||||
ExLL() | 0.8441 | 1.1699 | 228.0082 | |||
(0.1695) | (0.0931) | (63.0695) | ||||
APLL() | 135.6886 | 2.3191 | 4.7508 | |||
(32.9040) | (0.2288) | (5.5664) | ||||
ELL() | 13.4934 | 1.1788 | 13.5652 | |||
(4.1024) | (1.0893) | (0.6725) | ||||
LL() | 188.3995 | 2.4066 | ||||
(13.4697) | (0.2044) |
Tables 13, 15, and 17 display the negative log-likelihood values, goodness-of-fit test statistics, and information criterion values for the three data sets, respectively. The EAPLL distribution has the lowest values, indicating a better fit for the three data sets as compared to other competing LL distributions.
Table 13.
The findings from failure times data for the EAPLL model and other competing distributions.
Model | AIC | CAIC | HQIC | BIC | K-S | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL | 99.0581 | 206.1161 | 206.5328 | 210.3508 | 216.5766 | 0.0603 | 0.8558 |
KwLL | 99.3257 | 206.6514 | 207.0680 | 210.8861 | 217.1119 | 0.0648 | 0.7908 |
AWLL | 102.9768 | 217.9536 | 218.8472 | 224.3057 | 233.6443 | 0.0907 | 0.3773 |
EOWLL | 104.9310 | 217.8621 | 218.2787 | 222.0968 | 228.3226 | 0.1363 | 0.0469 |
WGLL | 102.6207 | 211.2415 | 211.4889 | 214.4175 | 219.0868 | 0.1042 | 0.2232 |
ExLL | 103.2726 | 212.5451 | 212.7925 | 215.7212 | 220.3905 | 0.0965 | 0.3040 |
APLL | 112.6861 | 231.3722 | 231.6190 | 234.5483 | 239.2176 | 0.11127 | 0.1639 |
ELL | 100.1137 | 206.2273 | 206.4747 | 209.4033 | 214.0727 | 0.0661 | 0.7693 |
LL | 112.6862 | 229.3724 | 229.4948 | 231.4898 | 234.6026 | 0.1113 | 0.1637 |
Table 15.
The findings of carbon fibers data for the EAPLL model and other competing distributions.
Models | AIC | CAIC | HQIC | BIC | K-S | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL | 141.0139 | 290.0279 | 290.4489 | 294.2453 | 300.4486 | 0.0496 | 0.9664 |
KwLL | 141.0718 | 290.1436 | 290.4636 | 294.3610 | 300.5643 | 0.0523 | 0.9472 |
AWLL | 141.5302 | 295.0603 | 295.9635 | 301.3865 | 310.6913 | 0.0605 | 0.8580 |
EOWLL | 141.2583 | 290.5167 | 290.9377 | 294.7341 | 300.9374 | 0.0653 | 0.7880 |
WGLL | 143.3640 | 292.7280 | 292.9080 | 295.8911 | 300.5435 | 0.0648 | 0.7956 |
Ex-LL | 143.5359 | 293.0718 | 293.2518 | 296.2349 | 300.8873 | 0.0891 | 0.4055 |
APLL | 146.2767 | 298.5534 | 298.7334 | 301.7165 | 306.3689 | 0.0903 | 0.3880 |
ELL | 147.0795 | 300.1590 | 300.3390 | 303.3221 | 307.9745 | 0.0515 | 0.9533 |
LL | 146.2767 | 296.5534 | 296.6334 | 298.6621 | 301.7637 | 0.0903 | 0.3880 |
Table 17.
The findings from time to failure data for the EAPLL model and other competing distributions.
