Response Surface Methodology IV

Transcription

1 LECTURE 8 Response Surface Methodology IV 1. Bias and Variance If y x is the response of the system at the point x, or in short hand, y x = f (x), then we can write η x = E(y x ). This is the true, and unknown model. We approximate η x with ŷ x, for example ŷ x = ˆβ 0 + ˆβ 1 x, but we need to always remember that such a model is at best a workable approximation. To measure how well out design will do, we could look at the mean squared error E(ŷ x η x ) 2 = E ( ŷ x E ŷ x ) + (ŷ x η x ) ) 2 = E(ŷ x E(ŷ x )) 2 + (E(ŷ x η x )) 2. To normalize this for changes in the number of design points, N, and for different values of σ, we can multiply each term by N/σ 2, and write the result as M X = V X + B X. The question is how the design affects M X. Without loss of generality, let us assume that X i = 0, so that σx 2 = Xi 2 /N. Wehave Var(ŷ X ) = Var(x ˆβ) = Var(x(X X) 1 X y) = x(x X) 1 X Var(y)X (X X) 1 x = σ 2 x(x X) 1 x. Thus Var(ŷ X ) = σ 2 ( 1 N + x2 ), for the simple linear regression model outlined NσX 2 above (remember x = [1x].) Thus V X = 1 + x2. σx 2 Suppose we have a 3 point symmetric design ( x 0, 0, x 0 ), so that σx 2 = X 2 i = N 2x0 2 /3, and V X = 1 + 3x 2, with a design space of X [ 4/3, 4/3]. Now suppose f is actually quadratic, so that y = β 0 + β 1 x 1 + β 11 x1 2 + ɛ. Consider x 0 = 2/3. 2x 2 0 c Steven Buyske and Richard Trout. 79

2 80 8. RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY IV -1 1 Here we have smaller bias, but bigger variance. In fact, V X = x 2 /8. Consider x 0 = 4/ This has bigger bias and smaller variance. Here X X = x 2 /32. This is better if you are confident about your first-order model In fact, the minimum of M = V + B is attained at x 0 = 1.2. Without the center point, the minimum would be closer in.

3 1. BIAS AND VARIANCE 81 We write the p-th moment of the design as m p = X p I /N, and let µ p be the moments of a (symmetric) prior. We can then write M = V + B = (1 + µ 2 m 2 ) + α 2 ( (m 2 µ 2 ) 2 + (µ 4 µ 2 2 ) + m2 3 µ ) 2 m 2, 2 where α = N β 11 σ. By using a symmetric design, m 3 = 0, so the last term drops out. To reduce bias, set m 2 = µ 2. To reduce variance, set m 2 large. We can thus distinguish among 1. the all variance case, 1 + µ 2 m 2, where we want to maximize m 2, 2. the all-bias case, where we want m 2 = µ 2, and 3. the balanced case, which we can index with V/(V + B). m2 /µ 2 V/(V + B) Uniform prior Normal prior All bias V = B All variance 1 Let us briefly consider designs that minimize squared bias. Suppose a polynomial model of degree d 1, ŷ(x) = x 1 b 1, is fitted to the data, while the true model is a polynomial of degree d 2, η(x) = x 1 β 1 + x 2 β 2. If we write M 11 = X 1 X N, M 12 = X 1 X 2 N, and similarly µ 11 and µ 12 for the moments under the prior on the design region of interest, it can be shown that, whatever the values of β 1 and β 2, a necessary and suficient condition for the squared bias to be minimized is that M 1 11 M 12 = µ 1 11 µ 12. One way to satisfy this, of course, is to match to design moments with the prior moments. As an example, consider a minimum bias design for the k-sphere, where we are going to assume a linear model, but a quadratic model actually holds. If we take a uniform prior over the interior of the sphere (meaning all points inside the sphere are of equal interest), the prior is thus constant within the sphere and zero outside. Since d 1 = 1 and d 2 = 2, we will be interested only in moments up to

4 82 8. RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY IV d 1 +d 2 = 3. Because of the symmetry of the sphere, only the pure second moments will be non-zero. The second moments will be 1/(k + 2). These conditions are satisfied by any two-level fractional factorial design of resolution IV if it is scaled. For example, with k = 3, the 2 3 factorial with points placed at ±a will have second moment 1/N x 2 iu = a2. This will equal 1/(k + 2) if we set a = 1/ 5.447, or place the vertices on a sphere of radius 3/ References: Box & Draper, A basis for the selection of a response surface design, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 54, 1959, Box & Draper, The choice of a second order rotatable design, Biometrika, 50, 1963, Practical Summary Over the last eight weeks we have discussed how to procedd from ignorance to optimization bliss. It might be worth a quick review of how to put it all together. 1. Begin with a screening design to pick out active factors. A resolution III design is all that s really needed. Typically one uses a fractional factorial (but beware of making k p too small to have a good background against which to pick out the active factors) or Plackett-Burman design. 2. If there are any ambiguities from the screening runs, consider running additional experiments to resolve them. This could be a fold-over design, an enhance-one-factor design, or just a few runs chosen on an ad hoc basis. You will almost certainly want to analyze the two sets of runs together, but remember to include a blocking term in your model. 3. Now that you have decided on the active factors, re-analyze your results using just those factors. From the parameter estimators, find the direction of steepest ascent. 4. Decide how you will move in the direction of steepest ascent. One approach is to select a set of runs along the path of steepest ascent for the next design. A more conservative approach is to perform another full or fractional factorial design centered along the path of steepest ascent. The braver you are, the farther out that center can be. If the first design was spread out over a wide region, you might pick the next design to be a smaller size; you might also wish to re-scale based on the relative sizes of the active effects as found from the screening design. 5. Based on the results of the last design, you should have a good idea of where to place your next design. You will probably want to include a pair of center points to check for curvature. If you have plenty of runs still available, and if you have any uncertainty about your choice of active factors, you could do a small fractional factorial design to check that. You could include just the factors that you think are unimportant, or those plus the weakest active factors, or everything. If you don t pick up any new information at least you ll have a good estimate of σ 2.

