| Literature DB >> 31767888 |
Liu Liu1, Jin Yue2, Xin Lai3, Jianping Huang4, Jian Zhang5.
Abstract
Control chart methods have been received much attentions in biosurvillance studies. The correlation between charting statistics or regions could be considerably important in monitoring the states of multiple outcomes or regions. In addition, the process variable distribution is unknown in most situations. In this paper, we propose a new nonparametric strategy for multivariate process monitoring when the distribution of a process variable is unknown. We discuss the EWMA control chart based on rank methods for a multivariate process, and the approach is completely nonparametric. A simulation study demonstrates that the proposed method is efficient in detecting shifts for multivariate processes. A real Japanese influenza data example is given to illustrate the performance of the proposed method.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31767888 PMCID: PMC6877522 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53908-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart under N(μ0,Σ0) with a zero–state ARL = 500.
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 210.9 | 91.4 | 25.8 | 15.9 | 11.6 | 10.4 | 10 | 9.6 | 0.04 | |
| 325.7 | 154.9 | 39.8 | 19.6 | 12.9 | 10.1 | 8.9 | 8 | 0.27 | |
| 108.7 | 63.2 | 33.3 | 20 | 12.3 | 11 | 10.7 | 9.5 | 0.16 | |
| 314 | 147.7 | 34.9 | 17.2 | 11.2 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 6.1 | 0.41 | |
| 137.3 | 76.1 | 37.4 | 20.2 | 15.2 | 12.7 | 11.8 | 10.3 | 0.24 | |
| 347.7 | 145.4 | 38.1 | 18.1 | 11.3 | 9 | 7.7 | 6.9 | 0.31 | |
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart under N(μ0,Σ1) with a zero–state ARL = 500.
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 239.1 | 177.5 | 28.1 | 16.5 | 12.9 | 11.5 | 10.3 | 9.1 | 0.02 | |
| 345.2 | 281.5 | 47 | 24.3 | 15.7 | 11.3 | 9.6 | 8.4 | 0.3 | |
| 211.6 | 127.4 | 27.6 | 16 | 12.8 | 10.5 | 9.6 | 7.9 | 0.04 | |
| 260.5 | 163.5 | 45.8 | 23.7 | 15.1 | 10 | 8.3 | 7 | 0.23 | |
| 190 | 94 | 26.3 | 15.5 | 12.9 | 9.8 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 0.04 | |
| 236.9 | 149.6 | 41.3 | 21.6 | 14.7 | 9.1 | 7.5 | 6.9 | 0.24 | |
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart under LBVW(1, 1, 1, 0.5) with a zero–state ARL = 500.
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 132.7 | 62.1 | 24.2 | 16.7 | 13.9 | 12.9 | 11.8 | 10.6 | 0.1 | |
| 156 | 94.9 | 40 | 19 | 12.3 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 9 | 0.19 | |
| 116.2 | 42.9 | 23.7 | 16.2 | 13.9 | 12.8 | 11.8 | 10.3 | 0.11 | |
| 134 | 62 | 31.9 | 21 | 11.2 | 10 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 0.16 | |
| 93.3 | 39.3 | 21.7 | 16.2 | 13.1 | 11.9 | 11.5 | 10.1 | 0.1 | |
| 107.7 | 55.4 | 26 | 18.1 | 11 | 10.2 | 9.7 | 8.1 | 0.11 | |
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart under N(μ2,Σ2) with a zero–state ARL = 500.
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 135.4 | 37.4 | 15.3 | 12.8 | 9.4 | 8.9 | 8 | 7.6 | 0.04 | |
| 175.2 | 61.5 | 24 | 13.3 | 8.7 | 8.2 | 7.6 | 7 | 0.19 | |
| 85 | 28.4 | 15 | 11.2 | 9 | 8.1 | 7.5 | 7.1 | 0.03 | |
| 106.5 | 43.5 | 19.9 | 12.7 | 8.1 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7 | 0.16 | |
| 70.9 | 21.7 | 13.5 | 10.9 | 8.6 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7 | 0.03 | |
| 89.9 | 38.6 | 16.3 | 11.6 | 8 | 7.1 | 7 | 6.8 | 0.12 | |
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart designed to detect a shift under N(μ3,Σ3) with a zero–state ARL = 500.
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 114.9 | 31.1 | 13.7 | 11.3 | 9.9 | 8.9 | 8.6 | 7.9 | 0.01 | |
| 341 | 122 | 31.6 | 14.5 | 11.7 | 8.8 | 8.4 | 7.5 | 0.83 | |
| 78.9 | 29.3 | 13.4 | 10.4 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 0.02 | |
| 198.7 | 98.3 | 28.7 | 13.8 | 10.5 | 8.5 | 7.1 | 6.1 | 0.68 | |
| 67.6 | 26.3 | 12.9 | 9.3 | 8.7 | 8.1 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 0.02 | |
| 110.6 | 68 | 21.9 | 11.6 | 8.5 | 7.9 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 0.4 | |
ARL comparisons for the EWMA control chart designed to detect a shift under multivariate Poisson(θ1 + δ, θ2, θ0) with a zero–state ARL = 500, where (θ1, θ2, θ0) = (0.5, 0.6, 0.2).
| RMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 105.2 | 29.7 | 13.6 | 12.2 | 10.9 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 8.1 | 0.02 | |
| 111.7 | 31.2 | 16 | 12.7 | 10.6 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 7.9 | 0.04 | |
| 66.4 | 25 | 13.3 | 10.3 | 9 | 8.6 | 8.1 | 7.9 | 0.03 | |
| 71.7 | 27.9 | 14.4 | 10.6 | 9.1 | 8.1 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 0.04 | |
| 52.6 | 24.9 | 13.1 | 10.7 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 7.7 | 0.02 | |
| 61.8 | 25.5 | 14.1 | 10.9 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 7.6 | 7.3 | 0.04 | |
Figure 1Computing time of the EWMA1 and EWMA2 charts for a range of shifts.
Figure 2The Japanese influenza data.
Figure 3The corresponding normal Q-Q plot.
Figure 4Correlation of six regions.
Figure 5Spectral analysis of the influenza data series.
Shapiro-Wilk test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality.
| Gunma | Chiba | Tokyo | Ishikawa | Nagano | Osaka | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.95738 | 0.962 | 0.98165 | 0.93915 | 0.95504 | 0.94605 | |
| 2.752e-14 | 2.271e-13 | 2.464e-08 | <2.2e-16 | 1.002e-14 | 2.809e-16 | |
| 0.075224 | 0.12162 | 0.17872 | 0.10759 | 0.071647 | 0.10472 | |
| 0.0002868 | 1.796e-10 | <2.2e-16 | 2.747e-08 | 0.000652 | 7.112e-08 | |
The coefficients of AR(1) for residuals data.
| Gunma | Chiba | Tokyo | Ishikawa | Nagano | Osaka | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | 0.9086 | 0.9105 | 0.9364 | 0.8854 | 0.9039 | 0.9111 |
The coefficients of AR(1) for residuals data after the first order difference.
| Gunma | Chiba | Tokyo | Ishikawa | Nagano | Osaka | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | −0.1249 | −0.1813 | −0.1563 | −0.2178 | −0.0699 | −0.2118 |
Figure 6EWMA1 control chart.
Figure 7EWMA control chart based on data depth.
Figure 8Six single univariate control charts for Japanese influenza data.