Model | AIC | CAIC | HQIC | BIC | K-S | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPLL | 623.4538 | 1254.9080 | 1255.3290 | 1259.1250 | 1265.3280 | 0.0488 | 0.9712 |
KwLL | 629.8352 | 1267.6704 | 1267.9904 | 1271.8878 | 1278.0911 | 0.1327 | 0.0592 |
AWLL | 625.2237 | 1262.4470 | 1263.3510 | 1268.7740 | 1278.0790 | 0.0754 | 0.6199 |
EOWLL | 624.6565 | 1257.3130 | 1257.7340 | 1261.5300 | 1267.7340 | 0.0701 | 0.7096 |
WGLL | 625.1637 | 1256.3274 | 1256.5074 | 1259.4905 | 1264.1429 | 0.0906 | 0.3849 |
Ex-LL | 663.1863 | 1332.3726 | 1332.5526 | 1335.5357 | 1340.1881 | 0.2257 | 0.0001 |
APLL | 629.8769 | 1265.7538 | 1265.9338 | 1268.9169 | 1273.5693 | 0.1000 | 0.2702 |
ELL | 649.1367 | 1304.2734 | 1304.4534 | 1307.4365 | 1312.0889 | 0.1642 | 0.0091 |
LL | 629.6341 | 1263.2682 | 1263.3482 | 1265.3769 | 1268.4785 | 0.0957 | 0.3187 |
The fitted functions of the EAPLL distribution computed under the ML approach for the three data sets are presented in Figs. 8, 9, and 10. Furthermore, Figs. 11, 12, and 13 depict the histograms of the three data sets and fitted densities of the EAPLL distribution and other fitted distributions. The EAPLL distribution provides a consistently better fit for the three analyzed data sets as compared to other LL extensions. The profile likelihood plots for the EAPLL distribution parameters are provided in Fig. 14, 15, and 16, for the three data sets. Based on the profile likelihood plots given in these figures, all the parameters are precise and identifiable estimates. The profile likelihood plots are slightly asymmetric in the uncertainty, which favours higher values of the parameters.
Figure 8.
The fitted functions of the EAPLL distribution for failure times data.
Figure 9.
The fitted functions of the EAPLL distribution for carbon fibers data.
Figure 10.
The fitted functions of the EAPLL distribution for time to failure data.
Figure 11.
The histogram and fitted densities plots for failure times data.
Figure 12.
The histogram and fitted densities plots for carbon fibers data.
Figure 13.
The histogram and fitted densities plots for time to failure data.
Figure 14.
The profile likelihood plots of the EAPLL parameters for failure times data.
Figure 15.
The profile likelihood plots of the EAPLL parameters for carbon fibers data.
Figure 16.
The profile likelihood plots of the EAPLL parameters for time to failure data.
Conclusions
In this paper, we introduce a flexible distribution called the exponentiated alpha-power log-logistic (EAPLL) distribution. Its failure rate can be increasing, reversed-J shaped, decreasing, increasing-decreasing-increasing, bathtub, decreasing-increasing-decreasing, or inverted bathtub, providing considerable flexibility in modeling diverse types of data. Some of the mathematical properties of the EAPLL model are explored. Furthermore, the EAPLL parameters are estimated using eight different estimation methods. Simulation studies evaluate the performance of these estimators, revealing that all classical estimators perform well, with the maximum product of spacing (MPS) method showing superior performance. Therefore, the MPS method is recommended for estimating EAPLL parameters.
The usefulness of the EAPLL distribution is demonstrated using three real-life survival data sets. It provides a better fit as compared to some competing log-logistic distributions. To illustrate the uniqueness and reliability of the parameter estimates, profile likelihood plots are provided. While the EAPLL distribution offers significant advantages such as flexibility in failure rate modeling and better data fit, it may also have some drawbacks, including potential complexity in parameter estimation and the necessity for robust computational tools.
Additionally, the selection of real data sets for the demonstration was based on their varied characteristics, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the EAPLL model’s applicability. This thorough approach highlights both the practical relevance and potential limitations of the distribution in real-world scenarios.
Future work could explore the application of the EAPLL distribution in other fields beyond survival analysis, developing more efficient computational methods for parameter estimation, and investigating its performance in large-scale data environments. By addressing these avenues, we aim to enhance further the utility and robustness of the EAPLL model in statistical modeling and analysis.
