Response Surface Methodology

On many occasions, a system (an industrial process, a method of analysis, a synthesis, etc.) is in operation and the researcher wonders about the possibility of improving the results by only changing the values of the parameters that control the operation of the system. This demands exploration of an admissible region of the space where the parameters vary. This involves two stages: (i) to experiment in some points of this region and to obtain the results, and (ii) to make a prediction of the results that would be obtained in the rest of the points by evaluating the reliability of this prediction. After that, the researcher will know if the results from his/her system can be improved, and to what extent and the values of the parameters that will have to be used for it. The response surface methodology (RSM) is, above all, a collection of criteria to decide in what points of the feasible region the experimentation should be made, in such a way that the prediction is most precise (whenever possible). Once the researcher has defined the problem, the domain of experimentation and the response, the RSM provides, on the one hand, alternative experimental strategies and, on the other hand, the criteria to evaluate them. The great advantage is that this task of adapting the experimentation to the problem under study is accomplished before carrying out the experiments. Following this point of view, the focus of this chapter is on the criteria and the methodology rather than the detailed list of designs already described in the literature, which in most of the cases are specially adapted to a specific problem. This chapter is thus an introduction to exploration and optimization of response surfaces by fitting an empirical model to some experimental data. In Section 1.12.2, the elements of the RSM are defined. In Section 1.12.3, the most important optimality criteria based on the variance are exposed. The statistical validation of the empirical model is discussed in Section 1.12.4, and in Section 1.12.5 the most often used designs for the fitting of the first- and second-order models are described. The methods for the analysis of the fitted response surface model are discussed in Section 1.12.6. The chapter concludes with some consideration about the practical use of the RSM and bibliographic references are given for more advanced questions, impossible to be tackled in a single chapter. Nowadays, there are several efficient programs that allow the researcher to adapt the experimental design to his/her needs, by using the optimality criteria that she/she considers relevant for the problem under study. Although these programs are an essential tool, their use has to be guided by a clear understanding of the methodology, the criteria and their meaning in practice.

[1]  M. C. Ortiz,et al.  Robust regression techniques A useful alternative for the detection of outlier data in chemical analysis. , 2006, Talanta.

[2]  J. S. Hunter,et al.  Multi-Factor Experimental Designs for Exploring Response Surfaces , 1957 .

[3]  Steven G. Gilmour,et al.  Confidence Regions Around the Ridge of Optimal Response on Fitted Second-Order Response Surfaces , 2003, Technometrics.

[4]  Norman R. Draper,et al.  "RIDGE ANALYSIS" OF RESPONSE SURFACES , 1963 .

[5]  R. S. Laundy,et al.  Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Application , 1989 .

[6]  G. Box,et al.  On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions , 1951 .

[7]  Luis A. Sarabia,et al.  Optimisation of a flow injection system with electrochemical detection using the desirability function: Application to the determination of hydroquinone in cosmetics , 2003 .

[8]  William J. Hill,et al.  A Review of Response Surface Methodology: A Literature Survey* , 1966 .

[9]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Improving Almost Anything: Ideas and Essays , 2006 .

[10]  H. Wynn The Sequential Generation of $D$-Optimum Experimental Designs , 1970 .

[11]  John J. Peterson,et al.  A General Approach to Confidence Regions for Optimal Factor Levels of Response Surfaces , 2002, Biometrics.

[12]  Enrique Del Castillo,et al.  A Tool for Computing Confidence Regions on the Stationary Point of a Response Surface , 2001 .

[13]  Luis A. Sarabia,et al.  Optimisation using a surface response methodology of a system with drift: Application to a flow analysis system with electrochemical detection , 2003 .

[14]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[15]  S. Weisberg,et al.  Residuals and Influence in Regression , 1982 .

[16]  Linda M. Haines EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF NON-STANDARD DESIGNS: THE SAN CRISTOBAL DESIGN , 2006 .

[17]  G. Derringer,et al.  Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables , 1980 .

[18]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms , 2001, Wiley-Interscience series in systems and optimization.

[19]  W. J. Studden,et al.  Theory Of Optimal Experiments , 1972 .

[20]  Hans A. Eschenauer,et al.  Emerging methods for multidisciplinary optimization , 2001 .

[21]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Empirical Model‐Building and Response Surfaces , 1988 .

[22]  K. G. Roquemore Hybrid Designs for Quadratic Response Surfaces , 1976 .

[23]  Roger Phan-Tan-Luu,et al.  Pharmaceutical Experimental Design , 1998 .

[24]  Victor Klee,et al.  Experimental designs through level reduction of the d-dimensional cuboctahedron , 1972, Discret. Math..

[25]  Toby J. Mitchell,et al.  An algorithm for the construction of “ D -optimal” experimental designs , 2000 .

[26]  David A. Belsley,et al.  Conditioning Diagnostics: Collinearity and Weak Data in Regression , 1991 .

[27]  Luis A. Sarabia,et al.  Vectorial optimization as a methodogical alternative to desirability function , 2006 .

[28]  L. Haines The application of the annealing algorithm to the construction of exact optimal designs for linear-regression models , 1987 .

[29]  David H. Doehlert,et al.  Uniform Shell Designs , 1970 .

[30]  Dennis K. J. Lin,et al.  STATISTICAL INFERENCE FOR RESPONSE SURFACE OPTIMA , 2006 .

[31]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis. , 1967 .

[32]  A. Khuri A measure of rotatability for response-surface designs , 1988 .

[33]  Max D. Morris,et al.  A Class of Three-Level Experimental Designs for Response Surface Modeling , 2000, Technometrics.

[34]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments , 1995 .

[35]  G. Box,et al.  A Basis for the Selection of a Response Surface Design , 1959 .

[36]  M. J. Box,et al.  Factorial Designs, the |X′X| Criterion, and Some Related Matters , 1971 .

[37]  George E. P. Box,et al.  A CONFIDENCE REGION FOR THE SOLUTION OF A SET OF SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS WITH AN APPLICATION TO EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN , 1954 .

[38]  Roger Phan-Tan-Luu,et al.  Correct and incorrect use of multilinear regression , 1995 .

[39]  Yasumasa Baba,et al.  A measure of rotatability for second order response surface designs , 1993 .

[40]  Anthony C. Atkinson,et al.  GENERALIZED LINEAR MODELS AND RESPONSE TRANSFORMATION , 2006 .

[41]  Connie M. Borror,et al.  Response Surface Methodology: A Retrospective and Literature Survey , 2004 .

[42]  R. H. Myers,et al.  Fraction of Design Space to Assess Prediction Capability of Response Surface Designs , 2003 .

[43]  M. C. Ortiz,et al.  Multiresponse optimization and parallel factor analysis, useful tools in the determination of estrogens by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. , 2007, Journal of chromatography. A.

[44]  G. Box,et al.  Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables , 1960 .

[45]  Norman R. Draper,et al.  Another look at rotatability , 1990 .

[46]  W. Näther Optimum experimental designs , 1994 .

[47]  Steven G. Gilmour,et al.  An algorithm for arranging response surface designs in small blocks , 2000 .

[48]  John J. Borkowski,et al.  GRAPHICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE PREDICTION CAPABILITY OF RESPONSE SURFACE DESIGNS , 2006 .