Inference of stress-strength reliability for two-parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution based on lower record values.

The two-parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution is an important lifetime distribution in survival analysis. This paper investigates the estimation of the parameters of this distribution by using lower records values. The maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) procedure of the parameters is considered, and the Fisher information matrix of the unknown parameters is used to construct asymptotic confidence intervals. Bayes estimator of the parameters and the corresponding credible intervals are obtained by using the Gibbs sampling technique. Two real data set is provided to illustrate the proposed methods.

1 Introduction

In engineering applications, a system may be subjected to several stresses such as extreme temperature and pressure. The survival and performance of such systems strongly depend on their resistance strength. The models which try to measure this resistance are called stress-strength models, and in the simplest terms, it can be described as an evaluation of the experienced random “stress” (Y) and the available “strength” (X) which overcomes the stress. This simple explanation induces the definition of the reliability of a system as the probability that the system is strong enough to overcome the stress that it is subjected to. Therefore, the reliability parameter could be defined as R = P(X>Y).

The estimation of the reliability parameter has extensive literature. It has been studied under different assumptions over the distribution of X and Y. [1] studied the ML estimation of R under the assumption that the stress and strength variables follow a bivariate exponential distribution. By considering a multivariate normal distribution, the MLE has been studied by [2]. The estimation of R, when the distribution is Weibull, were considered by [3]. See [4] and references therein for more details, works on the estimation of R and its applications. In some recent works [5], estimated R under the assumption that the stress and strength variables are independent and follow a generalized exponential distribution. [6] considered the estimation of R, when X and Y are independent, and both follow a three parameter Weibull distributions. Some other applications of the stress and strength models in the framework of transportation problems, which were estimated by ML methods, include [7-9]. Other engineer applications of these methods, which were applied in the Bayesian framework, could be found at [10-12].

The only difference in the above-mentioned works was the different distributions which the authors have been chosen for the random quantities. In some situations, one could not obtain the complete data and have to consider certain sampling schemes in order to get incomplete data for X and Y. [13-15] have been studied the problem of making inference on R based on progressively Type II censored data. [16], based on the record data, by considering one parameter generalized exponential distribution, has been studied ML and Bayesian estimation of R.

Another type of incomplete data is record values which usually appear in many real-life applications. Record values arise in climatology, sports, business, medicine, industry, and life testing surveys, among others. These records are commemorating over the period of the time that have been studied. The history of records may show the advancement in science and technology. By considering the record values in various areas of humankind activities, we can evaluate the performance of the societies. In 1952, [17] introduced the distribution of record values into the statistical world. After six decades of his original work, hundreds of papers were devoted to various aspects of the record’s theory. He provided a foundation for a mathematical theory of records. He defined the record values as consecutive extremes appearing in a sequence of independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. These smallest or largest occurred values are called “lower” or “upper” record values, respectively. Let X1,…,X be a sequence of i.i.d. continuous random variables with a cumulative distribution function (CDF) F(x) and its corresponding probability density function (PDF) f(x). For every positive integer k≥1, the sequence of kth lower record times, {L(k), k≥1}, is defined as follows

Then the kth lower record value will be denoted by X and the sequence {X, L(k)≥1} is called the lower record values. For the sake of simplicity, from now on, we shall refer to X as X. As mentioned before, the record values have many applications in industry and engineering. Consider an electronic system that is subject to some shocks like low or high voltage in which both are dangerous for its predefined performance. These shocks could be considered as realizations of i.i.d. variable, and then one can use the record values models to study them. We refer the readers to [18, 19] for more details on the record values and their applications.

The Gumbel distribution is a well-known and popular model due to its wide application in climatology, global warming problems, wind speed, and rainfall modeling, among others. The book of [20] has an extensive list of applications of the Gumbel distribution in various fields of science. [21] has generalized this distribution by exponentiating, in the form of F(x;α) = 1−[1−G(x)], where G(x) is the Gumbel density and a>0. Note that exponentiating the standard probability distributions cloud solves the problem of lack of fits that arise when using these distributions for modeling complex data [22]. They showed the power and ability of this generalized distribution in modeling the climatology data by applying it on rainfall data from Orlando, Florida.

