A Univariate Loss Function Approach to Multiple Response Surface Optimization: An Interactive Procedure-Based Weight Determination

다중반응표면 최적화를 위한 단변량 손실함수법: 대화식 절차 기반의 가중치 결정

  • Received : 2019.12.23
  • Accepted : 2020.01.29
  • Published : 2020.03.31


Response surface methodology (RSM) empirically studies the relationship between a response variable and input variables in the product or process development phase. The ultimate goal of RSM is to find an optimal condition of the input variables that optimizes (maximizes or minimizes) the response variable. RSM can be seen as a knowledge management tool in terms of creating and utilizing data, information, and knowledge about a product production and service operations. In the field of product or process development, most real-world problems often involve a simultaneous consideration of multiple response variables. This is called a multiple response surface (MRS) problem. Various approaches have been proposed for MRS optimization, which can be classified into loss function approach, priority-based approach, desirability function approach, process capability approach, and probability-based approach. In particular, the loss function approach is divided into univariate and multivariate approaches at large. This paper focuses on the univariate approach. The univariate approach first obtains the mean square error (MSE) for individual response variables. Then, it aggregates the MSE's into a single objective function. It is common to employ the weighted sum or the Tchebycheff metric for aggregation. Finally, it finds an optimal condition of the input variables that minimizes the objective function. When aggregating, the relative weights on the MSE's should be taken into account. However, there are few studies on how to determine the weights systematically. In this study, we propose an interactive procedure to determine the weights through considering a decision maker's preference. The proposed method is illustrated by the 'colloidal gas aphrons' problem, which is a typical MRS problem. We also discuss the extension of the proposed method to the weighted MSE (WMSE).