5 3. EVOP Once you detect curvature, it s time to use a second order design. If you used a (fractional) factorial design with center points, with an appropriate choice of α you can augment that design with center and axial points to get a second-order design with parameter estimates orthogonal to any block effects. Some canonical analysis and ridge analysis will tell you where to move next. 7. If you need another second order design, if possible do it all at once rather than in blocks. That will save you a few center runs. You could also consider a central composite design where the factorial part is just resolution III.In general, because second order designs use a lot of design points and thus cost a lot of money, you do want to be sure of your design before you implement it. 8. Once you are sure of your optimum point, use a few runs to verify it. 3. EVOP The techniques that we have been examining for the past few weeks are designed to optimize a process in the Research and Development situation. However, these techniques can also be used in a process already in production. This technique is called Evolutionary Operation, or EVOP. Basically, the idea is to let the production facility act as a laboratory. Unlike the laboratory, the production facility cannot make large changes in settings, nor would one expect to find large effects (since presumably there has already been some optimization of the process). On the other hand, it is easier to collect a large amount of data, since the plant is running anyway. A large amount of data will mean smaller standard errors for the effect estimates, so even small effects may be readily detected. In effect, we are looking for smaller things in the grass, but we are cutting the grass shorter. To understand the basic idea, consider the following diagram showing the possible evolution of a species of lobster. It is supposed that a particular mutation produces a type of lobster with length of claws and pressure attainable between claws corresponding to a point P in the diagram. Draw picture. horiz axis, length of claws, vert axis, pressure between claws, contours show percent surviving long enough to reproduce in a given environment. If the dots indicate offspring, then those that have the greatest chance of survival will help move the scatter of points toward the optimum. The key components of the process of natural selection is 1. Variation 2. Selection of favorable variants. It is this strategy that EVOP tries to exploit. That is, in the EVOP method a carefully planned cycle of minor variants on the process is agreed upon. The routine of plant operation then consists of running each of the variants in turn and continually repeating the cycle. In this way we use routine manufacture to generate not only the product we require but also the information we need to improve it. The basic strategy is to use small designed experiments, while the process is running, to determine the optimum conditions. Since the improvements may come

6 84 8. RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY IV in small amounts, it may be necessary to have several replicates in order to improve the signal to noise ratio to the point of detecting the improvements. It is generally found that, while there may be many potentially important independent variables, no more than two or three of them are examined at a time. The reason is that, in practice, this seems to be the limit that can be handled on a routine basis. The types of designs which are commonly used with EVOP are 2 2 or 2 3 designs, sometimes supplemented with a center point. Of course, it sometimes becomes necessary to block the designs. With these designs, linear models are commonly used, possibly with interaction terms added in, to approximate the response surface. Then paths of steepest ascent, or some other procedure is used to determine the next region of experimentation. Simplex design for EVOP. Consider the following example of EVOP. Suppose there is a chemical process running in your plant for which the EVOP committee would like to vary temperature t and reaction time r. The current operating co nditions are t = 150 o C and r = 30 minutes. The EVOP procedure will use a 2 2 design with a center point, run in the sequence (150,30), (145,73), (155,75), (155,74), (145,72). This run order will be easy for plant personnel to remember, and will confound any time or nuisance factor effects with blocks. The cycle is run at least twice. In our example, suppose the means for the various settings are 73, 72, 75.5, 74.5, This gives a temperature effect of 2.75, a time effect of.75, an interaction effect of.25, and a change-in-mean effect of.50. This last is a measure of curvature, computed as (1) ((2) + (3) + (4) + (5))/4. Comments on EVOP Selection of variables Excuse of large run-to-run variation EVOP versus SPC Training and personnel EVOP references The basic paper: Box, G. E. P. (1957), Evolutionary operation: a method for increasing industrial productivity, Applied Statistics, pp A review article: Hunter, William G., Kittrell, J. R. (1966) Evolutionary operation: A review, Technometrics, 8, pp A survey article: Hahn, Gerald J., Dershowitz, Arthur F. (1974) Evolutionary operation today Some survey results and observations, it Appl Stat, 23, pp A book: Box, G. E. P. and N. R. Draper (1969). Evolutionary Operation,New York: Wiley.