The proposed EAPLL model is expected to offer valuable insights in survival analysis and other related fields, providing a flexible and powerful tool for understanding complex data structures and uncertainty in various phenomena.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to Taif University, Saudi Arabia, for supporting this work through project number (TU-DSPP-2024-162).
Author contributions
V.K. and A.Z.A wrote the main manuscript text, and all authors reviewed the manuscript. A.W., O.N., and A.Z.A. supervised the writing of the manuscript. All authors, V.K., A.W., O.N., H.M.A., A.S.A., and A.Z.A., worked on the software, and V.K., and A.Z.A. prepared all the figures. All authors, V.K., A.W., O.N., H.M.A., A.S.A., and A.Z.A., reviewed the concept of the manuscript.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Muse, A. H. et al. Bayesian and frequentist approaches for a tractable parametric general class of hazard-based regression models: An application to oncology data. Mathematics10, 3813 (2022). 10.3390/math10203813 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mastor, A. B., Ngesa, O., Mungatu, J., & Afify, A. Z. The extended exponential-Weibull accelerated failure time model with applications to cancer data set. In Engineering (ICMASE 4–7 July 2022) Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest. Vol. 69 (2022).
- 3.Lawless, J. F. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data (Wiley, NY, 2011). [Google Scholar]
- 4.Khan, S. A. Exponentiated Weibull regression for time-to-event data. Lifetime Data Anal.24, 328–354 (2018). 10.1007/s10985-017-9394-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Azzalini, A. & Valle, A. D. The multivariate skew-normal distribution. Biometrika83, 715–726 (1996). 10.1093/biomet/83.4.715 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Eugene, N., Lee, C. & Famoye, F. Beta-normal distribution and its applications. Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods31, 497–512 (2002).
- 7.Zografos, K. & Balakrishnan, N. On families of beta-and generalized gamma-generated distributions and associated inference. Stat. Methodol.6, 344–362 (2009). 10.1016/j.stamet.2008.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cordeiro, G. M. & de Castro, M. A new family of generalized distributions. J. Stat. Comput. Simul.81, 883–898 (2011). 10.1080/00949650903530745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mudholkar, G. S. & Srivastava, D. K. Exponentiated Weibull family for analyzing bathtub failure-rate data. IEEE Trans. Reliab.42, 299–302 (1993). 10.1109/24.229504 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Alzaatreh, A., Lee, C. & Famoye, F. A new method for generating families of continuous distributions. Metron71, 63–79 (2013). 10.1007/s40300-013-0007-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cordeiro, G. M., Afify, A. Z., Yousof, H. M., Pescim, R. R. & Aryal, G. R. The exponentiated Weibull-H family of distributions: Theory and applications. Mediterr. J. Math.14, 1–22 (2017). 10.1007/s00009-017-0955-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Mahdavi, A. & Kundu, D. A new method for generating distributions with an application to exponential distribution. Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods46, 6543–6557 (2017).
- 13.Malik, A. S. & Ahmad, S. P. An extension of log-logistic distribution for analyzing survival data. Pak. J. Stat. Oper. Res.16, 789–801 (2020). 10.18187/pjsor.v16i4.2961 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bennett, S. Log-logistic regression models for survival data. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C Appl. Stat.32, 165–171 (1983).
