Abstract
In recent years, control charts based on variable selection (VS) algorithms have been suggested for monitoring multivariate data. These charts share the common idea that process faults usually affect a small fraction of the monitored quality characteristics. Thus, VS methods can be used to identify the subset of the variables for which the shift may have occurred. However, the suggested VS-based control charts differ in many aspects such as the particular VS algorithm and the type of control statistic. In this paper, we compare VS-based control charts in various out-of-control scenarios characterizing modern manufacturing environments such as high-dimensional data, profile, and multistage process monitoring. The main aim of this paper is to provide practical guidelines for choosing a suitable VS-based monitoring scheme.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bersimis, S., Psarakis, S., & Panaretos, J. (2007). Multivariate statistical process control charts: an overview. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23, 517–543.
Capizzi, G., & Masarotto, G. (2011). A least angle regression control chart for multidimensional data. Technometrics, 53, 285–296.
Efron, E., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I., & Tibshirani, R. (2004). Least angle regression. The Annals of Statistics, 32, 407–499.
Jiang, W., Wang, K., & Tsung, F. (2012) A variable-selection-based multivariate EWMA chart for process monitoring and diagnosis. Journal of Quality Technology, 44, 209–230.
Lucas, J. M., & Saccucci, M. S. (1990). Exponentially weighted movin average control schemes: properties and enhancements. Technometrics, 32, 1–29.
Polyak, B. T., & Juditsky, A. B. (1992). Acceleration of stochastic approximation by averaging. SIAM Journal of Control Optmization, 30, 838–855.
Prabhu, S. S., & Runger, G. C. (1997). Designing a multivariate EWMA control chart. Journal of Quality Technology, 29, 8–15.
Reynolds, M. R., & Stoumbos, Z. G. (2005). Should exponentially weighted moving average and cumulative sum charts be used with Shewhart limits? Technometrics, 47(4), 409–424.
Reynolds, M. R., & Stoumbos, Z. G. (2006). Comparisons of some exponentially weighted moving average control charts for monitoring the process mean and variance. Technometrics, 48(4), 550–567.
Ruppert, D. (1991). Stochastic approximation. In B. K. Ghosh, & P. K. Sen (Eds.), Handbook of sequential analysis (pp. 503–529). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Tibshirani, R. J. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58, 267–288.
Wang, K., & Jiang, W. (2009). High-dimensional process monitoring and fault isolation via variable selection. Journal of Quality Technology, 41, 247–258.
Zou, C., Ning, X., & Tsung, F. (2010). Lasso-based multivariate linear profile monitoring. Annals of Operation Research, 192, 3–19.
Zou, C., & Qiu, P. (2009). Multivariate statistical process control using LASSO. Journal of American Statistical Association, 104, 1586–1596.
Zou, C., Tsung, F., & Wang, Z. (2008). Monitoring profiles based on nonparametric regression methods. Technometrics, 50, 512–526.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
In the following, we provide details on the OC scenarios listed in the x axes of Fig. 1. When only variables or stages with an even (odd) index are subject to a shift of size δ, the OC scenario is indicated with either Even[δ] or Odd[δ].
-
1.
Unstructured model: \(1 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5)\), \(2 = (\beta _{1} = 1)\), \(3 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5)\), \(4 = (\beta _{3} = 1)\), \(5 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{2} = 0.25)\), \(6 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{2} = 0.5)\), \(7 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{2} = 0.75)\), \(8 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{3} = 0.25)\) \(9 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{3} = 0.5)\), \(10 = (\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{3} = 0.75)\), \(11 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5,\;\beta _{8} = 0.25)\), \(12 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5,\;\beta _{8} = 0.5)\), \(13 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5,\;\beta _{8} = 0.75)\), \(14 =\beta _{1} = 0.5,\;\beta _{2} = 0.25,\;\beta _{3} = 0.25)\), \(15 = (\beta _{1} = 0.25,\;\beta _{2} = 0.25,\;\beta _{3} = 0.5)\), \(16 = (\beta _{2} = 0.5,\;\beta _{3} = 0.25,\;\beta _{8} = 0.25)\), \(17 = (\beta _{2} = 0.25,\;\beta _{3} = 0.25,\;\beta _{8} = 0.5)\), \(18 = (\beta _{7} = 0.5,\;\beta _{8} = 0.25,\;\beta _{9} = 0.5)\), \(19 = (\beta _{7} = 0.25,\;\beta _{8} = 0.75,\;\beta _{9} = 0.5)\), \(20 = (\beta _{6} = 0.5,\;\beta _{8} = 0.25,\;\beta _{10} = 0.5)\), \(21 = (\beta _{6} = 0.25,\;\beta _{8} = 0.75,\;\beta _{10} = 0.5)\), 22 = (Even[0. 25]), 23 = (Even[0. 5]), 24 = (Odd[0. 25]), 25 = (Even[0. 5]), 26 = (Even[0. 5], Odd[0. 25]), 27 = (Odd[0. 5], Even[0. 25]), \(28 = (\omega = 1.2)\), \(29 = (\omega = 1.5)\), \(30 = (\omega = 2)\).
-
2.
