magazinelogo

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation

ISSN Print: 2576-0645 Downloads: 149607 Total View: 1818470
Frequency: quarterly ISSN Online: 2576-0653 CODEN: JAMCEZ
Email: [email protected]
Article Open Access 10.26855/jamc.2018.11.001

Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Approach for Quality Improvement

Melis Zeybek

Department of Statistics, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.

*Corresponding author: Melis Zeybek

Published: November 30,2018

Abstract

Robust parameter design is an effective tool to obtain the best operating conditions of a given system. Because of its practicability and usefulness, the widespread applications of robust design techniques provide major quality improvements. In fact, evaluating the quality performance of the fitted response model could be a way to reach the possible perfect quality. This study focuses on the model quality performance criterion and presents a new optimization approach based on Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). The proposed approach is configured on optimizing the fitted NSE response surface for the “target is best” case. Furthermore, this study provides a reference in which NSE model performance criterion is used and modeled by response surface approach for the first time in the field of quality improvement. The main advantage of the proposed approach is to allow the practitioners evaluating the model quality performance by maximizing the fitted NSE response surface which acts as a measure of model efficiency. The procedure and the validity of the proposed approach are illustrated on a popular example, the printing process study.

References

[1] Taguchi G: Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes. Asian Productivity Or-ganization, Tokyo, 1986, p. 191.

[2] Box GEP. Discussion of off-line quality control, parameter design, and the Taguchi method. J Qual Technol 1985; 17: 198-206.

[3] Vining GG and Myers RH. Combining Taguchi and response surface philosophies: A dual response approach. J Qual Technol 1990; 22(1): 38-45.

[4] Box GEP and Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc 1951; 13: 1-45.

[5] Del Castillo E and Montgomery DC. A nonlinear programming solution to the dual response problem. J Qual Technol 1993; 25: 199-204.

[6] Lin DKJ and Tu W. Dual response surface. J Qual Technol 1995; 27(1): 34-39.

[7] Copeland KA and Nelson PR. Dual response optimization via direct function minimization. J Qual Technol 1996; 28(1): 331-336.

[8] Köksoy O and Doganaksoy N. Joint optimization of mean and standard deviation in response surface experimentation. J Qual Technol 2003; 35(3): 239-252.

[9] Shoemaker AC and Tsui KL and Wu CFJ. Economical experimentation methods for robust parameter design. Technometrics 1991; 33: 415-427.

[10] Lucas JM. How to achieve a robust process using response surface methodology. J Qual Technol 1994; 26(4): 248-260.

[11] Kim K and Lin DKJ. Dual response optimization: A fuzzy modeling approach. J Qual Technol 1998; 30(1): 1-10.

[12] Fan SKS. A generalized global optimization algorithm for dual response systems. J Qual Technol 2000; 32(4): 444-456.

[13] Köksoy O. Multiresponse robust design: Mean square error (MSE) criterion. Appl Math Comput 2005; 175(2): 1716-1729.

[14] Köksoy O and Fan SS. An upside-down normal loss function-based method for quality improvement, Eng Optimiz 2012; 44(8): 935-945.

[15] Zeybek M and Köksoy O. Optimization of correlated multi-response quality engineering by the upside-down normal loss function. Eng Optimiz 2016; 48(8): 1419-1431.

[16] Zeybek M and Köksoy O. The effects of gamma noise on quality improvement. Commun Stat Simulat 2018 (in press). DOI:10.1080/03610918.2018.1506030

[17] Zeybek M. Process capability: A new criterion for loss function–based quality improvement. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences 2018; 22: 470-477.

[18] Gupta HV and Kling H and Yilmaz KK and Martinez GF. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 2009; 377: 80-91.

[19] Murphy AH. Skill scores based on the mean square error and their relationships to the correlation coefficient. Mon Weather Rev 1988; 116: 2417-2424.

[20] Weglarzyk S. The interdependence and applicability of some statistical quality measures for hydrological models. J Hydrol 1998; 206: 98-103.

[21] Zhong X and Dutta U. Engaging Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency and model efficiency factor indicators in selecting and validating effective light rail system operation and maintenance cost models. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 2015; 3: 255- 265.

[22] Nash JE and Sutcliffe JV. River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part I. A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 1970; 119(3): 429-442.

[23] Box GEP and Draper NR: Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. John Wiley&Sons, Canada, 1987, p. 688.

How to cite this paper

Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Approach for Quality Improvement

How to cite this paper: Melis Zeybek. (2018) Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Approach for Quality ImprovementJournal of Applied Mathematics and Computation2(11), 496-503.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jamc.2018.11.001