- 15.De Santana, T. V. F., Ortega, E. M. M., Cordeiro, G. M. & Silva, G. O. The Kumaraswamy-log-logistic distribution. J. Stat. Theory Appl.11, 265–291 (2012). [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gui, W. Marshall-Olkin extended log-logistic distribution and its application in minification processes. Appl. Math. Sci.7, 3947–3961 (2013). [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tahir, M. H., Mansoor, M., Zubair, M. & Hamedani, G. McDonald log-logistic distribution with an application to breast cancer data. J. Stat. Theory Appl.13, 65–82 (2014). 10.2991/jsta.2014.13.1.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lemonte, A. J. The beta log-logistic distribution. Braz. J. Probab. Stat.28, 313–332 (2014). 10.1214/12-BJPS209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Shakhatreh, M. K. A new three-parameter extension of the log-logistic distribution with applications to survival data. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods47, 5205–5226 (2018). 10.1080/03610926.2017.1388399 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Lima, S. R. & Cordeiro, G. M. The extended log-logistic distribution: Properties and application. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc.89, 03–17 (2017). 10.1590/0001-3765201720150579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Aldahlan, M. A. Alpha power transformed log-logistic distribution with application to breaking stress data. Adv. Math. Phys.1–9, 2020 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chaudhary, A. K. Frequentist parameter estimation of two-parameter exponentiated log-logistic distribution. NCC J.4, 1–8 (2019). 10.3126/nccj.v4i1.24727 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Chaudhary, A. K. & Kumar, V. Bayesian estimation of three-parameter exponentiated log-logistic distribution. Int. J. Stat. Math.9, 66–81 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 24.Nassar, M., Kumar, D., Dey, S., Cordeiro, G. M. & Afify, A. Z. The Marshall-Olkin alpha power family of distributions with applications. J. Comput. Appl. Math.351, 41–53 (2019). 10.1016/j.cam.2018.10.052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ramos, M. W. A., Cordeiro, G. M., Marinho, P. R. D., Dias, C. R. B. & Hamedani, G. G. The Zografos-Balakrishnan log-logistic distribution: Properties and applications. J. Stat. Theory Appl.12, 225–244 (2013). 10.2991/jsta.2013.12.3.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Adeyinka, F. S. & Olapade, A. K. On transmuted four parameters generalized log-logistic distribution. Int. J. Stat. Distrib. Appl.5, 32–37 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 27.Alzaghal, A. & Aldenı, M. A versatile family of generalized log-logistic distributions: Bimodality, regression, and applications. Hacettepe J. Math. Stat.51, 857–881 (2022). [Google Scholar]
-
28.Job, O. & Ogunsanya, A. S. Weibull log logistic
exponential
distribution: Some properties and application to survival data. Int. J. Stat. Distrib. Appl.8, 1–13 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mead, M. E., Afify, A. Z. & Butt, N. S. The modified Kumaraswamy Weibull distribution: Properties and applications in reliability and engineering sciences. Pak. J. Stat. Oper. Res.16, 433–446 (2020). 10.18187/pjsor.v16i3.3306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kariuki, V., Wanjoya, A., Ngesa, O. & Alqawba, M. A flexible family of distributions based on the alpha power family of distributions and its application to survival data. Pak. J. Stat.39, 237–258 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 31.Moors, J. J. A. A quantile alternative for kurtosis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D (The Statistician)37, 25–32 (1988). [Google Scholar]
- 32.Al-Aqtash, R., Lee, C. & Famoye, F. Gumbel-Weibull distribution: Properties and applications. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods13, 11 (2014). 10.22237/jmasm/1414815000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Abouelmagd, T. H. M. et al. Extended Weibull log-logistic distribution. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl.12, 523–534 (2019). 10.22436/jnsa.012.08.03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Nasiru, S., Mwita, P. N. & Ngesa, O. Exponentiated generalized exponential Dagum distribution. J. King Saud Univ.-Sci.31, 362–371 (2019).
- 35.Hemeda, S. Additive Weibull log logistic distribution: Properties & application. J. Adv. Res. Appl. Math. Stat.3, 8–15 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 36.Afify, A. Z., Hussein, E. A., Alnssyan, B. & Mahran, H. A. The extended log-logistic distribution: properties, inference, and applications in medicine and geology. J. Stat. Appl. Probab.12, 1155–1580 (2023). [Google Scholar]
- 37.Alfaer, N. M., Gemeay, A. M., Aljohani, H. M. & Afify, A. Z. The extended log-logistic distribution: inference and actuarial applications. Mathematics9, 1386 (2021). 10.3390/math9121386 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Muse, A. H., Mwalili, S. M. & Ngesa, O. On the log-logistic distribution and its generalizations: A survey. Int. J. Stat. Probab.10, 93 (2021). 10.5539/ijsp.v10n3p93 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.