Linear profiles: \(1 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1)\), \(2 = (\beta _{1} = 0.3)\), \(3 = (\beta _{2} = 0.2)\), \(4 = (\beta _{2} = 0.5)\), \(5 = (\beta _{3} = 0.2)\), \(6 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5)\), \(7 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1)\), \(8 = (\beta _{1} = 0.4,\;\beta _{2} = 0.2)\) \(9 = (\beta _{1} = 0.4,\;\beta _{2} = 0.6)\), \(10 = (\beta _{1} = 0.6,\;\beta _{2} = 0.6)\), \(11 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(12 = (\beta _{1} = 0.3,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(13 = (\beta _{1} = 1,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(14 = (\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(15 = (\beta _{2} = 0.4,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(16 = (\beta _{1} = 1.2,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(17 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(18 = (\beta _{1} = 0.4,\;\beta _{2} = 0.2,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(19 = (\beta _{1} = 0.4,\;\beta _{2} = 0.6,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(20 = (\beta _{1} = 0.6,\;\beta _{2} = 0.6,\;\omega = 1.2)\), \(21 = (\omega = 1.2)\), \(22 = (\omega = 1.5)\), \(23 = (\omega = 2)\).
-
3.
Cubic profiles: \(1 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1)\), \(2 = (\beta _{1} = 0.3)\), \(3 = (\beta _{1} = 1)\), \(4 = (\beta _{2} = 0.2)\), \(5 = (\beta _{2} = 0.4)\), \(6 = (\beta _{2} = 1.2)\), \(7 = (\beta _{4} = 0.2)\), \(8 = (\beta _{4} = 0.5)\), \(9 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1)\), \(10 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.2)\) \(11 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{4} = 0.2)\), \(12 = (\beta _{2} = 0.2,\;\beta _{3} = 0.2)\), \(13 = (\beta _{2} = 0.4,\;\beta _{4} = 0.2)\), \(14 = (\beta _{3} = 0.5,\;\beta _{4} = 0.5)\), \(15 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.1)\), \(16 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.2,\;\beta _{4} = 0.1)\), \(17 = (\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.3,\;\beta _{4} = 0.2)\), \(18 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.1,\;\beta _{4} = 0.1)\), \(19 = (\beta _{1} = 0.1,\;\beta _{2} = 0.2,\;\beta _{3} = 0.1,\;\beta _{4} = 0.2)\), \(20 = (\beta _{1} = 0.2,\;\beta _{2} = 0.1,\;\beta _{3} = 0.2,\;\beta _{4} = 0.1)\), \(21 = (\omega = 1.2)\), \(22 = (\omega = 1.5)\), \(23 = (\omega = 2)\).
-
4.
Non parametric profiles. The following OC scenarios are referred to possible shifts in the regression coefficients of models I, II and III. \(1 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.00,\;\beta _{2} = 1.30)\), \(2 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.00,\;\beta _{2} = 1.50)\), \(3 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.10,\;\beta _{2} = 1.00)\) \(4 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.30,\;\beta _{2} = 1.00)\), \(5 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.20,\;\beta _{2} = 1.00,\;\omega = 1.10)\), \(6 = (\mathrm{I},\beta _{1} = 1.00,\;\beta _{2} = 1.20,\;\omega = 1.30)\), \(7 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.10,\;\beta _{2} = 3.00)\), \(8 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.30,\;\beta _{2} = 3.00)\), \(9 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.10,\;\beta _{2} = 2.00)\) \(10 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.30,\;\beta _{2} = 2.00)\), \(11 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.20,\;\beta _{2} = 4.00,\;\omega = 1.10)\), \(12 = (\mathrm{II},\beta _{1} = 0.20,\;\beta _{2} = 4.00,\;\omega = 1.30)\) \(13 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 2.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.90)\), \(14 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 4.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.90)\), \(15 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 2.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.75)\), \(16 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 4.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.75)\), \(17 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 2.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.90,\;\omega = 1.20)\), \(18 = (\mathrm{III},\beta _{1} = 4.00,\;\beta _{2} = 0.75,\;\omega = 1.20)\).
-
5.
Multistage process. In the following, β j indicates the shift of size β, occurring at the j-th stage, j = 1, …, 20. \(1 = (\beta _{1} = 0.75)\), \(2 = (\beta _{5} = 0.75)\), \(3 = (\beta _{10} = 0.75)\), \(4 = (\beta _{1} = 1.5)\), \(5 = (\beta _{5} = 1.5)\), \(6 = (\beta _{10} = 1.5)\), \(7 = (\beta _{2} = 0.6,\;\beta _{8} = 0.6)\), \(8 = (\beta _{4} = 0.6,\;\beta _{5} = 0.6)\), \(9 = (\beta _{2} = 1.2,\;\beta _{8} = 1.2)\), \(10 = (\beta _{4} = 1.2,\;\beta _{5} = 1.2)\), \(11 = (\beta _{2} = 1.8,\;\beta _{8} = 1.8)\), \(12 = (\beta _{4} = 1.8,\;\beta _{5} = 1.8)\), \(13 = (\beta _{1} =\beta _{5} =\beta _{10} = 0.2,\;\beta _{3} =\beta _{7} = 0.4)\), \(14 = (\beta _{3} =\beta _{5} =\beta _{7} = 0.2,\;\beta _{4} =\beta _{6} = 0.4)\), \(15 = (\beta _{1} =\beta _{5} =\beta _{10} = 0.6,\;\beta _{3} =\beta _{7} = 0.4)\), \(16 = (\beta _{3} =\beta _{5} =\beta _{7} = 0.6,\;\beta _{4} =\beta _{6} = 0.4)\), 17 = (Even[0. 1], Odd[0. 2]), 18 = (Even[0. 5], Odd[0. 25]).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Capizzi, G., Masarotto, G. (2015). Comparison of Phase II Control Charts Based on Variable Selection Methods. In: Knoth, S., Schmid, W. (eds) Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control 11. Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12355-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12355-4_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12354-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12355-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)