Construction and Evaluation of Response Surface Designs Incorporating Bias from Model Misspecification - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide1 l.jpg
Download
1 / 33

  • 137 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Construction and Evaluation of Response Surface Designs Incorporating Bias from Model Misspecification. Connie M. Borror , Arizona State University West Christine M. Anderson-Cook , Los Alamos National Laboratory Bradley Jones , JMP SAS Institute. Motivation.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Construction and Evaluation of Response Surface Designs Incorporating Bias from Model Misspecification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Construction and Evaluation of Response Surface Designs Incorporating Bias from Model Misspecification

Connie M. Borror, Arizona State University West

Christine M. Anderson-Cook, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Bradley Jones, JMP SAS Institute


Motivation l.jpg

Motivation

  • Response surface design evaluation (and creation) assuming a particular model

    • Single number efficiencies

    • Prediction variance performance

    • Mean-squared error

  • Model misspecification?

    • What effect does this have on prediction and optimization?


Motivation3 l.jpg

Motivation

  • Examine effect of model misspecification

    • Expected squared bias

    • Prediction variance

    • Expected mean squared error

    • Using fraction of design space (FDS) plots and box plots

  • Evaluate designs based on the contribution of ESB relative to PV.


Scenario l.jpg

Scenario

  • Cuboidal regions

  • True form of the model is of higher order than the model being fit.

  • Examine

    • Response surface models when the true form is cubic

    • Screening experiment when the true form is full second order.


Model specifications l.jpg

Model Specifications

  • The model to be fit is

    Y = X11 + ε

    • X1 = n × p design matrix for the assumed form of the model

  • The true form of the model is

    Y = X11+ X22 + ε

    • X2 = n × q design matrix pertaining to those parameters (2) not present in the model to be fit (assumed model).


Model specifications6 l.jpg

Model Specifications

  • 2in general, are not fully estimable

  • Assume 2~ N(0, )


Criteria l.jpg

Criteria

  • Mean-squared error

  • Expected squared bias (ESB):

  • Expected MSE sum of PV and ESB


Fraction of design space fds plots l.jpg

Fraction of Design Space (FDS) Plots

  • Zahran, Anderson-Cook, and Myers (2003) scaled prediction variance values are plotted versus the fraction of the design space that has SPV at or below the given value

  • Adapt this to plot ESB and EMSE as well as PV.

  • We use FDS plots and box plots to assess the designs


Cases l.jpg

Cases

  • I. Two-factor response surface design

    • Assume a second-order model:

    • True form of the model is cubic:


Case i designs l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • Central Composite Design (CCD)

  • Quadratic I-optimal (Q I-opt)

  • Quadratic D-optimal (Q D-opt)

  • Cubic I-optimal (C I-opt)

  • Cubic D-optimal (C D-opt)

  • Cubic Bayes I-optimal (C Bayes I-opt)

  • Cubic Bayes D-optimal (C Bayes D-opt)


Case i l.jpg

Case I

  • CCD


Case i designs12 l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • CCD (ESB and EMSE performance as bias increases)


Case i designs13 l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • PV for all designs


Case i designs14 l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • ESB for all designs


Case i designs15 l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • EMSE for all designs


Case i designs16 l.jpg

Case I Designs

  • FDS for EMSE for all designs


Case ii l.jpg

Case II

  • Four factor response surface design

    • Assume a second-order model:

    • True form of the model is cubic:

    • 20 additional terms as we move from the second-order model to cubic.


Case ii designs l.jpg

Case II Designs

  • Six possible designs, with n = 27 runs

    • Central Composite Design (CCD)

    • Box Behnken Design (BBD)

    • Quadratic I-optimal (Q I-Opt)

    • Quadratic D-optimal (Q D-Opt)

    • Cubic Bayes I-optimal (C Bayes I-Opt)

    • Cubic Bayes D-optimal (C Bayes D-Opt)

      Note: Cubic I- and D-Optimal not possible with available size of design


Case ii19 l.jpg

Case II

  • PV for all designs


Case ii20 l.jpg

Case II

  • EMSE for all designs


Case ii21 l.jpg

Case II

FDS plot of EMSE for Four Factors


Case iii l.jpg

Case III

  • Eight-factor Screening Design

    • Assume a first-order model:

    • True form of the model is full second-order:


Case iii designs l.jpg

Case III Designs

  • 28-4 fractional factorial design with 4 center runs

  • D-optimal (for first order)

  • Bayes I-optimal (for second order)

  • Bayes D-optimal (for second order)


Case iii designs24 l.jpg

Case III Designs

  • The difference in the number of terms from the assumed to the true form of the models increases from 8 to 44.

    • We would expect bias to quickly dominate EMSE.


Case iii25 l.jpg

Case III

  • PV for all designs


Case iii26 l.jpg

Case III

  • ESB for all designs


Case iii27 l.jpg

Case III

  • EMSE for all designs


Design notes l.jpg

Design Notes

  • For the two-factor case:

    • The I-optimal and CCD were equivalent.

    • They performed the best based on minimizing the maximum EMSE

    • They performed the best based on prediction variance


Design notes29 l.jpg

Design Notes

  • For the four factor case,

    • the BBD was best based on EMSE criteria (in particular, the 95th percentile, median, mean)

      • when size of the coefficients of missing terms are moderate to large

      • The I-optimal design was competitive for this case only if small amounts of bias were present.

    • As the number of missing cubic terms increases, the BBD was best for EMSE.


Design notes30 l.jpg

Design Notes

  • I-optimal designs were highly competitive over 95% of the design region; not with respect to the maximum PV, ESB, and EMSE.

  • Cubic Bayesian designs did not perform well.


Design notes31 l.jpg

Design Notes

  • In the screening design example:

    • The D-optimal designs best if the assumed model is correct, but break down quickly if quadratic terms are in the model

      • Much more pronounced than in the response surface design cases.

    • Quadratic Bayesian I-optimal design was best based on mean, median, and 95th percentile of EMSE

    • The 28-4 fractional factorial design was best with respect to the maximum EMSE.

    • The 28-4 design was best for both PV and ESB when the PV and ESB contribution to the model were balanced.


Conclusions l.jpg

Conclusions

  • Appropriate design can strongly depend on the assumption that we know the true form of the underlying model

  • If we select designs carefully it is often possible to select a model that predicts well in the design space, and provide some protection against missing model terms.

  • The ESB approach to assessing the effect of missing terms provides is advantageous:

    • do not have to specify coefficient values for the true underlying model,

    • Instead, the relative size of the missing terms can be calibrated relative to the variance of the observations.


Conclusions33 l.jpg

Conclusions

  • Size of the bias variance relative to observational error needed to balance contributions from PV and ESB is highly dependent on the number of missing terms from the assumed model.

  • As the number of missing terms increases, the ability of designs to cope with the bias decreases substantially

    • different designs are able to handle this increasing bias differently.


  • Login