In this work, we use a slightly different way to define the exponentiated distributions, i.e., F(x;α) = [G(x)], which are called the proportional reversed hazard rate models [23]. The random variable X follows the two-parameter Exponentiated Gumbel distribution if it has the following CDF where α>0 and λ>0. The PDF corresponding to the CDF (2) is

Here α and λ are the shape and scale parameters, respectively. We will denote this distribution by EG(α,λ).

2 Maximum likelihood estimation

In this section, we consider the maximum likelihood estimation of R = P(X>Y) when X~EG(α,λ) and Y~EG(β,λ), and X and Y are independently distributed. Formal integration shows that

Let X1,X2,…,X and Y1,Y2,…,Y be two independent sets of the lower records from EG(α,λ) and EG(β,σ), respectively. Therefore, the likelihood function of parameters becomes (see [19])

From (2) and (3) the likelihood function is obtained as

The log likelihood function is given by

Then, the likelihood equations will be

From above equations, we get

Note that is the harmonic mean of and , which are the MLEs of independent samples of sizes n and m, respectively.

Therefore, by applying the invariant property of ML estimators, the ML estimation of R will be

In this section, we obtain the Fisher information matrix of the unknown parameters of EG distribution, which can be used to construct asymptotic confidence intervals.

[19] showed that the PDF of the sth lower record, X, is given by

Therefore, the Fisher information matrix of θ = (α,β,λ) will be where

The asymptotic covariance matrix of the ML estimators could be achieved via inverting the Fisher information matrix as following where

Now, by using the delta method, the asymptotic variance of could be obtained as follows. where .

Note that the is a function of unknown parameters, and it needs to be estimated. It can be done by plunging the ML estimators of the parameters. Therefore, the (1−γ)% asymptotic confidence intervals of R will be in the form of .

3 Bayesian estimation

In this section, we attempt to find the Bayes estimator of the parameters. To do so, we consider that the parameters are apriori independent, and they follow gamma distributions, i.e., α~Gamma(a1,b1), β~Gamma(a2,b2), and λ~Gamma(a3,b3). Therefore, the full posterior distribution of the parameters will be

The above posterior does not admit a closed-form and cannot be used directly in the estimation procedure. Then to simulate a random sample from such distributions and perform an approximated inference, the Gibbs sampler could be used. The full conditional distributions of the parameters are as follows:

As π(λ|α,β,data) does not have a closed and standard form, one could not produce a sample from this density using direct methods. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm is a method that can be used to produce a sample from such distributions. As shown in Fig 1, the normal distribution could be a good candidate for the proposal distribution of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Therefore, the algorithm of Gibbs sampling is as follows.

Fig 1

Proposal and posterior density functions of scale parameter.

Step 1: Start with an initial value λ(0).

Step 2: Set t = 1.

Step 3: Generate α( from .

Step 4: Generate β( from .

Step 5: Use the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to generate λ( from π(λ|α(,β(t−1),data) by using the as a proposal distribution.

Step 5.1: Generate candidate points λ* from and u from .

Step 5.2: Set λ( = λ* if u≤ρ(λ(,λ*) and λ( = λ( otherwise, when the acceptance probability is given by ρ(λ(,λ*) = min{1,A}, and the acceptance rate is given by

Step 6: Set t = t+1.

Step 7: Repeat steps 3–6, T times.

Once we get a sample from the posteriors, the approximate posterior mean of R, and its variance could be computed as following and where K is the burn-in period of the chain, which helps to vanish the effect of the starting values of the generated Markov chain.

The approximate highest posterior density (HPD) credible interval of R could be constructed using the method proposed in [24].

Let R(<R(<⋯<R( be the ordered output of the chain, R(. To construct a 100(1−γ)% approximate HPD credible interval for R, we consider the following intervals, by choosing the interval with the shortest length, we obtain the HPD credible intervals.

4 Inference on R when λ is known

As we show in section 2, the ML estimation of λ does not depend on the value of other parameters; therefore, by plunging the MLE of λ, one can assume that the model contains only two parameters. This assumption makes the procedure of inference easier and straightforward. In other words, we can assume that λ is known, and without loss of generality, we set λ = 1.