Supported by : 대구대학교


  1. 임성수, 이우선 2004. "반응표면분석에서의 다반응 최적화: 기대 상대오차제곱 추정치 가중합의 최소화에 의한 방법," 품질경영학회지 (33:1), pp. 73-82.
  2. 정인준 2011. "다중반응표면최적화: 현황 및 향후 연구방향," 품질경영학회지 (39:3), pp. 377-390.
  3. 정인준 2015a. "Tchebycheff Metric 기반 가중평균제곱오차 최소화법을 활용한 다중반응표면 최적화," 한국산학기술학회논문지 (16:1), pp. 97-105.
  4. 정인준 2015b. "다중반응표면 최적화에서 가중평균제곱오차 최소화법을 위한 선호도사후제시법," 한국산학기술학회논문지 (16:10), pp. 7061-7070.
  5. 정인준 2017. "대화식 절차를 활용한 공정능력지수 기반 다중반응표면 최적화," 품질경영학회지 (45:2), pp. 191-208.
  6. 정인준 2018. "쌍대반응표면최적화를 위한 사후선호도반영법: TOPSIS를 활용한 최고선호해 선택," 지식경영연구 (19:2), pp. 151-162.
  7. 정인준 2019. "다중반응표면최적화를 위한 공정능력함수법에서 최소치최대화 기준의 활용에 관한 연구," 지식경영연구 (20:3), pp. 39-47.
  8. 정인준, 조현우 2013. "다중반응표면 최적화를 위한 가중평균제곱오차," 한국산학기술학회논문지 (14:2), pp. 625-633.
  9. 표인수, 이재광 2016. "QFD를 이용한 기업 법무 서비스 품질 측정 및 개선에 관한 연구," 지식경영연구 (17:2), pp. 1-26.
  10. Ames, A. E., Mattucci, N., MacDonald, S., Szonyi, G., and Hawkins, D. M. 1997. "Quality Loss Functions for Optimization Across Multiple Response Surfaces," Journal of Quality Technology (29:3), pp. 339-346.
  11. Ardakani, M. K. and Wulff, S. S. 2013. "An Overview of Optimization Formulations for Multiresponse Surface Problems," Quality and Reliability Engineering International (29:1), pp. 3-16.
  12. Box, G. E. P. and Draper, N. R. 1987. Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces, New York:John Wiley & Sons.
  13. Ding, R., Lin, D. K. J., and Wei, D. 2004. "Dual Response Surface Optimization: A Weighted MSE Approach," Quality Engineering (16:3), pp. 377-385.
  14. Hwang, C., Masud, A. S. M., Paidy., S. R., and Yoon, K. 1979. Multiple Objective Decision Making. Methods and Applications (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems), Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
  15. Jauregi, P., Gilmour, S., and Varley, J., 1997. "Characterisation of Colloidal Gas Aphrons for Subsequent Use for Protein Recovery," Chemical Engineering Journal (65:1), pp. 1-11.
  16. Jeong, I. and Kim, K. 2003. "Interactive Desirability Function Approach to Multi-Response Surface Optimization," International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety Engineering (10:2), pp. 205-217.
  17. Jeong, I. and Kim, K. 2005. "D-STEM: A Modified Step Method with Desirability Function Concept," Computers and Operations Research (32:12), pp. 3175-3190.
  18. Jeong, I. and Kim, K. 2009. "An Interactive Desirability Function Method to Multiresponse Optimization," European Journal of Operational Research (195:2), pp. 412-426.
  19. Jeong, I., Kim, K., and Chang, S. Y. 2005. "Optimal Weighting of Bias and Variance in Dual Response Surface Optimization," Journal of Quality Technology (37:3), pp. 236-247.
  20. Jeong, I., Kim, K., and Lin, D. 2010., "Bayesian Analysis for Weighted Mean Squared Error in Dual Response Surface Optimization," Quality and Reliability Engineering International (26:5), pp. 417-430.
  21. Khuri, A. I. 1996. "Multiresponse Surface Methodology," Handbook of Statistics: Design and Analysis of Experiment (Vol. 13) (eds. A. Ghosh and C. R. Rao), pp. 377-406.
  22. Kim, K. and Lin, D. 2006. "Optimization of Multiple Responses Considering Both Location and Dispersion Effects," European Journal of Operational Research (169:1), pp. 133-145.
  23. Ko, Y., Kim, K., and Jun, C. 2005. "A New Loss Function-Based Method for Multiresponse Optimization," Journal of Quality Technology (37:1), pp. 50-59.
  24. Koksoy, O. and Yalcinoz, T. 2006. "Mean Square Error Criteria to Multiresponse Process Optimization by a New Genetic Algorithm," Applied Mathematics and Computation (175:2), pp. 1657-1674.
  25. Koksoy, O. 2008. "A Nonlinear Programming Solution to Robust Multi-Response Quality Problem," Applied Mathematics and Computation (196:2), pp. 603-612.
  26. Koksoy, O. 2006. "Multiresponse Robust Design: Mean Square Error (MSE) Criterion," Applied Mathematics and Computation (175:2), pp. 1716-1729.
  27. Lee, D. and Kim, K. 2012. "Interactive Weighting of Bias and Variance in Dual Response Surface Optimization," Expert Systems with Applications (39:5), pp. 5900-5906.
  28. Lijuan, S., Yu, Z., and Jun, Y. 2010. "Mean Square Error Criteria to Multiple Quality Characteristics Robust Design by the Weighted Tchebycheff Method," Advanced Materials Research (118-120), pp. 881-885.
  29. Lin, D. and Tu, W. 1995. "Dual Response Surface Optimization," Journal of Quality Technology (27:1), pp. 34-39.
  30. Miettinen, K. 2001. "Some Methods for Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization," Lecture Notes in Computer Science (1993), pp. 1-20.
  31. Myers, R. H. and Montgomery, D. C. 2002. Response Surface Methodology (2nd ed.), New York:John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Myers, R. H., Khuri, A., and Carter, W. H., Jr. 1989. "Response Surface Methodology: 1966-1988," Technometrics (31:2), pp. 137-157.
  33. Myers, R. H. 1999. "Response Surface Methodology: Current Status and Future Directions," Journal of Quality Technology (31:1), pp. 30-44.
  34. Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., Vining, G. G., Borror, C. M., and Kowalski, S. M. 2004. "Response Surface Methodology: A Retrospective and Literature Survey," Journal of Quality Technology (36:1), pp. 53-77.
  35. Pignatiello, J. 1993. "Strategies for Robust Multiresponse Quality Engineering," IIE Transactions (25:3), pp. 5-15.
  36. Shin, S., Samanlioglu, F., Cho, B. B., and Wiecek, M. M. 2001. "Computing Trade-Offs in Robust Design: Perspectives of the Mean Squared Error," Computers and Industrial Engineering (60:2), pp. 248-255.
  37. Steuer, R. E. 1986. Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, New York:John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Taguchi, G. and Wu, Y. 1979. "Off-line Quality Control," Central Japan Quality Control Association (available from American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI).
  39. Vining, G. 1998. "A Compromise Approach to Multiresponse Optimization," Journal of Quality Technology (30:4), pp. 309-313.