The impact of ordinal on response surface methodology

ABSTRACT

Traditionally, Response Surface Methodology (RSM) is cardinal in nature. Ordinal optimization was only introduced recently. Since ordinal optimization has been proven to be successful in certain applications, this paper aims to investigate whether ordinal optimization improves RSM by developing ordinal RSM and comparing it with cardinal RSM in terms of efficiency, accuracy and consistency. Assuming that the performances of systems can be expressed as functions of their parameters, both ordinal and cardinal RSM are simulated for several simple multivariable mathematical functions and the effectiveness of ordinal RSM evaluated. It was found that ordinal does not always improve RSM, especially in functions which exhibit a large gradient change over a small region.

REFERENCES

• 1: C. M. Barnhart, J. E. Wieselthier, and A. Ephremides. 1994. Ordinal optimization by means of standard clock simulation and crude analytical models. Proc. 33rd Conf. Decision and Control, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 2645--2647
• 2: George E P Box , Norman R Draper, Empirical model-building and response surface, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1986
• 3: C. G. Cassandras and G. Bao. 1994. A stochastic comparison algorithm for continuous optimization with estimations. Proc. 33rd Conf. Decision and Control, Lake Buena Vista, FL
• 4: L. Dai, Convergence properties of ordinal comparison in the simulation of discrete event dynamic systems, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, v.91 n.2, p.363-388, Nov. 1996 [doi>10.1007/BF02190101]
• 5: L. Dai , C. H. Chen, Rates of convergence of ordinal comparison for dependent discrete event dynamic systems, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, v.94 n.1, p.29-54, July 1997 [doi>10.1023/A:1022651401451]
• 6: W.-B. Gong, Y.-C. Ho, and W. Zhai. 1992. Stochastic comparison algorithm for discrete optimization with estimations. Proc. 31st IEEE Conf Decision and Control
• 7: Y.-C. Ho, R. S. Sreenivas, and P. Vakili. 1992. Ordinal Optimization in DEDS. J. Discrete Event Dynamic Syst., 3, 61--68
• 8: Y.-C. Ho and M. Deng. 1994. Large search space problems in ordinal optimization. Proc. Conf. Decision and Control
• 9: Y.-C Ho and M. E. Larson. 1995. Ordinal optimization approach to rare event probability problems. J. Discrete Event Dynamic Syst., 5, 281--301
• 10: Y.-C Ho, C. G. Cassandras, C.-H. Chen, and L.-Y. Dai. 2000. Ordinal Optimization and Simulation, Journal of Operational Research Society
• 11: L. H. Lee, T. W. E. Lau and Y. C. Ho. 1999. Explanation of goal softening in ordinal optimization. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44 (1), 94--99.
• 12: L. H. Lee, F. H. Abernathy, and Y. C. Ho. 2000. Production scheduling for apparel manufacturing systems. Production Planning and Control, 11 (3), 281--290.
• 13: D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger. 1994. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York
• 14: Raymond H. Myers , Douglas C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product in Optimization Using Designed Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1995
• 15: Patsis, N. T., C. H. Chen, and M. E. Larson. 1997. SIMD Parallel Discrete Event Dynamic System Simulation. IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, 5 (3), 30--41
• 16: P. Vakili, L. Mollamustaflaglu, and Y.-C. Ho. 1992. Massively parallel simulation of a class of discrete event systems. Proc. IEEE Frontiers MPC Symp., Washington, DC
• 17: X. L. Xie. 1997. Dynamics and convergence rate of ordinal comparison of stochastic discrete event systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 42, 586--590