4.1 MLE of R

As mentioned in section 2, the ML estimator of R is

By straight computation, one can see that

By considering (13), and the fact that X and Y are independent, one can show that

Therefore, the 100(1−γ)% confidence interval for R could be obtained as where is the 100γ percentile of the Fisher distribution with d1 and d2 degrees of freedom.

4.2 Bayesian estimation

Since we assumed that the parameters are apriori independent with gamma density, the posterior density of α and β are independent and , respectively. Therefore, the posterior distribution of R will be where

The Bayesian estimation is based on the obtained posterior distribution. According to the assumed loss function, various aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the mean, median, etc., can be used to estimate the parameters. See [25, 26] for more details. By assuming the quadratic loss function, the Bayesian estimation will be the posterior mean which could be computed by considering the following well-known equation in which B(b,c−b) and 2F1(a,b; c; z) are beta and hypergeometric functions, receptively. Therefore, the Bayesian estimation of R is

The variance of the Bayesian estimator could be achieved by using

To construct the HPD intervals, as the posterior is not tractable, we can generate a sample from the posterior by using an indirect sampling algorithm, such as the accept-reject method.

4.3 Real data analysis

In this section, we analyze a set of real strength data, which were taken from ([27], p. 574). These data are originally from [28], which represent the lifetimes of steel specimens tested at 14 different stress magnitudes. Here, we pick up the dataset corresponding to 35.0 and 35.5 stress levels as Dataset 1 (x) and Dataset 2 (y) in Table 1, respectively.

Table 1

The real datasets which were reported in Lawless (2011) [27].

Dataset 1 (x)					Dataset 2 (y)
230	169	178	271	129	156	173	125	852	559
568	115	280	305	326	442	168	286	261	227
1101	285	734	177	493	285	253	166	133	309
218	342	431	143	381	247	112	202	365	702

Dataset 1 (x) and Dataset 2 (y) correspond to 35.0 and 35.5 stress level, respectively.

We fitted the EG distribution models for two datasets separately and estimated the scale and shape parameters. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) goodness of fit test was applied on the datasets. The reported results in Table 2 confirm the well-fitting of the EG distribution to model these data. Moreover, Figs 2 and 3 confirm the appropriate fit of the EG distribution by comparing the empirical and fitted distributions for both datasets.

Table 2

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test output for real datasets.

Dataset	Scale	Shape	K-S	p-value
1	0.0071	5.9717	0.1137	0.9326
2	0.0085	6.5564	0.1408	0.7726

Fig 2

Empirical and fitted CDFs for Dataset 1.

Fig 3

Empirical and fitted CDFs for Dataset 2.

Now we can use the lower records based on the datasets to drive the ML and Bayesian estimation of parameters. These records for Dataset 1 are 230,169,129,115 and based on Dataset 2 are 156, 125, 112. The corresponding results for ML methods are reported in Table 2. According to this table, it is clear that the scale parameters of the two data sets are almost the same. By assuming equality of the scale parameter, the MLE and the 95% confidence interval of R based on lower records values become 0.5927 and (0.4117,0.7737), respectively. Also, by using Gibs sampling the Bayes estimate and credible interval of R are 0.5893 and (0.4236,0.7641), respectively.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated the estimation of the parameters of the two-parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution by using lower records values. The maximum likelihood was used to estimate the parameters of the models, and the Fisher information matrix of the unknown parameters is used to construct asymptotic confidence intervals. Furthermore, the Bayes estimator of the parameters and the corresponding credible intervals were obtained by using the Gibbs sampling technique. The methods of estimating (ML and Bayes) were compared via two real data set and showed that the Bayesian estimations are slightly different from the ML ones.

Minimal dataset.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-39915

Inference of Stress-Strength Reliability for Two-Parameter of Exponentiated Gumbel Distribution Based on Lower Record Values

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kılıç Depren,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper proposes a Two-Parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution for modeling stress-strength reliability, based on lower record values. The research topic is interesting and worth of investigation. The proposed model is promising and its strengths have been demonstrated by two real-word datasets. A minor suggestion is that more works on Bayesian estimation and its engineer applications should be referred, such as:

A Bayesian spatial random parameters Tobit model for analyzing crash rates on roadway segments. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2017, 100: 37-43.

Bayesian spatial-temporal model for the main and interaction effects of roadway and weather characteristics on freeway crash incidence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2019, 132, 105249.

Spatial joint analysis for zonal daytime and nighttime crash frequencies using a Bayesian bivariate conditional autoregressive model. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, 2020, 12(4): 566-585.

The authors are also suggested to add a Conclusion section to draw some remarkable findings and present some directions for future research.

Reviewer #2: The topic of this paper is interesting. The methods sound. The results are meaningful and useful. There are some suggestions to improve this paper.

1. More reference of maximum likelihood is needed. For example, the following ones.

[1]  “Investigating the Differences of Single- and Multi-vehicle Accident Probability Using Mixed Logit Model", Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, UNSP 2702360.

[2] “Injury severities of truck drivers in single- and multi-vehicle accidents on rural highway”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2011, 43(5), 1677-1688.

[3] Analysis of hourly crash likelihood using unbalanced panel data mixed logit model and real-time driving environmental big data. 2018, JOURNAL OF SAFETY RESEARCH. 65: 153-159.

[2] A conclusion part is needed to summarize this paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Feb 2021

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to the Editor and Reviewers for their valuable comments and contributions to improve our study. We have replied to the comments point-by-point and revised the manuscript by considering the suggestions and recommendations.

Here are the answers to reviewers’ suggestions and revised parts are shown as track changes in the manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

Comment 1: Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

________________________________________

Comment 2: Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

Comment 3: Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

Comment 4: Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

Comment 5: Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper proposes a Two-Parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution for modeling stress-strength reliability, based on lower record values. The research topic is interesting and worth of investigation. The proposed model is promising and its strengths have been demonstrated by two real-word datasets. A minor suggestion is that more works on Bayesian estimation and its engineer applications should be referred, such as:

A Bayesian spatial random parameters Tobit model for analyzing crash rates on roadway segments. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2017, 100: 37-43.

Bayesian spatial-temporal model for the main and interaction effects of roadway and weather characteristics on freeway crash incidence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2019, 132, 105249.

Spatial joint analysis for zonal daytime and nighttime crash frequencies using a Bayesian bivariate conditional autoregressive model. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, 2020, 12(4): 566-585.

The authors are also suggested to add a Conclusion section to draw some remarkable findings and present some directions for future research.

Answer: In line with the referee’s comment, reference list is revised. Also, Conclusion section has been added.

Reviewer #2: The topic of this paper is interesting. The methods sound. The results are meaningful and useful. There are some suggestions to improve this paper.

1. More reference of maximum likelihood is needed. For example, the following ones.

[1] “Investigating the Differences of Single- and Multi-vehicle Accident Probability Using Mixed Logit Model", Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, UNSP 2702360.

[2] “Injury severities of truck drivers in single- and multi-vehicle accidents on rural highway”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2011, 43(5), 1677-1688.

[3] Analysis of hourly crash likelihood using unbalanced panel data mixed logit model and real-time driving environmental big data. 2018, JOURNAL OF SAFETY RESEARCH. 65: 153-159.

[2] A conclusion part is needed to summarize this paper.

Answer: In line with the referee’s comment, reference list is revised. Also, Conclusion section has been added.

________________________________________

Comment 6: PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

Dear Editor,

Firstly, we want to thank you for your time and considerations. We have shown the revised parts as track changes in the file that is named as “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. We have modified the manuscript based on all required changes you mentioned, including:

1- We have referred to Bayesian works in our work, especially those references mentioned by reviewers.

2- We have referred to more references of maximum likelihood works in our work, especially those you mentioned.

3- We have added a Conclusion section to draw some remarkable findings and present some directions for future research.

We would like to present the updated version of our manuscript for evaluation. We are looking forward to getting your final decision on our work.

Best regards,

________________________________________

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Mar 2021

Inference of Stress-Strength Reliability for Two-Parameter of Exponentiated Gumbel Distribution Based on Lower Record Values

PONE-D-20-39915R1

Dear Dr. Kılıç Depren,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

24 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-39915R1

Inference of stress-strength reliability for two-parameter of exponentiated Gumbel distribution based on lower record values

Dear Dr. Kılıç Depren:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Feng Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE