Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTYFOURTH
CONFERENCE ON THE DESIGN OF
CN EXPERIMENTS IN ARMY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
This document cnan blank pages that were not filmed.
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
Sponsored by The Army Mathematics Steering Committee
'f41
T IC IELECTE
AUG 15 1989
on Behalf of
THE CHIEF OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION
I,
.
U.S. Army Research Office Report No. 892 July 1989
V
PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTYFOURTH CONFERENCE ON THE DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS
Sponsored by the Army Mathematics Steering Committee
HOST U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico HELD AT New Mexico State University Las Cruces, New Mexico 1921 October 1988
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
U.S. Army Research OfFice P.O. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
FOREWORD
The ThirtyFourth Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research, Development and Testing was held on 1921 October 1988 in the auditorium of the Physical Sciences Laboratory on the campus of New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Mr. John Lockert, Director of the White Sands Missile Range, stated his installation would serve as the host for this meeting. He selected Mr. William Agee to act as the chairperson for local arrangements. The attendees appreciated the quiet and efficient manner in which this gentleman handled the many tasks associated with this event. He is also to be commended for his planning arrangements for a tutorial which was scheduled to be held two days before the start of this conference. The original format for the Design of Experiments Conferences, which are under the auspices of the Army Mathematics Steering Committee (AMSC), was outlined by the eminent statistician, Professor Samuel S. Wilks, who served as conference chairman until his death. Through these symposia the AMSC hopes to introduce and encourage the use of the latest statistical and design techniques into the research, development and testing conducted by the Army's scientific and engineering personnel. It is believed that this purpose can be best pursued by holding these meetings at various government installations throughout the country. Members of the program committee were pleased to obtain the services of the following distinguished scientists to speak on topics of interest to Army personnel: Speaker and Affiliation Professor Herbert A. David Iowa State University Professor Ronald R. Hocking Texas A&M University Professors Donald L. Iglehart and Peter W. Glynn Stanford University Professor Emanuel Parzen Texas A&M University Professor Edward L. Wegman Title of Address Some Applications of Order Statistics Diagnostic Methods  Variance Component Estimation Computational and Statistical Issues in DiscreteEvent Simul ation Two Sample Functional Statistical Analysis Parallel Coordinate .ooegsson For I
TIC TAB
George Mason University
Density Plots
I
GRA&I
[
)By .. . .. . iii
LDIt ributlon/
/7~ ,'
M~
Availability Codas /Speutal Dist
AviiIJ and~/or
Four days before the start of the planned twoday tutorial on "Topics in Modern Regression Analysis", its speaker advised Mr. Agee he could not give his planned lectures. Fortunately, Professor Ali Hadi of Cornell University was able, so to speak, to save the day. The attendees were very pleased with Dr. Hadi's interesting and informative tutorial on "Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Regressi on". Dr. Marion R. Bryson, Director of the U.S. Army Combat Development Experimentation Center, was the recipient of the eighth Wilks Award for Contributions to Statistical Methodologies in Army Research, Devel'opment and Testing. This honor was bestowed on Dr. Bryson for his many significant cunLributions to the field of statistics. These started by providing statistical consulting while he was on the faculty of Duke University. This era was followed by fulltime work devoted to directing analytical studies for the Army. Since then, he has provided overall technical direction to the Army's most modern field test facility. His published works include papers on a wide range of topics of importance to the Army, including methods for scoring casualties, designing field experiments, and inventory control problems. The AMSC has asked that these proceedings be distributed Armywide to enable those who could not attend thiis conference, as well as those that were present, to profit from some of thp scientific ideas presented by the speakers. The members of the AMSC are taking this opportunity to thank all the speakers for their interesting presentations and also members of the program committee for their many contributions to this scientific event. PROGRAM COMMITTEE Carl Bates Eugene Dutnit Doug Tang Robert Burge Hugh McCoy Malcolm Taylor Henry Tingey Francis Dressel Carl Russell Jerry Thomas
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Title
Page
C eO S* *C CCC0* C 000**...g.
Foreword.************...*****
iill
v
vii
T e of abl
Contents................................0......C............
..... *.. .......................
Program.. .... ........ ...* ..
SOME APPLICATIONS OF ORDER STATISTICS He A. David....................*..*................. .. MULTISAMPLE FUNCTIONAL STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS ,. .. , 0a00 .... , . .. .. Eman uel1 Parz en. .,,,,.aa.,. .0a* . , ., 9990 RELIABILITY OF THE M256 CHEMICAL DETECTION KITDavid W. Webb and Linda L.C. Moss.............,,...,....., COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY CONFIDENCE INTERVALS 1 Paul H . Thrasher. ......... . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING: Dennis L. Brandon . A CASE STUDY,
4......
1
15
27
... .. ..
............
33
73 77
.......... .. . . .
..
A GENERALIZED GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION Siegfried HC Lehni gk...C........
... ......... ... .
A GENERALIZATION OF THE EULERIAN NUMBERS WITH A PROBABILISTIC APPLICATION ... .......... ............... Bernard Harris ...... THE ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE QUALITATIVE DATA USING AN ORDERED CATEGORIAL APPROACH H. B. Tingey, E. A. Morgenthein, and S. M. Free.................. A SMALL SAMPLE POWER STUDY OF THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC AND A COMPARISON WITH THE KOLMOGOROV AND THE CRAMERVON MISES STATISTICS Linda L.C. Moss, Malcolm S. Taylor, and Henry B. Tingey.......... NONPARE, A CONSULTATION SYSTEM FOR ANALYSIS OF DATA J. C. Dumer, III, T. P. Hanratty, and M. S. Taylor..... .... ...
79
99
III 173
*This Table of Contents contains only the papers that are published in this technical manual. For a list of all papers presented at the ThirtyFourth Conference on the Design of Experiments, see the Program of this meeting.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Title ;NUMERICAL ESTIMATION OF GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION PARAMETERS., Cha rl es E. Hall1 , Jr.. a . * * * ** ** .. * * * . * * * . * * * * ** a
0 0 a a 0 a # a f
Page
* ** *
1856
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK CHROME SOLAR SELECTIVE COATINGS, 0ETERMINATION OF DETrECTION RANGE OF MONOTONE AND CAMOUFLAGE OATTERNED FIVESOLDIER CREW TENTS BY GROUND OBSERVERS., George Anitole and Ronald L. Johnson...................0 *0'"
a"s
189 201
AN EXAMPLE OF CHAIN SAMPLING AS USED IN ACCEPTANCE TESTING Jerry Thomas, Robert L. Umholtz, and William E. Baker...........
SOME NOTES ON VARIABLE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR REGRESSION MODELS (AN OVARV IEW) . Eugene F.Dutoi t..........................f .4..a........a......b 219 TWOSTAGE TESTING OF COMBAT VEHICLE TIRE SYSTEMSPARALLEL COORDINATE DENSITIES,
Edwa rd J. Wegma n. . . .0 .
a.a
. . . *
0
*
** 0 * * *
* 1 *.
. . .
. 0 ..
*
1
*.** 0 0
24 7
COMPUTATIONAL AND STATISTICAL ISSUES IN DISCRETEEVENT SIMULATION Peter W. Glynn and Donald L. gehr..............265 BAYESIAN INFERENCE FOR WEIBULL QUANTILES
Mark G. Vangel
... .... .*,,,,,. . ..
.. . *******. .
. . .
......
......
281
MAKING FISHER'S EXACT TEST RELEVANT. Paul H. Thahr.. .... *............,...331
LIST OF REGISTERED ATTENDEES ......
. .. ........
...
..
...
*
...
..
359
vi
AGENI1A THE THIRTYFOURTH CONFERENCE ON TIM DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS IN ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING 1921 October 1988
Host: Location:
White Sands Missile Range Physical Sciences Laboratory Nev Mexico State University
Las Cruces, Nev Mexico
xxxxx Wednesday, 19 October xxxxx
0815  0915 0915  0930
REGISTRATION CALLING THE CONFERENCE TO ORDER
WELCOMING REMARKS:
0930  1200
GENERAL SESSION I (Auditorium) Chairman:
0930  1030
KEYNOTE ADDRESSt
SOME APPLICATIONS OF ORDER STATISTICS
6. A. David, Iova State University 1030  1100 BREAK
1100  1200
TWO SAMPLE FUNCTIONAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Emanuel Parzen, Texas A&M University
vii
Moss. Army Engineer Vatervays Experiment Station THE GENERALIZED GUMBEL DISTRIBUTION Siegfried H. U. Army Concepts Analysis Agency Bernard Harris. University of Delavare ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING: A CASE STUDY Dennis L. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Agency Bernard Harris. EULERFROBENIUS POLYNOMIALS AND PROBABILITY Bernard Harris.CLINICAL SESSION A Chairpersons Panelists: Carl Bates. White Sands Missile Range 1500 . U. Army Missile Command EULER NUMBERS. University of VisconsinMadison Ronald Hocking.S. U. University of WisconsinMadison viii .S.S. Webb and Linda L.1330 1330 . U.1200 . Thrasher.C. Brandon.1530 1530 . Texas AIIM University Henry Tingey. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY CONFIDENCE INTERVALS Paul H.S. Lehnigk. U.S.1500 LUNCH .1710 BR1AK COMBID CLINICAL AND TECHNICAL SESSION Chairpersons Panelists: Carl Russell. University of South Carolina Emanuel Parzen. Texas A&M University RELIABILITY OF THE M256 GIMEICAL DETECTION KIT David V. University of WisconsinMadison Robert Launer.
1030 1030 . Dumer. Taylor. University of Delavare II A SMALL SAMPLE POWER STUDY OF THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC Linda L. Agee and Andrev C.gson.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory NUMERICAL ESTIMATION OF DISTRI(BUTION PARAMETERS Charles E.B.xxx= Thursday. Tingey. A. Army Missile Command ix .. University of Delavare NONPARU A CONSULTATION SYSTEM FOR NONPARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF DATA Malcolm S. E. John C. III and Timothy P.1200 BREAK TECHNICAL SESSION 2 ChaArpersont Linda L. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory 1000 . U. Essenvanger. and S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory. U.S.C.S. Command U.S. U. 20 October xxxx€ 0800 0815  REGISTRATION 1000 TECINICAL SESSION 1 Chairperson: Oskar M. Ell!. Hall. Army Missile REAPA RADAR ERROR ANALYSIS PROGRAM William S. M.S. Malcolm S. Tingey. Free. Taylor. Moss. Hanratty. U. and Henry B. Jr. Moss. Morgenthien.C. White Sands Missile Range A MET9OD FOR ANALYZING MULTIVARIATE QUALITATIVE DATA USING AN ORDERED CATEGORICAL APPROACH H.
George Mason University COMPUTATIONAL AND STATISTICAL ISSUES IN DISCRETEEVENT SIMULATION Donald L. Jerry Thomas and William E. Sandi& National Laboratory MULTIOBSERVER MULTITARGET VISIBILITY PROBABILITIES FOR POISSON SHADOWING PROCESSES IN TUE PLANE M.S. Army Research. Baker. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory SOME NOTES ON MODEL SELECTION CRITERIA Eugene Dutoit. Iglehart and Peter W. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research State University of Nov York at AN EXAMPLE OF CHAIN SAMPLING AS USED IN ACCEPTANCE TESTING Robert L.S. Pettit. U.1500 LUNCH APPLICATION SESSION Chairpersons John Robert Burge.S. Glynn. Uholtz. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory 1500 1530 BREAK GENERAL SESSION II Chairperson: Gerald Andersen. Bodt. B.2130 CASH BAR BANQUET AND PRESENTATION OF WILKS AWARD x . Vegman. U.S.1330 1330 .EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK CHROME SOLAR SELECTIVE COATINGS I. Hall and R.1930 1930 . Development and Standardization Group (UK) 1530 ~ 1730 PARALLEL COORDINATE DENSITY PLOTS Edvard J. U. Binghamton 1200 . ?hacks. Yadin and S. U. J. Army Infantry School TWOSTAGE TESTING OF COMBAT VEHICLE TIRE SYSTEMS Barry A. Stanford University 1830 .
21 October xxxxx 0800 REGISTRATION 0930 0815 TECHNICAL SESSION 3 Chairperson: Barry A. U.1000 1000 . Army Materials Technology Laboratory A QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST BASED ON P(y<x) CRITERIA Donald Neal.S.S. Hocking. White Sands Missile Range 0930 . Army Ballistic Research Laboratory BAYESIAN INFERENCE FOR VEIBULL QUANTILES Mark Vangelp U. Trevor Rudalevige and Mark Vangel. Texas A&M University ADJOURN PROGRAM COMMITTEE Carl Bates Eugene Dutoit Doug Tang Robert Burge Hugh McCoy Malcolm Taylor Henry Tingey Francis Dressel Carl Russell Jerry Thomas xi .VARIANCE COMPONENT ESTIMATION Ronald R.1130 BREAK GENERAL SESSION III Chairperson: Douglas B. U. Tang. Bodt. Army Materials Technology Laboratory MAKING FISHER'S EXACT TEST RELEVANT Paul H. Valter Reed Army Institute of Research Chairman of the AMSC Subcommittee on Probability and Statistics OPEN MEETING OF THE STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ARMY MATHEMATICS STEERING COMMITTEE DIAGNOSTIC METHODS .xxxzz Friday.S. Thrasher.
.Xn are assumed to be a random sample from some underlying population. and the maximum absolute deviation from the median (MAD) equals X (n odd) and 1(X 1 max. Examples are the extremes Xl:n and Xn:ng the range Wn .n 4 . (b) current measures of location and dispersion such as the moving median and the moving range.. if the random variables Xl. The range is well known to provide a quick estimator of the population standard deviation a.Xl/a indicating the presence of an *Keynote Address..Xl:n. Prepared with support from the U.1*. David Department of Statistics 102D Snedecor Hall Iowa State University Ames..n). whereas MAD is a more recent estimator of a valuable becau3e of its high resistance to wild observations (outliers).... ( Xn: n * Then Xr~n is called the rth order statistic (r a Il. 1. have been used extensively in such diverse areas as quality control.. Suppose that the random variables X1 . as well as in problems of breaking strength and fatigue failure. Development and Testing... IA 500111210 ABSTRACT. and (c) some problems in reliability... October 19. The subject of order statistics deals with the properties and applications of these ordered random variables and of functions involving them.X + X i . New Mexico State University..Xn: n ..n). 34th Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research. ) 1):n 1~):n (9+ All these statistics have important application. life testing. Order statistics. the estimation of parametwrs. INTRODUCTION. where the median M (n even). t Xn:no we call Xr: n the rth order statistic (0S)(r a 1. Army Research Office. .. In this paper we focus on applications of order sLatistics to (a) estimators that are resitant to outliers.i.s e Xr:n e .. large values of (X:n .... data compression. and functions thereof.X n are arranged in n ascending order as X (: . S.SOME APPLICATIONS OF ORDER STATISTICS* H.M1. 1988. selection procedures.n are arranged in asceding order of magnitude and then written as 1. A. The extreme deviate it a basic tool in the detection of such outliers.. Usually X1. Las Cruces. The extremes arise in the statibtical study of droughts and floods. and the study of extreme meteorological phenomena. the extreme deviate (from the sample mean) Xn:n .
. particular.standardized bias and mean squired error (MSE) of Ln (a) under (2.1..*'a n i:nX) In I.0.. in Clearly.v Xi P of L n(a) is given by or bn(X) 0 E a iain(X). Zi~n. where X 10 is the sample mean10 1 E0 0 9 T 1(1) is the trimmed mean 8E Xil 8 W 10 (2) is the Winsorized mean 1.. under (2.4) (and likewise ai:n 'i1:n' i . 1970.3) that the bias is a strictly increasing function of X for each of the estimators.1) can be obtained with the help of tables of the first two moments of normal order statistics in the presence of an outlier (David.1 0 + 2X8 :10 ) T1 0 (4) is the median 2 (K 5 : 1 0 + etc.. I and by symmetry in Fig. The jagged graphs are the corresponding "stylized sensitivity curves" (Tukey.4) that bn ()  ai i i:al (2... 0 .1) leaves us with a random normal sample of size n . For example. for the median we have 3 . 1977).n1 (' ) ann (a)  (2..2. Andrews et al. BIAS bn Since at O i we see from (2.... Kennedy. that Note (2.1) the standardized bias E () E Ln (a) . The figures are confined to ) ) 0 since results for X < 0 follow by skew symmetry in Fig.n c:n(_*) * = Some results for samples of 10 are shown in Figures I and 2. random samples of n from a standard normal population. 2. (2. and from (2.l. BISb(X). ai:n( ) is a strictly increasing function of A.3) i:n(0) is just the widely tabulated expected value ai: n of the ith OS.1 plus an observation at .5) This gives the numerical values placed on the right of Fig. and Knight.. Also. where 0in (X) is the expected value of Xi: n for U . 1972) obtained by plotting against Ln(al :n1.(2X3 :10 + E Xi. we have ai . since for X . 1.
.4 40 ~ IAfII N*N I Ot* P4 da 4E .P.
1985).E[{sup[IT(Z Icn q.q)I}. 3.20 2 ) T2 > I For this model location estimators remain unbiased but their variance is increased. .1Znq:n q. Since bias has been sidestepped. It appears that unwittingly Rocks does not use (2.0. It is seen that the median performs uniformly best. An often used alternative outlier model replaces the second line of (2. 205). 1977.. The intuitively appealing result that for symmetric unimodal distributions the median is the least biased among the Lnestimators can be formally established under (2.q) by For q(1 4 q < ... MEAN SQUARED ERROR MSE() _. TIO(1) performs best. (2... EXTENSIONS I. 1978.n) outliers Rocks (1986) defines as a measure of outlier resistance of an estimator of location T the DT(nq) .. As Rocke points out.. "expected maximum bias" DT(n. only the variance of the estimator needs to be studied (David and Shu.6) where the supremum is taken over all possible choices of the constants Xl. For n 4 20 appropriately trimmed means still do well in the MSE sense when compared with much more complex estimators.. The sample mean does best for . Overall. each of the horizon tal lines serves as an asymptote to the corresponding bias function.6) but in fact works with the standardized bias 5 . It suffices to model the good observations which more generally could be from any standardized distribution.. No clearcut results emerge. but for X sufficiently large and n not too small are inferior to the best of the adaptive estimators such as Tukey's biweight (Mosteller and Tukey.:9.0. In fact.5 but is quickly outclassed for larger X. p. ~ N(u.. 1983).me meio(. although the more highly trimmed TIO(2) is slightly superior for very large X.. by focusing on the worst case of bias one need not specify the usually unknown distribution(s) of the outliers. i. the supremum will evidently occur when the X'A are all + 4 or all .1) by x.)q and the Z's are the normal OS.. 1 :go g "  :9~ 1('5:9 + 6:9 2 1 2 '6:9 . Rosenberger and Gasko.1372 6 0 < X~ <a6: ' 6:9 The last result is the same as given by (2..1) and also for a class of symmetric nonnormal distributions (David and Ghosh.k< 1.Ln..5). When T ..g 990) . 2. CASE OF SEVERAL EXTREME OUTLIERS.
q~n. with n .) in the course of an investigation of moving ranges W i n X~i n:n  i 1. and X(i) r:n' the rth OS of S (i) n Moving maxima (r . Then the joint distribution of Sn(i) and Sn(J) will be stationary and will depend only on F(x)..n dependent otherwise.Xn+d .ence of independent random variables with cdf (i .. d Let gh r:n if (d) ... CURRENT MEASURES O LOCATION AND DISPERSION Let Xibe a sequ.1..q) among Lnstatistics (locke's proof is incorrect..n) and minima (r .Pr{rank (X(1)) ....*..  size n.. i .g.d rv's in common.2. then again the median can be shown to have the least bias DT(n.2.n Ji  < n.F(x). Ir*..n). see the appendix).). and d. smooth the data.i) where rank (Y) denotes the rank of Y in the combined sample XI.. rank x( 9l:n +d ) ) hj.on. see. 3.. Such charts are particularly appropriate when it takes some time to produce a single observation..2.q) .1) were studied by David (1955) under homogeneity (Fi(x) . and more specifically Xr rzn S~n (r. Then Sn W a jx Xte. Tukey (1977.. 210). like moving averages. being natural companions to moving averages on quality control charts... Cleveland and Kleiner (1975) have used the moving midmean..s m 1...X+n1) may be called a moving sample of the moving rth OS. we assume homogeneity. We therefore consider I) and X(1+d) Sn(1) nand S(1+d).(n..7) If the good observations were independently generated from a unimodal symmetric distribution (mode . (3. together with the mean of the top half and the mean of the bottom half. as three moving descriptive statistics indicating both location and dispersion changes in a time series.. 1946).E{T(Zi~n.e)}s T (2.. e. Since Sn(i) and Sn(") involve common random variables iff d Bi ) s.). we see that X(i) and X are independent for don and To begin with. It follows that 6 . p.maximum).g... 1:n C~) The latter have a longer history (Grant. n.1.. the mean of the centrAl half of the ordered observations in each Sn"i) .. Moving medians are robust current measures of location and.
2) 0n+d This permits calculation of cov(X(l). For example. in fact.. Arco. where for _ purposes of comparison we have added the much less informative moving mean xis X13 i ) x 2:3 1 1 1 1 10 2 2 4 4 3 3 4 9 9 10 9 2 2 1 x 133 1 4 41 51 33 3 51 71 3 7 4J 3 When XK X2 . since the w h can be obtained by combinatorial arguments (David and Rogers. we )i. Calaghor.. since clearly a single outlier will be smoothed out but two successive large values will result in two large medians.2) it is possible to evaluate the autocovariance structure under homogeneity of the moving median and. 1983)..(1) s:n E(X r:n x ( ~d) E(X g:n+d Z g. suppose that in the automatic smoothing of a basically stationary time series one is prepared to ignore single outliers but wishes to be alerted to a succession of two or more high (or low) values. The joint distribution of X (i ) and X (J ) has been investigated •r:n s:n by Inagaki (1980).. and Nodes. and speak of median filters when using the moving median to represent the current value of the signal. x 2 . 1986). are not iid. Electrical engineers have made extensive use of moving order statistics in digital filters. thaeby "filterinr out" occasional impulsive disturbances (outliers)(e.. X(l+d)) in terms of the first two r*s s:n moments of order statistics in samples of n+d from a distribution with cdf F(x). They view a moving sample as a window on a sequence of signals xl. This calls for use of moving medians in samples of three. of any linear function of the order statistics a'x( can find coy (00 7 1 MI xl:n + f*. even the distribution of order statistics in 1 7 . + nXnn:n. With the help of (3. 1987). Bovik and Restrepo. The following small example illustrates the situation..g. 5 ~~ in terms of the first two moments of the OS for sample sizes up to 2nI from a distribution with cdf F(x). That is... More generally. the median may be replaced by G'g to give order statistic filters (eg.h gh (3.
1. It is easily seen that the moving median and other order statistics will reflect trends except for a smoothing at the ends... or lag the trend according as r m.i. 1972) if the X's are not identically distributed but still independent. Sr:nD *:nt Consider now a particular sample X1 . SOME PROBLEMS IN RELIABILITY There is a wellknown immediate connection between order statistics and the reliability of koutofn systems. Then under (3. the variance of the sample median increases with T..a fixed sample becomes complicated although a fairly elegant expression for the pdf can be written down in terms of permanents (Vaughan and Venables.n) independent of i..3.. Kennedy for some computations verifying the latter intuitively obvious result.. where the upward trend is underlined.1..... we evidently have r:n Q)~ W r:n with covariances coy (X(i ) X(i)) (r. (I am indebted to Or. Bovik and Naaman (1986) consider the optimal estimation of EX. Thus for the following sequence. Thus Xr:n will tend to lead the trend.d.) Thus the use of the median.n and k . Definition A koutofn system is a system of n components that functions if and only if at least k (k . is appropriate primarily as protection against outliers. 0 iT + Zi.. but under nonlinear trend.s o 1.. by linear functions of order statistics.X 2 m.. whose variance remains unchanged under a linear trend. reflect the current state. W.. 4.3) 7 41 3 3 X. However. we have x x2:3 x22 5 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 22 3 i 4 4 6 6 61 3 9 9 91 ~ 12 12 14 12 1 13 11 11 10 10 (3. which need hold only for the sample in question.) with symmetric unimodal distributions.. J.. I_ II8 . Series and parallel systems correspond to k .2. In this situation.. where the Zi are i.1 (m  2.. under locally linear trend.n) of its components function.. the results are reversed.X2 .3). and will do so increasingly as T increases. we see that for T>0 Pr{rank X i = il incruases with 1. 3 For a linear trend given by 1. in contrast to the sample mean. for <O.
The ideal requirement r w n may be too demanding in practice and r * nI suffices. may reasonably be regarded.. respectively. ili where Ai 0 or 1. Rs(X) _ E i R (x) [I . Xl. A fuze contains n detonators. we can avoid unnecessary duplication by replacing A1 ' in (4.. 1970.nf:*[F(x+t) .Xl:n + t]. (1975). the event that exactly n2 of the X.Xn. If the Xi are independent (but not necessarily identically distributed) one may write (Sen.Xr fall in the interval (Xi:noX n + t] and A2 if n2 of the X. n. Since A2 includes the event that n1 of the X. is given in Barlow and Proschan. Xnl:n . as a random sample from a normal population. Let P(r.X2:n ( t.. quite different from the above. the cdf of the sample range (Hartley. for a random sample from any continuous distribution with cdf F(x).t) be the probability that at least r detonations have occurred in time t. I was told. P(n.F(x)]n . n A il ai IA . covering also important situations when the X i independent.t) is just Prixnn x 1:n 4 t. Pledger and Proschan.%..1) by A1 .PrIA. 1971). 1942). and A is the region It ca be shown that a series (parallel) system is at most (least) as reliable as the corresponding = n system of components each having reliability (x)E n iAl i W. An excellent e are not I will conclude with a problem in reliability.. are in (X2:n. Let A1 ' and A2 be the events Then.XI:n 4 t and Xn:n . The n times to detonation.n) be the lifetime of the ith component and PriXi > x} its reliability at time x (the probability that it will Then the reliability of the system S at time x is function at time x).Ri(x)] n E A > k. n. 9 .t) ..Let Xi(i Ri(x)  1.n. 1981). are in (Xi:n1 Xl:n + t]. are in (Xl:n... Rs(x) . Now.Pr{A1 'U A2} PrIA1 '} + Pr{A} .1 dF(x).. that was suggested by an enquiry from Malcolm Taylor (see Baker and Taylor. P(n1.X2:n + ti.1) The event A' occurs if nI or n2 of Xl.'A 2 } (4. general account. r of which must function within time span t.Prixn(k+x)n > x1.e.
We have immediately. n. It should be noted that P(r. nt). From a different viewpoint again..t) ham received much attention by quite different techniques in the special case when the Xi are independent uniform variates (e. n(n1) .o 2 ) variates are within an interval of length to.. H (a) is the length we may regard Hn(1) as a measure of dispersion.7. n. (nj+l)..O(x).. n. are independent normal variates with a . that n a J'. Pr{AI) and  writing n ( j ) ..9587.n  Xi).t) .F(x+t)] dF(x) Pr{A2 }  n(2)f_ [F(x+t) . 10 .. 1980).g. 1988) that Hn(a) is asymptotically normal (for fixed a). i : y+t 1X2x+t X zn 3 x X2:n Pr{A1 A2 } .t) may be interpreted as the probability that at least ni out of n independent normal N(p..5 The entry P(6.n( )f9fx+t[F(x~t) n3[Y+t) F(x+t)] dF(y)dF(x) From these results P(n1.10.. for P(n2... We The joint occurrence of A1 and A2 is illustrated below for n . By comparison.Pr(H (1) et.3) a 0. EXAMPLE..t) has been tabulated in David and Kinyon (1983) when F(x) . n n n of the shorth. the shortest afraction of the ordered sample (Andrews et al. It has recently been shown (Grubel.6601. David and Kinyon (1983) also give an expression.F(x)]n' 2 F(x)dF(x). as found from tables of the cdf of the range (Pearson and Hartley.. 1972)..X. the probability of seven detonations is only 0. .n. have . where nn " in ial. [F(x+t) . involving a triple integral.nr+L (Xi. Note that P(n.. .9587 tells us that the probability of at least six detonations out of 3 possible seven within time span 3o is 0. 1970). y  . As in Baker and Taylor (1981) suppose that XI. Neff and Naus.l. . writing P(r.F(x)I'"[l .. rln 1 .6. in In fact.
An order statistic approach to Fuze design.. Robust Estimates of Locations. David and C. Ballistic Research Lab.APPENDIX H. Barlow. Outliers in Statistical Data. A. (1981). Median filters: Theory for one. 2. U. nr nr However. New York. J. (1975).. A note on moving ranges. pp. F. 17581 The author does not stay with his own definition of DT(n. E. W. Md. Rinehart. Rogers. V. A. R. Vol. 73. F. C. Hampel. (1986). Bovik. (1987). since 6nr = 6rq. J. 89166. and Tukey. Conf. Sen (Ed. Bickel.and twodimensional filters. the theorem follows directly from Case 2 of David and Groeneveld (Biometrika (1982). In: Advances in Computer Vision and ImaEe Processing. L. 73539. P. Info. Aberdeen Proving Ground. 2nd edn. H. Bovik. S. David. pp. and Naaman. Huber. ARBRLTR02313. '. Rept.q) but in fact uses D n'q) EIT(zlo"" T ""nq0"'"' 1")}' Even with this change the proof of the theorem on p. 51215. Wiley. A. and Taylor. Holt. Spectral properties of moving Lestimates of independent data. 69. (1955). Barnett. and Nodes. Technometrics 17.. Cleveland. D. W.. New York. J. M. Tech. F. S. A. Syst. A. Sci. C. REFERENCES Andrews. (1972). Princeton University Press.. and Lewis. (1975). 324. and Winston. 22732) and has essentially been proved in P. K. 0.. 12537. (1986). 44754. Baker.. W. T. 176 is in error since the combinatorial tem associated with 6 should be (nl ). ROCKE Biometrika (1986). not (n1 ). Franklin Inst. Statistical Theory of Reliability and Life Testingl Probability Models. and Proechan. Army Research and Development Command. N. 30911. A graphical technique for enhancing scatterplots with moving statistics. J. Proc. C. S.) Biostatisties (1985) NorthHolland. B. Leastsquares signal estimation using order statistic filters. and Kleiner. and Restrepo. pp. A. Yang Correction to 'Outlier resistance in small samples' By DAVID M. C. Biometrika 42. 20th Ann. E. (1984). H. P. R.. T. Arcs. W. Gallagher. 11 .
Contributions to Statistics. (1980). moving order statistics and Ustatistics. F. Pearson. Malabar. (1946). Hampel. and Tukey.. H. Math. M. O. Robust Statistics. Neff. (1977). In: Rustagi. i0713. P. Galambos. V. pp. Robustness of location estimators in the presence of an outlier. (1978). 21. A. 70. In: David.stical Inference and Data Analysis. New York. McGrawHill. (1987). Rocks. David. Wiley. Comparisons of order statistics from heterogeneous distributions. R. pp. and Naus. pp. H. I.). D. 89113. F. The Asymptotic Theory of Extreme Order Statistics. The probability that out of n events at least rtln2) occur within time span t. NorthHolland. 1207. K. R. 2nd edn. Ant. (1983). M. Griibel. New York. (1986). P. (Ed. New York. In: Sen. 1. and Kinyon. The distributions of moving order statistics. A. J. L. Mosteller. 3rd Ed. Academic Press. and Proschan. Reading. Data Analysis and Regression. and Stahel. N. NorthHolland. 61928. Inagaki. 2459. A. A. At. H. L. H. Contributions to Survey Sampling and Applied Statistics: Papers in Honor of H 0o. J. Statistical Quality Control. In: Matusita. J. H. M. (1981). Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics. Wo J. He. (1971). 17582. A..) Optimizing Methods in Statistics. and Hartley. Vol. Academic Press. (1950)o Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. S. Ronchetti. (Ed. Rousseeuw. B. C. (with additions)# Cambridge University Press. Pledger. Statist. S. G. pp. Ann. 2758. and Knight. Grubbs. 75204. Statist. F. The length of the shorth. (Ed. (1977). 23550. E.David.. New York.). Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics 6. David. D. Recent Developments in Stati. A. 16. Kriegar. H.. Grant. Wiley. (1980).). Order Statistics. S. P. David. Means. K. W. H. D. Amsterdam. 12 . N. AddisonWesley. The distribution of the size of the maximum cluster of points on a line. (1983). J. E. Biometrika. S. W. Biometrika Tables for Statisticians. (1988). R. 13742. Massachusetts. (Ed. J. Outlier resistance in small sample3o Biometrika 73. variances. (1986). Kennedy. Amsterdam. and Rogers. David. F. New fork. and Shu. and covariances of normal order statitics in the presence of an outlier. Order statistics in overlapping samples. Florida. Hartley.
. (Limited Preliminary Edition) AddisonWesley. P. F. Massachusetts. Tukey. J. (1970). Statist. W. (1983). Tukey. W. Reading. A note on order statistics for heterogeneous distributions. Massachusetts. (1970). J. medians. C. 297338. Exploratory Data Analysis. J. D. and Gasko.Exploratory Data Analysis. 41. (Eds. J. pp. M. 13 . Ann. In: Hoaglin. Mosteller.. (1977). and trimean. and Tukey. Sen. Math. Comparing location estimatorn: Trimmed means. K. L. Wiley. W. Reading. AddisonWesley. 21379.Rosenberger.) Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis. New York.
.+ . components and linear rank statistics.. The data consists of a random samples whose probability distributions are to be trsted for equality. (u). The unconditional or pooled sample distribution of Y is denoted F() = fraction :5 y among Yk(. 8. SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION FUNCT[ONS. A diversity of statistics to test equality of c samples are presented in a unified framework with the aim of helping the researcher choose the optimal procedures which provide greatest insight about how the samples differ in their distributions. and in particular to test the hypothesis of homogeneity of distributions: H0:Ft =.. The data consists of a random samples YM(j). We use ^ to denote a smoother distribution to which we are comparing a more raw distribution which is denuted by a ".j = 19 . INTRODUCTION... DATA... comparison distribution and comparison density functions. . This paper discusses a functional approach to the problem of comparloon of multisamples (two samples or a samples. .= F6= F The distribution F to which all the others are equal Is considered to be the unconditional distribution of Y (which is estimated by the sample disti lbution of Y In the pooled sampe). ples (corresponding to c treatments or c populations). for/g = 1. components with orthogonal polynomial score functions. Anderson Darling and Cramer von Mimes tests.. + no. of size N = nj.. The a samples are assumed to be independent of each other. o. . The samples can be regarded as the value of c variables Y1.. Yo the conditioned variables (the 1 value of Y in different populations). k = 1. multisample analysis of variance and Kruskal Wallis test. represents observations of the pooled (or unconditional) variable Y... Army Research Office 15 . c. . The general problem of comparison of conditioned random variables is to model how their distribution functions va'y with the value of the conditioning variable k .S. two. We assume that we are observing a variable Y in c cues or sam... The sample distribution functions of the samples are defined (for oo < y < oc) by Fk'(y) = fraction <_y among Yk(. An expectation (mean) computed from a sample is denoted E'. ..MULTISAMPLE FUNCTIONAL STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS Emanuel Parson Department of Statistics Texas A&M University College Station. 1.sample t test and nonparametric Wilcoxon test.. F9'(Y) and quantlie functions QI(u) 1 '*.1.)... Texas 778433143 ABSTRACT. middistribution function.. chisquare tests and their components.c. I. e. We call Y ... Research Supported by the U. especially for discrete distributions. Y with respective true distribution functions FI(y). Concepts discussed are: sample distribution functions.. where c > 2).). The pooled sample. ranks.
) {(Yk(j) . we interpret it as the empirical probability that an observation comes from the kth sample. The unconditional and conditional variances are denoted VAR[Y] = (i/N) E EYkU). defining p. These concepts assume all observations are distinct.1. AND MIDDISTRIBUTION FUNCTION. We recommend (Rk(t) .. and treat ties by using average ranks. We interpret y .as the sample conditional mean of Y given that it comes from the kth population. We define the pooled variance to be the mean conditional variance: a.k VAR[Yk] k=1 C 16 ..Yk} j=1 2 Note that our divisor is the sample size N or nk rather than N .k = n/N to be the fraction of the pooled sample in the kth sample.lY. t=1 kO. usually Rk(t)/(N + 1). let Rk(t) denote the rank in the pooled sample of Yk(t). The unconditional sample mean of Y is Y. defining the middistribution function of the pooled sample Y by Ply) = F () .(1/n.. + p.= E[Y] = p. 5.+ .c. SAMPLE MEANS AND VARIANCES. When the random variables are assumed to be normal the test statistics are based on the sample means (for k = 1. MIDRANKS. RANKS. The latter then arise as factors used to define F statistics.) nos Yk= ir[Yk] = (/nk) . 5)/N. VAR [YM.4.SpA(l). Nonparametric statistics use ranks of the observations in the pooled sample..c or n k . We recommend an approach which we call the "midrank transform" which transforms Yk(t) to P^(Y(t)).. We call pA(y) = fraction equal to y among pooled sample the pooled sample probability mass function.. One can define Rk(t)= NFA(Y (t)). In defining linear rank statistics one transforms the rank to a number in the open unit interval. 0Ya'.Y) n.2 Z p.
E[Wk]j}{VAR[Wk]) 5 . In the two sample cast the statistic to test H0 is usually stated in a form equivalent to N T = (Y.Y2}1a^{(N1( .5)/N = (Wj1 njN) .)' 5 (Y 1 A = {Wk . VAR[Wk] = nln2 (N + 1)/12 The usual definition of the Wilcoxon test statistic Is T = ((N . 7.2 degrees of freedom. TWO SAMPLE NORMAL T TEST. 5.p.Y'}laA The exact distribution. One should notice the analogy between our expressions for the parametric test statistic T and the nonparametric test statistic Ti. of T is t(N . The homogeneity of c samples is tested in the parametric normal cue by the analysis of variance which starts with a fundamental identity which in our notation is written VAR'[Y] E P.2). Ri= (1/nj) E(Rl(t) . 17 . 1)}(R defining ". =Z (p.k{Ykk=1 _ y_}2 4. Cr^2 The F test of the oneway analysis of variance can be expressed as the statistic T2 E P. its mean and variance are given by E(Wk] =nk(N + 1)/2.2) distribution and the latter has asymptotic distribittion Normal{O. To define the popular Wilcoxon nonparametric statistic to test Ho we define Wk to be the sum of the nk ranks of the Yk values.2))((1/ni) + (1/n2))}) We believe that one obtains maximum insight (and analogies and extensions) by expressing T in the form which compares Yf'" with Y: .(1/2N) One reason we prefer this form of expressing nonparametric statistics is because of its relation to midranks. 8.(1/N) 2}'5 ) The approach we describe in this paper yields as the definition of the nonpasrametric Wilcoxon test statistic (which can be verified to approximately equal the above definition T 1 = {12(N .k)ITFk1 2 . the former has an exact t(N .i/(1 . up to a factor {1 . TEST OF EQUALITY OF c SAMPLES NORMAL CASE. TWOSAMPLE NONPARAMETRIC WILCOXON TEST. 1)..p..6. tdistribution with N .2)p.1)p. of TI.i/(1 .klTl' k=l k=1 c .
9. YI/O" The asymptotic distribution of T 2 /(C 1 ) and TF' are F(c . ANDERSON DARLING AND CRAMER VON MISES TEST STATISTICS. degrees of freedom .H. N . since their values should be explicitly calculate. H. F) = F(H(u)) with comparison density d(u) = d(u.c) and F(1. 18 .k)} 5 {Rk The asymptotic distributions of TKW2 nd TKW respectively.k/(1 . Important among the many test statistics which have been defined to test the equality of distributions are the AndersonDarling and Cramervon Mimes test statistics.) by using a general definition of D(.defining ){Yk. Thus testing H0 is equivalent to testing D(u) for uniformity. To compare two continuous distributions F(. COMPONENTS.P. SITTY FUNCTIONS.5}  are chisquared with c 1 and 1 2 10.k)ITKWk I2.).k/(1 Tk. to indicate the source of the significance (if any) of the overall statistics. We have represented the analysis of variance test statistic T and the KruskalWallis test statistic TKW 2 as weighted sums of squares of statistics TFk and TKWk respectively which we call components.) and F(.) with respective probability mass functions p H and PF satisfying the condition that the values at which PH are positive include all the values at which PF are positive. we define the comparison distribution fun c tion D(u) = D(u. 11. Other test statistics that can be defined can be shown to correspond to other definitions of components.C)p.c) respectively.1.) and F(. Under Ho : H = F.Y/a' TFk = {(N . They will be introduced below in terms of representations as weighted sums of squares of suitable components. N .(N. 12. WALLIS TEST. TEST OF EQUALITY OF c SAMPLES NONPARAMETRIC KRUSKAL. Sample distribution functions are discrete. The most novel part of this paper is that we propose to form an estimator D~(u) from estimators H(. COMPARISON DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS AND COMPARISON DEN. The KruskalWallis nonparametric test of homogeneity of c samples can be shown to be TKW 2 p.) and H(.) for two discrete distributions H(.  TKWk = (12(N .F) = D'(u) =f(H1(u))/h(Hl(u)). D(u) = u and d(u) = 1.1)p. We now introduce the key concepts which enable us to unify and choose between the diverse statistics available for comparing several samples. where H is a true or smooth and F is a model or raw.
.1 VAR[J(U)] = {J(u) .5)/N) However we choose the definition of a linear rank statistic as a linear functional of dk'(u). it is approximately equal to the above formula.1) VAR[J(U)Ip. .pAk)) where U is Uniform{0. is a linear functional Tk'(J) = It equals J(u)dk'(u)du (link) N I N )d. COMPARISON OF DISCRETE DISTRIBUTIONS. To compare two discrete pH(H. fOI J(u)d(Dk(u) 19 . which we call a component.18. otherwise.I())/ D(u) = d(t)dt.. A component.1}du (1) f1 J(u)du. H. E[J(U)] = 5 f J(u){dk(u) .E[J(U).j = 1.. Note that the integral in the definition of Tk'(J) equals u}.'ldu. We obtain the folowing definition of dk"(u) for the c sample testing problem with all values distinct: dk'(u ) = N/nk if (Rk(j) .(u). F. We apply this definition to the discrete sample distributions F^ and F"k to obtain dk"(. with score function J(u).1)IN < u < Rk(j)/N. 14. The concept of a linear rank statistic to compare the equality of c samples does not have a universally accepted definition.k/(1 . ) = d(u. distributions we define first d(u) and then D(u) as follows: d(u) = d(u. LINEAR RANK STATISTICS. = 0.1}.nk. Fk') and its integral Dk'(u). We define Tk(J) = ((N .. F) = pp(H. which can be approximated by E'[J(P(Yk))]. One possible definition is nlk Tk(J) = (1/nk) E J((Rk(j) jl .
1_} which measure the distance from 1 of the approximating smooth densities M dtn (u) = . P3(X) (5z' . The components of F test statistic T 2 have score function J(U) = {QC ). i = 0.5...1): p1(X) X  1)/2..1). Define Legendre polynomial score functions P2(X) = (3z2  L. are complete orthonormal functions with 0 = 1. We will see that these measures can be decomposed Into components which may provide more insight. Let pi(z) be Legendre polynomials on (1. One can show that an AndersonDarling type statistic.) of m f1 2d = 1: IT(0. {(u) 1 2 where d^(u) is a smooth version of cr(u). 1... VAR[J(U)] = 1/12. denoted AD(D').1 2 {dm(u). (u) = (2i + 1)'"pi(2u .T0) j() 16.()  i2/U(j _ U)... General measares of the distance of D(u) 12.Y } where Q'(u) is sample quantile function of the pooled sample Y. {D'(u)  U}2. then H0 can be tested by diagnosing the rate of increase (as a function of m = 1.The components of the KruskalWallis nonparametric test statistic TKW 2 for testing the equality of c means have score function J(u) = u .2. 2.35z 4 . GENERAL DISTANCE MEASURES. p4(z) .30z 2 + 3..5 satisfying EIJ(U)]. ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIAL COMPONENTS.3z)/2. can be represented AD(D)= 1 {{D(u) 00 _ 2 U} /u(l  u))du i=1 20 . recall basic components are linear functionals defined by (1) r(J) = J(u)d"(u)du. {D. from u and of ((tt) from 1 are provided by the integrals from 0 to 1 of {d(&)  15. If 4O(u)..
4) fo dQk(u) = 4{Dk"(i(. < A chisquared portmanteau statistic.75< u1. . which is chisquared(3). QUARTILE COMPONENTS AND CHISQUARE. =1.25 < u <.75. = 1..25. denoted CM(D).P..3. 0 < u < .25 < U < i(.25 <.Dk'((i.75. can be represented CM(D ) = j{D(v. .25 or . Is 3 CQk = (N . 17.25)) .1)P.75. H4 (x) = x4 _ SX2 + 3. .k/( .1).75 < U < 1. < . = 2 '5 .1)p.k) defining the quartile density (for i = 1. .25. H2 () = x2 .(i . =0 .2.i1 In addition to Legendre polynomial and cosine components we consider Hermite polynomial components corresponding to Hermite polynomial score functions OHi(u) = (il)'Hi(V(u)) where H.)l2 dQ (u) (N . One can show that a Cramervon Mises type statisi.51 5 . u .5 < 2.k/(1 . H3 () = . SQ 3 (u) = 0 = 2. 0 < u < . if 0 < u < .25) 21 . Quartile diagnostics of the null hypothesis HO are provided by componentr with quartile "square wave" score functions S Q1 (U) = 2 ' 5. 3.1).6. . 3 .)  U)2 du .1. SQ 2 (U) = 1. (z) are the Hermite polynomials: Hi(z) = .P.25).Define cosine score functions by ~ci(u) = 2 '5coa(iir u ).26 < u < .k) F Ik(SQ.75 < u < 1.
k)CQk ksi 18. )Cck(m) 00k 1 2 cMk CM = £jCCk(()2 /(7r) P~k)CMk cM = f = >2(l k=1 I 22 . quartile comparison density dQk(u).) k1 00 AL'k AD = 2 TLk(i)I 2 /i(i + 1) = >.P.p.l)p. usually we have too many answers and we don't know which one to choose. A unified framework may help determine optimum choices.Tk *C. quartile density chisquare CQk = (N . 5) Legendre components and chisquares up to order 4 are defined using definition (!) of Tk': TLk(i) = T"(OLi) CLk(m) = > ITLk(i)l CL(m) = F.(1 . comparison distributions k (j).k)ADk 6) Cosine components and chisquares up to order 4 are defined: TCk(i) .p'k) o {dQk(u)denoted dkA(u).( P.k)CLk{.(1 p. The problem of statistical Infereence is not that we don't have answers to a given question..) CCk(m) CC(m) = >M ITCk(i) 2 C . To compare c samples we can compute the following functions and statistics: i} comparison densities: dk'U. 4) nonparametric regression smoothing of dk (u) using a boundary Epanechnikov kernel. 2 }) du.k/(l . DIVERSE STATISTICS AVAILABLE TO TEST EQUALITY OF a SAMPLES..A pooled portmsnteau chisquared statistic is a CQ = 1( .
.k)CHk(.05).7) Hermite components and chisquares up to order 4 are defined: THM(i) = Tk"(OHi) m C14(m)= i1 IT k(i)lI . they are asymptotically standard normal. the insights are provided by the linear rank statistics of orthogonal polynomials rather than by portmanteau statistics of Cramervon Mises or AndersonDarling type. Our ultimate aim is to make it easier to apply statistical methods by unifying them in ways that increase understanding. EXAMPLES OF DATA ANALYSIS. and thus arrive at a confident conclusion. 4. We believe that if one can think of several ways of looking at a data analysis one should do so.31).22. II. 23 . order 1 (.56 respectively). and Horvath (1987). We consider components greater than 2 (3) in absolute value to be significant (very significant).36. Conclusions are that the four samples are not homogeneous (have the same distributions). 43. a general framework seems to us to be required. This paper provides new formulas for these test statistics based on our new definition of sample comparison density functions. cosine. orders I and II(2.23) and sample III. orders 2 and 3 (2.p. Legendre components are significant for sample IV. Cosine components are significant for sample IV.346. CONCLUSIONS. (1983)) on unifying statistical methods (especially using quantile function concepts) has been to help the development of both the theory and practice of statistical data analysis. The goal of our recent research (see Parzen (1979). Mass. 28) are proportions . IV) represent dwellings in the categories singlefamily. 3.179 of the size 156 of the pooled sampie. cosine. an excellent review of theory for rank processes is given by Shorack and Wellner (1986).7 and 2. and thus enable researchers to more easily choose methods that provide greatest insight for their problem.07).06. In order to compare our methods with others available we consider data analysed by Boos (1986) on ratio of assessed value to sale price of residential property in Fitchburg. four or more families. orders 1 and 2 (2.276. Asymptotic distribution theory for rank processes defined by Parzen (1983) Is given by Aly. Estimators of the comparison density show that sample I is more likely to have lower values than the pooled sample. Hermite components up to order 4 of the 4 samples. 2. Hermite components are significant for sample IV. 20. and Hermite components are very significant only for sample I.4. Legendre. threefamily. III. order 1 (2. 9) entropy measures with penalty terms which can be used to determine how many components to use in the above test statistics 19. 31. One of the motivations for this paper was to understand twosample tests of the AndersonDarling type. Csorgo. The samples (denoted I.199. The sample sizes (54. and sample IV is more likely to have higher values. they are discussed by Pettitt (1976) and Scholz and Stephens (1987). 2. However to relate and compare the answers. Samples I and IV are significantly different from the pooled sample. The interpretation of the diversity of statistics available is best illustrated by examples. . .19.. twofamily. 1970.) CH(m) k=1 8) density estimators dkA(u) computed from components up to order 4. While all the statistical measures described above have been computed. We compute Legendre.
D. 82. E. one looks at the components and also at graphs of the densities of which the components are linear functionals corresponding to various score functions. 918924. rank processes. Eubank. The importance of components is also advocated by Boos (1986).Stephens (1987) "ksample Anderson.However one can look at k sample AndersonDarling statistics as a single number formed from combining many test statistics called components. William (1989) "Boundary kernel estimation of the twosample comparison density function" Texas A&M Department of Statistics Ph. 74. 24 . REFERENCES Alexander. Parzen.N. Aly.A. Puri. 63. Dennis D. Wertz) New York: Wiley 135156. Horvath (1987) "PP plots. Galen and Jon Wellner (1986) Empirical Processes With Applications to Statistics New York: Wiley. J.B. E.A. (1986) "Comparing k populations with linear rank statistics" Journal of the American Statistical Association.. Parzen.W. and Rosenstein (1987) and Alexander (1989). 105131. M. 81. Rosenstein (1987) "Test statistics derived as components of Pearson's Phisquared distance measure" Journal of the American Statistical Association. A.P. V. Vilaplann. Boos. R. Insight is greatly increased if instead of basing one's conclusions on the values of single test statistics.. W. Eubank. R. M. 10181025. and L. 82. La Riccia. 816825.L. Pettitt.N.L. (1979) "Nonparametric statistical data modeling" Journal of the American Statistical Association. thesis. (1983) "FunStat quantile approach to twosample statistical data analysis" Texas A&M Institute of Statistics Technical Report A21 April 1983. The question of which score functions to use can be answered by considering the tall behavior of the distributions that seem to fit the data.A. Shorack. and ChernoffSavage theorems" In Now Perspectives in Theoretical and Applied Statistics (ed. Csorgo. (1976) "A twosample Anderson Darling statistic" Biometrika. F. La Riccia. and M.Darling tests" Journal of the American Statistical Association. Scholz. 161168. E.
4)x C*> 0 cyI ) rn w .4)i C4 wbD .w 0)0 4) 0. 4"W! W! an0 C24 .
2 .For samples I and IV.1 .4 5 . Her(es) Density 2 .6 .4 . cosine. sample comparison density d(u).~ .. cos(x's). Cos~x's). NerW(Os Density 33.2 ..4 .2 . and Hermite orthogonal polynomial estimator of order 4 of the comparison density.3 2 .1 .3 .3 .6 .1 .6 . compared to sample quartile density dQ(u). 2 .3 s ti * tj ti 1.3 Ley. Legendre. Ieg.1 . denoted d4 (u.3 .4 5 .1 C .9 1I1 . For samples I and WV. sample quartile density dQ(u) (square wave).8wuin Ualuu/Price SINML FAMILY ASSESS 4 21 For samples I and IV. sample comparison distribution function IY(u) huoimg WO/hice IFUR FUU AStft owin Yalu/Price SINGUL FAMILV ASSESS 6 .7 38 . nonparametric densty estimator d^(u) ouing 4W 93 u/Pice 1001 FAILIV ASSESSI 2. 6 26 .7 . 4 .
Moss U. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Abstract The U. We use a binary response (present/not present) and assume a lognormal distribution In arriving at a response curve for each lot.Reliability of the M256 Chemical Detection Kit David W. Strength of response Is also influenced by the quantity of agent. Webb & Linda L C.S. How do we go about collecting and analyzing our data so as to evaluate Its reliability? Other problems of interest include quantifying how the agent quantity affects the response and if there are differences between the two manufac. 27 . Lots must meet reliability specificutIons to be considered "battleready". turers of the M256 CDK. Consultants at the Ballistic Research Laboratory have employed a doseresponse framework to study the reliability problem.S. Army uses the M256 Chemical Detection Kit (CDK) to indicate the presence or absence of certain agents in the battlefield. which is indicated by a color change on the kit. Assessments of our approach and suggestions for alternative approaches are asked of the panel.
We are restricted to the number of samplers that may be tested at any time since the test chamber is large enough to hold only six samplers. 28 . The U. After performing the test. in fact. b) if agent is present in the air or on surfaces suspected of contarnk'ation. which are the actual testing devices. Test Conditions &Restrictions The lots of kits differ in manufacturer (A or B). To make matters more complex. Army requires that the samplers exhibit at least a 92. and storage site (8 sites in the United States and Europe). Some lots contained as many as 1000 kits. However. Each CDK contains twelve samplers. Four types of agents can be detected with the CDKL The tests indicate a) Ifit is permissible to remove the protective mask following an agent attack. the kit should not be so sensitive that soldiers wear their mask at safe levels of concentration.Description of Kit The M256 Chemical Detection Kit (CDK) is used to detect the presence/absence of dangerous concentrations of toxic agents by colorchanging chemical reactions. a paper test spot is checked for any change of color.5% reliability (with 90% confidence) in responding to agent concentrations at the specification levels. age (18 years). Another restriction lies in the fact that testing laboratories are only available for the length of time designated in the work contract. the design matrix is very sparse.S. c) if any agent is present after decontamination operations. there was only one lot that was eight years old. On the back of each sampler are complete instructions for testing and colored examples of safe and danger responses. thereby interrupting other battlefield duties. Not all combinations of these three factors are represented in the design matrix. This is because the response depends upon the agent quantity. For example. This usually is no more than two months. 120 or more individual samplers). while others had as few as one kit. when the agent is present the observed response may be nonuniform with a few shades of the danger response showing. Most lots contain ten or more kits (therefore. The color change will not usually be an exact match with the colors shown on the back of the sampler.
most of the warehouses are humidity and temperature controlled. Differences existing between manufacturers are not considered in our initial design. color chips 13 correspond to a safe response. one concentration level set at an estimated mean. The lognormal was selected based on historical precedent. For the purpose of determining response. and three concentration levels below the estimated mean. we have selected one lot from the available age groups. each being a multiple of the standard deviation away from the mean. the waiting period may be several hours since the high concentration tends to leave a residual amount of agent in the test chamber. 29 . however. but it is slow..g. therefore the locations are treated as homogenous. The manual also states a cutoff color for the Bernoulli response. (In most cases. we have chosen a twostage "semi"fixed design. none of these would be very practical (e. Army manuals specify a set of nine color chips that progressively range from the "safe" color to the "danger" color. Mean and standard deviation estimates are based on the results of a pretest (which for the purpose of brevity is deleted from this presentation). From each manufacturer. Although the sites are in varying climatic areas.S. To choose the concentration levels at which to run the tests.) We have made the assumption that the response curves follow that of the lognormal cumulative distribution function with unknown mean and standard deviation. We have decided to evaluate each agent and the chosen lots separately. Also. we have chosen fifteen lots ranging in age from 1 to 8 years. In the first stage. The multiple of the standard deviation is chosen so that the specification level will be covered by the seven test concentrations. while chips 49 are considered danger responses. In light of some of our restrictions. When going from a high to a low concentration. three concentrations above this estimated mean.The test equipment that controls the concentration of ageut in the test chamber is very accurate and precise. U. 11 samplers are tested at seven different levels. but will be addressed later. In all. where our dose Is the agent concentration and the response Is safe/danger. although we note that the loglogistic would have also been a reasonable choice. We have also chosen a doseresponse type experiment. Instead. RobbinsMonro would have required too much laboratory time). It may take about an hour to change to a higher concentration. we have tried to choose lots of similar age from the manufacturers so that they can be paired and we can look for general trends. we have considered several candidate sequential designs. We have taken the route of estimating the reliability of each lot at the specification level of each agent.
At the conclusion of Stage I. Stage II Concentration 22 A2 2 Number of Samplers 1 A 2 2 3 2 1 9 A2 + 2+ g2 At the conclusion of Stage II. and at two levels above and below this.Stage I Concentration A. With these final estimates. By taking the variance of the above equation.. the parameter estimates for the lot are reevaluated using all 20 data points.M ) Cov( . level set at the new estimated mean.and 0.) If the onesided 90% upper confidence limit of the . 0.925 quantile. come from the pretest.1 3kgl Number of Samplers I tk 1 1 +1 2 3 A l 4k. 1 i i11 2 1 Note: k is chosen so that the seven test concentrations cover the specification level. the data are analyzed using the DiDonatoJarnagin maximum likelihood estimation algorithm to produce new estimates of the parameters. we get an estimate of the variance of the . nine more units are tested at five concentration levels.925 quantile is less than the specification 30 .925 quantile is estimated by A + z(. one. a) (The DiDonatoJarnagin algorithm gives the values of the variances and covariance term. each now being a multiple of the new standard deviation from the mean. In Stage II. A and &2. the .)) 2 Var(b) + 2 z(. giving us a final Aand 8. A. Var(A) + (z(.
We would like to thank the panelists and audience for their many suggestions and remarks. 2.925 quantile.. and then extrapolating to the . then we can conclude that the lot meets the requirement for that particular agent. especially since we are estimating the tail of our distribution. the nine color chips)? How might we statistically compare the reliability of the manufacturers (or sites)? Concluding Remarks Following our presentation. To study the age issue. In general. in light of the small sample sizes and other laboratory constraints to which the test is subjected. a separate accelerated life test will be conducted at a later date. Two major concerns were expressed by several persons.g. We do not have a statistical technique per se for detecting significant differences between manufacturers or sites. Secondly. Questions 1. some persons questioned our method of estimating the mean of' the distribution. Sampling more towards the tails of the distribution. Testing at the specification level and employing a general linear model approach with the color chip number corresponding to the color change as the response and age. the comments we heard confirmed our beliefs that this is a very difficult problem to analyze. 3. Is our approach appropriate for determining an extreme quantile? Can one estimate a quantile when considering more than two possible responses (e. Although no definitive alternative approaches arose from our discussions. some possible attacks that were suggested to us included 1. 31 . These two problems could lead to some very erroneous conclusions. and storage site as variables. First was uneasinessd towards our assumption of a lognormal distribution. manufacturer. Our "approach" would be to simply look for any obvious trends or differences. 3. we heard comments and suggestions from the clinical session panelists and audience.concentration. Isotonic regression. Some respondents felt this to be a potentially dangerous assumption. 2.
Both the width and location of the confidence intervals differ for these three methods. all tested items will be assumed dichotomous and independent.R) is assumed to describe the random variable x if n and R are known. Only binomial events are considered. The three functions considered here are based oi .1) the Fisherian approach and (2) the Bayesian technique using prior distributions of R when (A) R is equally likely to be any value between zero and one and (B) R is unknown numerically but it is known to be a binomial parameter.n. one is twosided. Availability. Second. Preceding Page Blank 33 . That is. First. To focus attention on these three functions. the restricted in this paper.COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY CONFIDENCE INTERVALS Paul H. Thrasher Engineering and Analysis Branch Reliability. and the Bayesian approach with the noninformed or noninformative binomial prior. These are the Fisherian approach. some function must be used to describe the reliabilities. INTRODUCT ION Reliability estimates are not as straightforward as might be expected. onesided and the other is the comparison of the confidence intervals from methods used to locate the confidence intervals are Only two methods are used in calculations. the Bayesian approach with the ignorant prior. Measurement of a number of successes x in a sample size n quickly leads to a point estimate of the reliability R equal to x/n. New Mexico 880025175 ABSTRACT Some confidence intervals on reliabilities are investigated. Estimates of confidence intervals are more difficult to obtain however. For simplicity. and Maintainability Division Army Materiel Test and Evaluation Directorate White Sands Missile Range. Three methods of estimating the distribution of reliabilities are reviewed and compared. a method must be selected to locate the confidence interval within the function. The problem is to select a function for R when x and n are known. Two things in addition to the data are needed for confidence interval estimation. the binomial b(x. The purpose of this paper is to compare various functions describing reliabilities. Only the narrowest twosided and the upper onesided confidence intervals are calculated.
The lower confidence limit is obtained from one Beta function. Other possible twosided confidence limits.5 and 10 is sufficiently large. Increasing R requires a decrease in 1a or an increase in g. It may be demonstrated by (1) starting with the confidence limits of points equal heights. This increase in R shifts the binomial distribution of the possible measurements i which resulted in the single measurement x. and (3) noting that the right limit has to be moved further to the right in order to keep the sum of the areas under the tails constant. These are the traditional equaldivisionofareaunderthetails interval and the maximumlikelihoodestimatorinthecenter interval. not calculated in this paper. Shafer. A similar argument starts by moving the narrowest confidence limit to the left. For the limitirn case of RO. This is based on the premise that having a reliability too low is much more serious than the reliability being toc high. a second function is needed for the upper limit. (2) moving the left confidence limit to the right. The lower 100% confidence limit of R is RO because all values of R satisfy R)O. Lower Confidence Limit: The lower (10)100% confidence limit R is defined by P[R>R]l1. the 34 .The onesided confidence interval considered is the upper confidence interval. This is shown in Figure 1 by the dashed lines. The first is the easiest to calculate. The limit R is the largest value of R that makes the data x and n plausible. This approach yields two Beta functions. Plausibility is defined as satisfaction of the degree of confiderice 10 of correctly selecting the right R. are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. The second has a symmetric appeal but it is nonexistant when the peak of the curve is not at RO. FISHERIAN APPROACH The traditional Fisherian approach (Mann. The twosided confidence interval considered is the narrowest possible (Rankin). It is located by adjusting the confidence limits until (1) the sum of the areas under the tails is a and (2) the functions of these two limits are equal. and Singpurwalla) considers sums of binomial probabilities. An alternate expression is P[RRc]a. This is illustrated in Figure 1. This correspondence of narrowest interval with equal heights is a geometrical property. It is not based on the choice nf the function describing R.
(IM The extent of the shifting from the single spike is determined by the data x and n.n.n..n. 35 . Second. Using the equality of the gamma fUnction r(J) and the factorial (J1)1 when j is an integer yields f(R)i (al)1(b1I (a+bl)l T Ral (1. (ni+1) i(i1) .n.+b(n. This special case isn't algebraically included in the following Beta function. The value of R is determined in two steps.n.binomial b( i.) equals the probability a making the confidence relation P[RcR_]J or P[R>j]1Q untrue..R)b. First.. 1 R n The extraction of R from this equation can be facilitated by using a Beta function as described in the following paragraph...R)+.R)0 for all i*0._) takes a shape illustrated in Figure 4 and described by where the number of ways of obtaining I successes in n trials if found from by (n) ni I il (ni)l n(n1) .R)+b(x+1. the continuous variable R is decreased infinitesimally making the confidence relation P[R>j]m1.R)l and b(i .just barely valid. Thus R is neither too large or too small to be a (1:)100% lower confidence limit on R when n (n\. R is increased until the sum b(x.R) consists of a single spike of unit height at 10..n. R has to be 0 to make b(O.n. The Beta function of R is r(a+b) r(a)r(b) Ral (1R)bl f(R) where a and b are parameters. Before doing that however. it is expedient to note that a measurement of xO implies that RO for all values of 0. It is adroitly described by an argument based on Figure 4: when x0. b(i. As R and c increase.
n. Repeated integrations by part yield " ab1 (a+b1.'1 (1./ Comparison of this summation and the summation for a in the previous paragraph yields ax and a+b1. (.. (3) repeated integrations by parts transform this integral to the summation aP'1 (a'lb'1) 7i (R')a'+b'4. 36 . Arguments similar to those in the proceeding section yield the upper Beta function in four steps: (1) R is in the binomial sum )ni ix (n .Postulating that the reliability is described by f(R) and setting the area to the left of R at c yields R af f(R) dR. Thus the parameters in the Beta function for the lower limit R are ax and bn+1x.7 iO i (2) " is the lower limit of integration over the second Beta function  f 1 f(R) dR.i l and (4) the second Beti function parameters are identified by xa'1 and na'+b'1 to be a'x+1 and blnx. Upper Confidence Limit: The upper confidence limit R defined by P[R<r]la is obtained from another Beta function.)a+b1i i1 1a \i.
R)f(xjR)g(R) is f(x)  f f(xlR) g(R) dR (n) (lR)nx Rx g(R) dR. Thus the general posterior is Rx (1R) nI' x g(R) g(Rlx) * . Using an R near 1 and an ( containing binomial terms from JO to Jxan. BAYESIAN APPROACH The Bayesian approach (Martz Jd Waller) uses the data x and n to update a prior distribution g(R) describing R to a posterior distribution g(Rlx) describing R after x is given.R) (n)Rx 'X (1R) n x and (2) the marginal density f(x) from the integral of h(x. Thus the posterior is found from g(Rlx) . For this special case. it is easily seen that a is 1 even when R is 1. This expression is simplified by noting that (1) the conditional density of x given R is f(xlR) b(x.This Beta function does not describe R when x=n because r(b')=r(O)u(O1)! is meaningless.. 0 f RK (1R)nx g(R) dR 37 . Since R continuous. Ri for any value of 1s. The algebraic relation between these two is based on the equality of the joint density h(x. This may be seen from a binomial distribution symmetric to Figure 4.n. R1 for all .f(xlR) g(R) / f(x).R) to both the product g(Rlx)f(x) and the product f(xIR)g(R).
Every noninformed prior is based on a transformation making the probability density insensitive to the data.n. r(x+1) r(nx+1) This is a Beta function with parameters ax+l and bn.n.Ignorant Prior: One prior that can be used is the uniform distribution g(R)=1 for OR41 and g(R)=O elsewhere.n) is determined by numerical integration to make the area uwder K(x. g(Rjx =~ n2 R(x+1)  The posterior is thus ) l (1. That is.n. This is sometimes called the ignorant prior because all values of R between 0 and I are equally likely.o) versus * yield very similar curves for fixed n and different x's when (1) K(x. it has been empirically found (Box and Tiao) that plots of K(x. Noninformed Prior: A second prior that can be used recognizes that the reliability is a binomial parameter but has no information about its value. For the binomial parameter R in b(x. This is sometimes called the noninformed or noninformative binomial prior. there is no evidence to favor the selection of any value of R over any other R between 0 and 1. m n Arcsin(Rl/ ) Figures 5 and 6 show that for O<x<n these similar curves become nearly equally spaced along the 0 axis as n is increased. This 38 .R). The noninformed argument assumes that all n+1 curves are essentialy equal and equally spaced for all n.x+1.n)b(x.R)(nx+1)l.n)b(x. Use of this prior in the general posterior yields g(RIx) f Rx (R)nx x R (IR)n ' x dR Integration by parts evaluates the denominator.o) equal to one and (2) * is given by 2 .
Narrowest TwoSided Intervals: Figures 7 through 15 show distributions and narrowest twosided 80% confidence intervals. Figure 9 shows that when xn the syimmetry is so completely destroyed that the narrowest twosided intervals are actually upper onesided intervals. Figure 7 illustrates the symmetry about xn/2. It is evaluated to be r(x+1/2)r(nx+l/2)/r(n+l). . (IR) ( n ' x +1 / 2 ) ' 1 dR The denominator is recognized as an integral over a Beta function. and 12 and Figures 13. 39 . and 15 show the effect of increasing n: for fixed x. the confidence intervals all become narrower but the relationship of the Fisherian.makes being noninformed about x equivalent to being ignorant about 0. Figures 10. ignorant. Use of this binomial noninformed prior in the general posterior yields RX1 /2 (1. The posterior is thus found to be a Beta function with ax+1/2 and banx+1/2. Both twosided and onesided intervals have been investigated.R)nxi/ 2 g(Rjx) fI R( X+ 1 / 2 ) l . COMPARISON OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS The three methods reviewed in the previous sections have been applied to confidence intervals on reliability. Figure 8 is one example of the destruction of symmetry by making x>n/2. Thus graphs for x<n/2 are not needed to investigate trends. The prior assumption that (1) x is unknown but (2) the situation is described by the one of these curves thus leads to a prior distribution of 0 that is uniform between 00* and 900. 14. and noninformed intervals retains an order. 11. The corresponding prior of R may be found from the transformation of variable technique (Freund and Walpole) by applying g(R) .h(o) _ dR Using h(o)1 and sin(o)Rl/ 2 in this equation yields g(R)wl/{2[R(1R)]1/ 2}.
the ignorant interval seems to be narrower than the noninformed interval. and noninformed intervals. and the ignorant Bayesian is the highest of the three. This initial analysis can provide a prior for a future Bayesian analysis of addition data from a future test. Since the Fisherian method leads to the widest confidence intervals. Upper OneSided Intervals: Figures 16 through 31 show distributions and upper onesided 90% confidence intervals on reliabil.. No single method provides most logical confidence intervals. The lower confidence limit appears lower for the Fisherian analysis thdn for the Bayesian analyses. For x near n however. Thus the Fisherian method seems to be a good. The Fisherian interval seems to be the widest. the noninformed Bayesian is next lowest.y. The symmetry of the Beta functions makes the lower confidence limits for x near 0 such that the Fisherian is lowest. conservative method for the initial analysis. the noninformed interval seems to be the narrowest of the three. ignorant. These figures and Figures 29 through 31 also show that large n leads to fairly close agreement between the three methods. the Bayesian method (without a prior based on previous tests/calculations) does not meet all the goAls of analysts with a Bayesian philosophy. it is the most conservative approach. The lower confidence limit appears lower for the noninformed when x is near n/2 but higher for the noninformed when x is near n. The choice between methods has to be based on goals and philosophy. For x near n/2. This is shown in Figures 25 though 28. Since proponents of the Bayesian method prefer priors which contain more information than the ignorant or noninformed prior.The effect of changing x for fixed n is seen to be a change in the order of the Fisherian. The Bayesian ignorant and noninformed priors seem to lead to two sets of results. 40 . CONCLUSION The three methods are all on sound theoretical ground but'give different results.
Donald W. John Wiley Box. Ray A. New York. John E. George C. Reading. and Singpurwalla.P. 1982 Bayesian Reliability Analysis. AddisonWesley. PrenticeHalls Inc... and Testing..REFERENCES Rankin. Nancy R.. 1980 41 . and Tiao. Methods for Statistical Analysis of Reliability and Life Data.. Bayesian Interference in Statistical Analysis.. and Walpole. New York. Englewood Cliffs.. New Jersey. Harry F." Proceedings of the TwentySecond Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research. Army Research Office Mann. Massachusetts.. "Estimating Reliability from Small Samples.. 1973 Freund. and Waller. 1974 Martz. & Sons. Nozer D. Ronald E. Ray E. Development.. George E.. John Wiley & Sons. Mathematical Statistics. Schafer.
.. . . U.. .. ..  . . ILU o LUI .. . .. " ...... 42 . .  1. W I / ' I I 1 co I V)I .
uJ z Il 0 LJ i W L L 43 .
........... .. 0 LU LlU IW 441 .
LUL LU Z I LU z (n ccIF d ~LU LU Al _ _ 06 0 0 LU 0 00 45 .~u.o.
ol 41 = lp LU U Q 0 I z 6LII 46 .I I I 04  00 0.
.3 '~47 a en M . K2 CLC 0 I0 LALa LL (0 Ia ~ a ~ s '2 147 to  L6aa~ l CL CL CLd * .10.
I i i II II i"i i" °/1 '1 I.LCV I I . Ixi 48 . .
49 .I I  Li 0 o q 13..
... ......4 o I x z  (S)Z Qw .Iii..... LLJ a: cc  I_ I 50 ..... II ..
x I0I ii1010 QI Z z' 00) mw 51 .
0 .I0 II0 I0 520 1 ii.
....... ... . .. LU% cc C4 v 53 . ...
LII cc II4 544 .
. .92 0. . Cl55 . ....
~\ 3 V \i xx 01~11 9 .
31P IIl LL co 4"0 'K I I a: u Jz LLL aq 00c 0. ZL 0ZU w 57 .00. L.
 I L DI % I  co I cc. 58s .
a I4~ II N N a %% x a.   a a II Ii a. ~jg I~ I I N z Q I. I I I I C II ~I 0 ~gl I 59 I I .U LL Z ~ w N II.
00 Q Vo 0/0 %4. g 60 .00 .
 10 0 I0 LU C4 .
..   . Z  L. .. P. . .. i62 .. . . ... . . . . LL v lz.N..
cr. .92 II "P I Lli...3 .
z LL (D .
zMA ... a: 65 ... cr.
z 66 .zS z Q LL oz ILL6 wU cc z 0 CC. 00L wL 0.
CC z >z uul ui 0 LUU z EI Z3 67 .
wL 9 wJ 00 CL) 3 w 0 0 D z..z zi LOLu ws i I. zW .
tat z LL cc0 ~ 0 I ~ a. w 69 .
h I I I I Iz 70 .1 0 UJ3 Sj CC.0 z z z<0) IL> w 0.t 0.
Z II LL W z cc UJ cr. w z 0 z 711 .. 8 C z 0  w ~I U.
.... LU LU =j LA... LU z 0 cc N CLA ui i z z 72 ......... . LL...........................................
A study designed to achieve objectives 3 and 4 will be presented. The objectives of the study were tot (1) define the extent of the hazardous substance contamination on the site. the Corps has conducted extensive research and development in the field of dredged material management. surface soil samples. Modifications and alternate approaches will also be discussed. and additional plant tissues were used to evaluate a contaminated site in western California. (2) identify the sources of the hazardous substances detected on the property. In accomplishing its national dredging and regulatory missions. andmanagement activities have cumulatively exceeded $100 million. Brandon US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg. (2) to estimate the variability of characteristics of interest in a population (3) to decide if characteristics of interest in a population meet certain standards or criteria. in continue fulfilling its mission to maintain. (4) assess the bioavailability. Nationwide. mobility. (3) evaluate the extent of migration of the hazardous substances on the property. and extend these vaterways. the Corps dredges about 230 million cubic yards in maintenance work and about 70 million cubic yards in new dredging annually at a cost of about $450 million. (4) to identify the source(s) which caused characteristics in a population to exceed standards. This paper focuses on the use of soil samples to achieve objectives 1 thru 4. Federal expenditures on dredged material research monitoring. The Corps. improve. Techniques developed to evaluate contaminant mobility in dredgad material can be applied to other contaminated areas. Major pathways for contaminant mobility are the meandering stream which flows north and the drainage ditches. Accordingly. Also.. The objectives may be: (1) to estimate the average of characteristics in a population. tidal inundation affects a substantial portion of this site. is responsible for the dredging and disposal of large volumes of sediment each year. The case study site is approximately 200 acres with both upland and wetland areas (see Figure 1). groundwater samples. Bagrund Navigable waterways of the United States have and will y a vital role in the nation's development.techniques developed to assess the environmental impact of dredged material in vetland and upland disposal environments. (5) evaluate the condition of the wetland and upland habitats on the property. These bioassays. and toxicity of the hazardous substances detected on the property. 73 . Mississippi 39180 Abstract Sampling strategies have been developed to accomplish various environmental objectives.Environmental Samplings A Case Study Dennis L. This site was known to have very high concentrations of metals in surface soils. the plant and animal bioassaym are tvo.
1000~00 300P (q200 ES 10 FigureY Ma fSuyAe 74CI .
Three souzces of contamination were identified from historical information.. samples are collected at the dredge site and disposal site. A total of 178 samples were collected and analyzed for As. 75 . Sources were thought to be areas with several high metal concentrations in a vicinity and a gradual decrease in metal concentrations as one moves away from this area. The other source discharged highly contaminated liquids into a stream.e. samples were collected at the remote reference area and an area of degradation (i. or animals statistically greater than similar data from all remote reference locations were declared contaminated. Identifying sources was further complicated by the fact that some of the discharges were intermittent and possibly hadn't occurred in several years. 26. contamination). The noil analysis was partially successful in achieving objectives 1 thru 4. historical information. Cd. There is an analogy between the strategy used here and the disposal philosophy of many Corps eldments. This study was successful in identifying sources which discharged contaminants associated with solids. The sampling locations are shown In Figure 1. and tha potential pathways for contaminant mobility. As a result of this study. Three samples were collected at some locations and one sample was collected at the other locations. Therefore. These concentrations provide a judgemental basis for classifying the 64 single sample locations.SAMPLING PLAN The sampling plan was formulated based on previous soil and water data. Ni. Fb. and Zn. One additional source was indicated by the soil analysis and later verified with historical information. extent of contamination horizontally across the site and vertically down the soil profile. This sampling plan reduced the cost of the investigation by allowing a selected number of sample locations to be tested extensively while other sample locations received onethird the cost and effort. Twentyeight triplicate samples were collected in the area of contamination. Cu. The extent of contamination from known sources was established &nd locations requiring further investigation were identified.. These samples further delineated th. In this study. Most dredging and disposal decisions are made at the local level on a case by case basis. Locations having a mean concentration of metals in soil. the environmental objective is to prevent further degradation of the disposal area. One method was to bury or discharge contaminants associated with a solid material in an area. The sources found in this study appeared to have released metal in two different forms. Often. A statistical evaluation performed on the chemical analysis of the samples becomes the basis for determining whether degradation will occur. Ydentifying the source of liquid discharges was more difficult due to seasonal fluctuation of the stream. The triplicate samples were used in statistical comparisons.5 acres were declared contaminated.mpling. This plan has been augumented with additional sr. plants. Ten triplicate samples were collected in the remote reference area. Se.
Hall. Army Missile Command Redstone Arsenal. Jr. Microcomputerbased algorithms for estimation of the parameters are presented. and Engineering Center U. this author and Charles E. will be published elsewhere..A Generalized Gumbel Distribution Siegfried H. microcomputer use will be made available upon request.S. AL 358985248 A generalized Gumbel (extreme value type I) distribution class is introduced. 77 . Gumbel distribution results as special case for shape equal to unity. They are based on the moment equations and on the logarithmic likelihood A program diskette for A combined paper by function associated with the distribution density. In addition to the usual shift and scale parameters this new The classical distribution contains an arbitrary positive shape parameter. Development. Lehnlgk Research Directorate Research.
(_) .. n} and let Ps(k) be the number of pemutations of the elemens of X.and the Worpitzky (25] relation *t Z+ Also.. For a a 4. the 24 permutations and the number of increases are given in Table 1. A number of combinatorial identities ar also deduced.2.1.. mA. The EEuerian numbers are defined by A~.. n l j)'t O. we use theme extended Eulerlan numbers to construct an uncountably infinite family of lattice random variables whose first n moments concide with the first n moments of the sum of n + I uniform random variables..A Generalization of the Eulerian Numbers with a Probabilistic Application Bernard Harris University of Wisconsin.J + l)A.. (5) In addition... ~ )Aq (2) (3) A . Ther.o. the first element always being counted as an inaase..%j. "NO..1..1. +(n. 2.. Madison C. Park San Diego State University 1 Introduction and Historical Summary In this paper we study a generalization of the Eulerlan numbers and a clas of polynomials related to them.{1. 79 .V JA. they possess a number of combinatorial interpretadons which am described below. 1 (4) An. i. J.. 'An interesting application to probability theory Isgiven in Section 3. Let X .I..2. 1 They satisfy the recursion A. having exactly k increases between adjacont elements..
Pennutation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1234 1243 1324 1342 1423 1432 2134 2143 2314 2341 2413 2431 3124 3142 3214 3241 3412 3421 4123 4132 4213 4231 4312 4321 NmrflM 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 80 .
t A are (8]. Carlitz and J. Let An(t Jul A ). i. v. A generalization in a diff.. L.3 r4.r(i) "i+ 1. P 4 (4) . 2.. A. I with j } 4elementary inversions". } with j "elementary 1 itiversions". The above relations and some of their properties can be found in the polynomials (6) also discussed in Carlitz (4]. B. Ddsir6 Andrd [ ] established that AV isthe number of permutations of {X.1. Some number theoretic properties of AV are given in L. who apparently did not note a connection of his coefficients with the Eulerian numbers. The equivalence of these two results with the enumeration of the number of increases in permutations of {X. L. P4 (3) . In D.rcnt direction was given by E. 1.. G. Roselle [201.Shanks [221. that is...which concides P4 with A 4 jj " 1. He also established that Aq. In this paper.2. we study a generalization of the Eulerian numbers. As seen from the tabulation. n. is related to enumeration by the number of successions. relations with the Bernoulli numbers are given in [15]. These results may also be found in expository paper of L. Frobenius [ 15) studied the polyomonlals Anm AjxJ (8) introduced by Euler. The formulas (1) and (2) ar also given in L. P4 (1) = 1.1. Schrutka [21). the Carlitz [3]. is the number of circular permutations of (X. (2) =. and established many of their properties.. Carlitz [2] noted the relationship of Shank's results to 81 . In particular.1. a permutation ir of {X. (6) (7) Then t A(t)x' /nl.} has a succession if . .11. Riordan [7] and in L. Carlitz [5]. P. the enLneration of permutations by the number of rises..} can be trivially established.
David and D. See also L. Using probabilistic arguments. Comet [10]. employing the probability distribution given by P * Aj/n!. Kurtz.. Riordan (19] lists many properties of the Eulerlan numbers in Exercise 2. Dillon and D. Poussin [18] considered the enumeration of the number of inversions of permutations of (X.. F. Carlitz. The sums of these polynomials are the EulerFrobenius polynomials.F.P. which end in J. This was accomplished by representing the distribution PV as the distribution of a sum of indepen 82 . He also gives a brief table of the Eulerian numbers on page 215. F. Barton [11] suggest the use of the Eulerian numbers as a statistical test for the randomness of a sequence of observations in time. where generating functions for the Eulerian numbers are given and the Eulerian numbers are obtained by enumerating the number of permutations with a specified number of increases. have an asymptotically standard normal distribution. when suitably normalized.2.1. Many properties of the Eulerian numbers are given as well as their historical origins in terms of sums of powers. David and Barton show that the factorial moments are the generalized Bernoulli numbers. This produces a decomposition of the Eulerian numbers.N. Roselle [12]. However.. Another deomposition of the Eulerian numbers with a combinatorial interpretation is given by '. She also introduced a polyomial generating function for these numbers. Scoville and Stackelberg [6] showed that the Eulerian numbers.. page 3839 and describes the combinatorial interpretation of the Eulerian numbers in terms of triangular permutations (which is equivalent to the elementary inversions described by Andrd [1]). J.. Nielsen [17].E. I g j n.n. David and Barton do not make any identification of these distributions with the Eulerian numbers.the Eulerian numbers and obtained representations for these generalized Eulerian numbers using results due to N. (9) The generating function (7) is derived and employed to obtain the moments and cumulants of the distribution (9). In particular. j .
Tanny [24] demonstrated the asymptotic normality by utilizing the relationship of the Eulerian numbers to the distribution of the sum of independent uniform random variables and applying the central limit theorem.oes not relate these to the Eulerian numbers.. 2 Generalized Eulerian Numbers Let 6 be an arbritrary real number and let AV (6) We now introduce a generalization of the Eulerian numbers and investigate its properties. let a sequence of labelled boxes be given. Finally. Scoville [8].1.2..2.. the second box 2. As noted there.j=.. Let n and k be nonnegative integers and let 6 be any real number. Namely. L. Takics' paper contains many references and describes additional combinatorial problems whose solution is related to the Eulerian numbers. =E (1)"(6 + V)".. AO (0) are the Eulerian numbers. S.dent Bernoulli random variables. and so on. At trial number n distribute I balls randomly in the first n boxes so that the probability that each ball selects a specific box is 1/n and the selections are stochastically independent. (10) These polynomials are mentioned in L.1. Roselle and R. D.A. These polynomials are also used by P.. the first box labelled 1. Dwyer [13] to calculate sample factorial moments.1. . L. n. the probability that j . For I .n=0..j 1.. Takdcs [23] obtained a generalization of the Eulerian numbers which provide the solution to a specific occupancy problem.S.1 boxes are empty after trial number n is Aq/n. Then 83 . Dwyer . Carlitz.. We begin our analysis with the following theorem: Theorem 1.P. Toscano [25] obtained formulas expressing the Eulerian numbers in terms of Stirling numbers of the second kind..
"2
(+
JUO
1
)
VUO VJ
(I)(6 +jv)
n
t(
jWO
+
(k)A,()(11)
is independent of 6 fork = 0, 1,..., . Ef. The following identity (see N. Nielsen, [17], page 28) will be utilized in the proof.
(
_+x )no0 n NV
(8+jv)'
(12)
Let A and E be the operators defined by
(f())
and
f (Z+ 1) f()
E(f( )) = f (Z+ 1), Then, it can be shown that (C. Jordan, [16]) V\
In particular, for r  0, 1,..., n,
N0 r
(V
7.O
Erv1
(13)

n(r)(6 + j) ("')
(14)
the last equality follows from elementary properties of the function (S + j)k' j (C. Jordan, [16], p. 51). Thus, for r  0,1,..., n, from (12) we have (S+ j),. D(_1) 1 (6+ +r ,/n(r).()
84
Hence,
+1
(+(
n+1
+  )
(
)(, + _
i
jnO
n kl(+i
(k)(n+
UO ++nkl
(,O
1
(16)
Thus, it follows that
too
JN
WVaO n=
1
(17)
Setting z 6 + n k  1+ I in (12) we get
(n k 1+ 0)1 = E (nks.l).2
J=0
+ nnl

+
Va=0
j(+1)" (n+ I' (6(q1
k I ) (18)
and hence
((n
frh
/nk
ISO and is independent of 6. In particular,
(3n  2n 1 + l)/*n(=
,
,
(
)
(2"  1)/n and
I
1),
L,3(n (6)()
.,43".,.(2 14iMn2)
A brief table of/[t]( )(6) for k
 0 1, 2,3 and n So 0, 1,2,3 is given in the Appendix to this
paper, The Nielsen identity (12) seems to have been discovered in a somewhat less general context by Paul S. Dwyer (13], who employed it to calculate factorial moments by means of cumulative sums; see also Ch. A. Charalambides [9], who in addition to discussing Dwyer's work also showed that these generalized Eulerian are related to enumeration of compositions of integers.
85
The following corollary will be subsequently employed. Corollary. Let n and kbe nonnegative integers with kc 7bi.Ten
+ 1(D & J)AE1
is independent of 8. I~rg.we can write
(
(1)W(s +j 
(19)
(6
1.00
+J), Ept + j(01(20)
where Ok are the Stirling numbers of the second kind. Since the coefficients Ph do not depend on 8, substituting (20) into (19) and interchanging the order of summation, we got
AkA tw0
which is independent of 8. Prior to demonstrating that the independence of 8, noted in Theorem I and its corollary can not be extended to k m + 1, we will need to calculate the derivative of 1A i(i). Thus, we have: Thoe'2 Let naind k be nonnegative Integers and let 8 be any real number. Then
4
d
1()
Ii)n..)5 00
(22)
Ew~.Since
Ny~= n(+l
\
_~(~j_
J0oIN
1 F,')6 + j)~ ( h1 s
(I) V(6 +jO
86
Comparing the first term with (19) and employing the Pascal triangle identity on the second term we get
h
k
8) .'+~
jNO vnO V
1
()v(
~V)"(23)
Further,
(ni)! = (n~ (6 +n ) 1)!
+
From (13)
1)
J(n
I V1O)
(
V
( )'(,
V)
)
V
(24)
(+,nb
vWO
V)" , 0
(25)
since it is the nth difference of a polynomial of degree n  1. The second term on the right hand side of (24) is (1) (6), In addition,
+ j V)'
(n( 
6 + )
(1)M6(6
(+

(
~E
8(
1
+)
+
j v

87
1( "Ih(i~j+
(n) I j ~ ,=1l
1
I
(
(+J
7n
(I),o
D S
or j
+J)"
go V
(_l), ,(
ni
+ _)
I 1)
+
Thus, by (23), (25) and (26) we have shown that
dIA(k )
kALN2(8
k~%l)8
or dgkn(6) establishing the theorem. Corollary 1. For I < k n,then
k
k
(6)  k,
N )
(27)
_, (8)

Z
(
) ,
)
k
(28)
n and hence
Pt. . By the Corollary to Theorem 1, p
 0 for such values of k.
(8) is independent of 8 for 0
Corollary 2. If k  n + 1, then
d" (8) C . (n+
l)j"'"(8),
(29)
where c,,+,, is a constant (depending on N,but independent of 8).
. Proof, From the Corollary to Theorem I and Theorem 2, ( n + 1)14 ) (5) is independent of 6 and all terms in ( ) r ' (5) with the exception of r  n are independent 6 of . This last
term is (n+ 1)A.'S') (6). Corollary 2 can be extended to k = n+ 2 and so forth, but the expressions obtained become more complicated and do not appear to be particularly useful. However, we do make use of Corollary 2 in the next theorem, Theorem 3. For every n, A,1 (5) is a polynomial of degree n + I in 6 with leading coefficient EP.rf. We proceed by induction, using Corollary 2 to Theorem 2.
Form  0, 14() ()  6. Then d/2u(8)
6)  c2,1 26.
Performing the indicated integration, we have
A1)(6) = Ca.,t 6 62 + d,
where d is an unspecified constant, Assume that the conclusion holds for n  m. Then
d/46~()pm+2
~+,~
(m + 2)IA42
c,,+2,+1  (m + 2)(a06"' ' + E aj 6M+J),
Jul
(30)
where ao is +1 orl. Integrating, we get,.,,.2 (6)
ao
+ Pffi+1(6), where P,+(6) i 0, 1,..., 10 and selected values of
polynomial of degree m + 1.
A table of p4l) (6) appears in the Appendix for n  5, k 6.
89
3 Applications to Probability Theory
Let U1 , U2 ,..., U,tI be independent random variables uniformly distributed on (0,1). Let
owl
,.,~~U. The distribution of Sol is wellknown and is given by the probability density function
fs,.
n+I
()V(x

V)"O < X < n+ 1,
(31)
(for example, see W. Feller (14).) Where (zc< a)+ Write (32)
xa, Xa>O,
where C I]denotes the integer part of S.,I, S,, Clearly 6is continuous random variable and a 0 < 6 < 1; [ I] is discrete random variable with carrier set {0,1,2 .... So a ,n}. The conditional distribution of S,+ I given that the fractional part of 8,o I is 6 is given by
IS
P{Smi1 x
wherej+6 From (31), xj=0,1,..,%
IX x]  6} a fs.,(J+ 6)/,fS.,(+ 8), i.e.j[x].
(33)
/s,.,(U + 6)  w E ( WOO
Butj + 6  v > 0 is equivalent to v
V+
)10+
)n
/, we get thus
+ fs..(j 6)  ,"
which is A, (6)/n!I Also,
()U+6O'(4
E fsI., (U+ 6)  I = 01
j0
90
%0 <g 6< 1. Theorem 4.. is uniform on (0.... ~wIE{Snl+ } 1 (35) Ea(E{Snl 1 6)}) .f du . the fractional part of Sol ...1 .1). 1 + 8. It is easy to see that the marginal distribution of 8. 1..and thus (34) is a discrete probability distribution with carrier set {6. 1U + u)du /~JU(s..}. which is independent of 8...E(Wr. n + 6}.jk= 0. E{ W..+ . by the Corollary to Theorem 1. 1 Remark. This is stated in the following theorem. However.0 (1)9(j+ 6 .. The moments of order k . An elementary proof follows. be the random variable whose distribution is given by (34).0. A brief table of W. Hence P{8< 6'} .'.+ 18 (j+ 8) YNO woo . E{8 "} .E({f'jf)..n of W. . that is. . Let W... Finally.8 coincide with the corresponding moments of 8. 1 . = 1 for every 0 < u < 1.5 is given in the Appendix. We then have the following theorem. 91 .0. we note that W.1.(I but .6 is asymptotically normally distributed. + u) +U))du. for n . . P{6 8*) JO x) d " f fs...
( + (37) as the con Eof. As n . the distribution of F(. for 0 b <1.n1t Ar.' normal distribution.1) given the fractional part of the sum and the central limit theorem. Further. . ditional distribution of the sum of n+ 1 independent uniform random variables on (0.+ ) 11 (i's)) (36) coverges weakly to the standar.oo. Both (36) and (37) are Immediate consequences of the representation of . 92 . Vfn *+(n+/).(6) L .Theorem S.4q~+)Wt.
2.3. 1..1)(62) 2 1 2+ 2 1 ft". 1+6_82_(l. .2S' (PL n . + +2 1_ 6.1.Appendix This Appendix is devoted to some tables illustrative of some of the quantities introduced in the body of the paper.k = 0._1+n Wy4 4 3 1 La±I ri2) 93 .I Table of [A)(6)..3 $0 0 1 1 1 6 2 6(61) L) 26 3 +36 2 3 6(6.2.Table A. n= 0.
The Distrbution of W.545 .4. n = 5.005 6 x 10 . .1.013 ..4 3 x15" 4 5 x 10 .062 .6 8 x10l .260 .062 .438 438 .9 1 are identical when the column for differ Note the aymmolby for 6 .177 .260 .177 9 x1075 .9 is read going tip and 6 = 1 is read going down (the entries 8 x 10"8 and 5 x 10as a consequence of rounding errors). 94 .476 .545 .9 6 1+8 2+6 3+ 6 44.s.044 .396 .013 4+6 .. .083 3 x10. .9 and 8  8 = .5 and that 8 n .005 . 6n.5.
53 5432.1 1 3 9.3 1 3 9.5 108.81 341763.77 95 ..5 108.50 2118.9 1 3 9.77 84096.7 1 3 9.5 31.I.5 31.5 1432. .5 341018.80 7 5431.5 1432.19 .5 108.7 388.5 1432.56 84020.3.6 a 0.01 21122. n 5.53 5432..5 1 3 9.51 21117.67.7 .5.5 10 341270.5 1432.60 83989.1.5 31.50 5431.7 388.50 5431.5 31.55 5432...31 21129.5 108. k =0.5 1432.69 21122.7.88 .50 9 84010.48 .07 84049.16 341628.5 108.9 6=0 k 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1 3 9.5 108.5 31.5 31.7 388.7 388.5 1432.66 84116.40 342089.7 388. p.48 341121.1.7 388. ..48 21129.A'(6).10.
. Kurtz.. Fibonnacci Quarterly.References [1] Andrd. 96 . 132146. 35 (1968).. Arch.... 59 (1952). (7] Carlitz... L. [3] Carlitz.P. 247. Combinatorial Chance. and Roselle. Permutations and sequences with repetitions by number of increases. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. [8] Carlitz. Z.P. L. L. London. L. On the enumeration of certain compositions and related sequences of numbers. 247256. 4754. Theory. 32 (1959). 20 (1982). Paris.. D.A. 1 (1966).. L.C.. L. [2) Carlitz. L. 24 (1906). D. L. [111 David. [12] Dillon. J. Duke Math. J. Math. Asymptotic Properties of Euleria Numbers.Combin. 1970. Mag.. 239241. Analyse Combinatoire. A note on the Eulerian numbers. della Pontifica Accad. Am. O.. [4] Carlitz. Geb. 1962. D. J. F... and Scoville. 189223.. 14 (1963). Mdmoire sur les inversions 616mentaires des permutations. R. J. and Riordan. Duke Math. Duke Math. Charles Griffin and Company Ltd.. Presses Universitaires de France. Mem. 401424. and Stackelberg. 383390. 20 (1953) 339344. [10] Comtet. Eulerian numbers and polynomials. Scoville.N. J. Montly. D. 350374. [5] Carlitz.. 23 (1972).27 (1960).260. Eulerian numbers and polynomials of higher order.. D. Roselle. Ch. Math. Romana dci Nuovo Lincei. Math. [6] Carlitz. Eulerian numbers of higher order. and Barton. Congruences for Eulerian numbers.E. R.P. Note on a paper of Shanks.F. [9] Charalambides... J.A.
Math. Akad. 2 (1938). 0. 2nd Ed. E. Sitz. HI. 173181. Inc.. Permutations by number of rises and successions. [23) Takdcs.. 26 (1979). D. 58 (1951). 2nd Ed. Comptes Rendus Acad. FR. Math. An Introduction to Combinatorial Analysis. Schrutka... Ber. John Wiley & Sons. 1958.. New York.. P.. (15] Frobanius. Vol. 404407.S. Sur une propridt6 arithmdtique de certains polyn6mes associds aux nombres d'Euler. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen.. A generalization of the Eulerian numbers. [16] Jordan. Inc. Am. 19 (1968). (14] Feller.. L. Statist.B. The calculation of moments with the use of cumulative totals. Calculus of Finite Differences. K. Paris (1923). (1910). N. (19] Riordan. Traitd dldmentalre des nombrei de Bernoulli. 809847. Preuss. Ann. 816.. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications. GauthierVillars et Cie... W.. John Wiley & Sons. [17] Nielsen.. Lothar. Soc. Chelsea Publishing Co.. Math.. New York (1960). Iterated sums of powers of the binomial coefficients. Sine nucue Eintilung der Permutationen. Amer. 97 . Math. [20) Roselic. 288304. 392393. J. [22] Shanks.[13] Dwyer. New York. Monthly. Annalen.. Proc. OYber die Bernoullischen Zahien und die Eulerschen Polynome. Wiss. 1971. 266 (1968). [21] v. Sci. 246250. 118 (1941).P. Paris. (18] Poussin.
. Studien Uber die Bernoullischen und Eulerschen Zahlen. J. J. J. 98 . [25] Toscano. 40 (1973).(24] Tanny. 717722. Journal fUr die reine und angewandte Mathematik. 94 (1883). Duke Math. 332342. A probabilistic interpretation of Eulerian numbers... Sulla somma di alcune serie numeriche.. S. 203232. L.. (26] Worpitzky. 38 (1933). Tohoku Math.
For continuous measurements one may quickly turn to the analysis of variance. The multivariate method developed by 99 . Free This problem arises from the consideration of studies where a reproduction safety test must be performed prior to the use of drug. Also data on continuous variables such as fetal weight are collected. M. which are analyzed by nonparametric AOV. The need to include within and amonglitter variation negates the use of simple binomial or Poisson models for count data. 1987) is used to derive the scores and indices. B. Morgenthein BristolMeyers ABSTRACT When the experimental units being classified are subsampling units in the study. ignores the dependence among the responses. the count data obtained which is routinely analyzed by univariate statistical methods. they are sacrificed and the number of potential offspring are counted. An example from teratogenicity studies is used to illustrate the technique. a problem of family error rate arises. The appropriate dosage is administere4 shortly after the beginning of gestation. Since the tests arc not independent. For count data describing the number of fetuses with or without some qualitative outcome. The standard protocol in such studies requires that pregnant female subjects (usually rodents) are randomly sslgned to one of four treatment groups. Further. chemical or food additive.squared test of independence may be performed. the nominal family error rate cannot be exactly determined. It is unclear from the literature which statistical methods are appropriate for the analysis of this type of data. but this appears to inflate samples sizes and ignores the dependence of observations within litters. All but one of the proposed methods for perlitter analysis considF.The Analysis of Multivariate Qualitative Data Using an Ordered Categorial Approach H. A review of perfetus analysis is given by Haseman and Hogan (1975) who conclude the per letter analysis is more appropriate. When the animals are near term. Tingey University of Delaware E. other methods have evolved. early and late fetal deaths. an ordered categorical procedure cannot be applied directly. A perfetus analysis using total of early death and total number of implantation in a Fisher exacttest or a chi. S. A modification of the method developed I'y Nair (1986.r a single outcome. A. Other data collected are the number of implantation. number of live offspring and the number of fetuses according to various degrees of increasing severity of malformation. In the methods which consider several single responses.
usually the square root of the observed number. Thus a scoring procedure allows consideration of the effect of letter size on severity of the response.tegories. sampling unit. 100 . ordered categorical models may be applied and the family error problem may be eliminated. The modeling which follows will be based on this index. Three observations should be made. in the litter. Neither fits the data very well. Univariate Analysis. the KruskalWallis and the Jouckheere/ Terspstra. Some attempts at multivariate analysis have been tried by Ryttman (1076).ity which is violated in the case of fetal deaths. The binomial assumption states that conditional on litter size the number affected is binomial. Thus.Ryttman (1976) relies on the assumption of norma. usually the arcsine of the observed proportion. as the case may be. i) results are different per litter than for per fetus. This may be due to extra binomial or extra poisson variability. Several nonparametric procedures have been tried.binomial Altham (1978). but the scores must. This implies analysis by litter as a. betabinomial (Williams 1075). however. Here the sampling unit is the fetus or individual. In situations where ranking the categories from mild to severe is possible. Others include. The poisson model does not account for litter size as it assumes the mean number affected is the same for all dose groups. In this paper we obtain a scoring system for various outcomes which produces a severity index for each litter. the normalbinomial (Luning et. negative binomial (McCtughran and Arnold 1076). as a whole. jackknife Gladen (1970). The simple analysis is based on litter as the experimental unit. does not preclude a multivariate approach.for this application. The study design prohibits the straightforward application of ordered categorical procedures because the items (fetuses) are not independent. be. namely the MannWhitney U. ii) per litter evaluates the proportion of fetuses affected rather than the numbers of affected litters. All of the latter techniques have distributional assurnIptions. a mean score may be obtainerd for each litter. This approach due to Cochran (1043) requires sample sizes which are too large . correlated . This index is sensitive to location shifts. We note that CATMOD in SAS alows for scoring. The analysis again used a transformation. More sophisticated models are reviewed by Haseman and Kupper (190) include: weighted least squares based on proportion and unequal sample sizes. This analysis is carried out using binomial and poisson models. this approach was pursued. The analysis is based on transformed data. This lack of success. Since some of the ordered categorical procedures develop or accept scores for the ca. al. 1966). Scores induce relative spacing among the categories. and iii) observed treatment control differences is less significant than perfetus indicates (via simulation). loglinear models by Haberman and others (1074) and generalized linear models by McCullagh (1080).
The scores proposed are such that the variance of the linear regression of mean scores on the log dose is maximized with respect to the total variance. When applied to 2 x K tables. Using no distributional assumption. thus is sensitive to scale changes in the 2 x K model. this components would be sensitive to shifts in the multinomial model. respectively. when applied to litters. Instead of estimating an LD. In teratogenicity studies the location shifts of interest would be those that indicate a significant doseres)onse: . An adjustment is made if the scores do not reflect the ordering of the categories. These yield statistics that are approximately equal to those obtained from the orthogonal decomposition. Wilcoxon i. It is reasonable to suggest. LaRiccia and Rosenstein (1987). the first set of Nair's scores is sensitive to shifts in locntion of thee underlying random variable. The decomposition of Taguchi's accumulation chisquared (1066. He showed the Taguchi statistic for 2 x 2 tables. (1962) scores by maximizing the treatment sum of squares after scaling relative to the error sum of squares. the second components corresponds to Mood's rank test for grouped data.. Ipscn (1955) suggested a scoring for Bioassay. Nair (1986. 0 or ED50 based on number of survivors after x days. these scores yield a11 colitilous index useful for detecting shift. HO: G(. The approximate and exact statistics have comparable power. This is an iterative procedure which does not require the assumption of linearity. can be orthogonally decomposed into X . Nair (1986. Nnir's Metlhd As alrea.1 components where K is the number of categories.x) = F(x) H1 G(x) = F(x  ) 101 . he ordered the data into categories with the continuum represented by time (days). Further. the first and second components of the orthogonal dccompo itiou corresp(nd to the Wileoxon and Mood rank test. In the two sample case he showed the first components is equivalent to Wilcoxon's rank test on grouped data. This result has been verified using a comparison density approach for the two samnple problem by Eubank.ests. 1987) provides the method for deriving two sets of scores.ly mentioned. but do not require a rigorous solution. In the lion equiprobable case the correspondence does not apply though the interpretation still holds. Bradley etal.user specified. Thus. 1974) requires the solution of an eigenvector problem. 1987) suggested some techniques for analyzing ordered categorical data in the field of quality control.
2.ponent have good power for detecting location and scale shifts respectively. h= Ti. Observed frequency for the (i.K Cumulative row frequencies Zk = E. For each population. G are two distribution functions. bold lower case letter = a vector bold upper case letter . in the general case (except equiprobable) case the equalities are no longer exact. 2 are drawn from two multinomial populations. 2 x N case Two random samples of size Rj i = 1./N Cumulative column proportion up to and including column k dk = D/N. D'= k 1C The row proportions = r= = RI/N The column proportions = Ck = CA. The focus of this work is on location shifts. Vector conventions used. For more than two treatment groups the first component corresponds to the Kruskal .I Cumulative column totals. but the first two corr. the probabilities of the K outcomes are given by 102 . k) th cell = I ki Column total. . Ho G(x) = F(x) H1 G(x) = F(x/O) where 0 is a constant. 2 j=1.. Mood tests.1.. = CK = YIK + Y2 K Row total.where F.Wallis statistic for grouped data..a matrix transpose = i a vector raised to a power implies each element is raised to a power (this is non standard) Multinomial model. and the second to the generalized Mood statistic. = = R R .
2. .... Ki TE = F..._ d. 1.1... X'kP k=l where TB is a "ccs type statistic"... 2. Then..1) x K matrix A by. K1 2 Nair's Statistic T = K k=l Wk f{E iLI Rj(Zk/R.di d2 1.dkl 103 . The decomposition is carried out conditionally on the marginal proportions.dk)] 1 to the k h term in the sum which is equal for each k under H0 .dk)]. Alternative statistics to Pearson's x 2 K Taguchi's statistic TE = k=l [dk(1 ... TE assigns weight w4 = [dk(1 . dl d 2 dk1 1 ..r2k) < 0 for all K (strict inequality for at least one k).. K . 2. K. .1 {' 2 Ri(Zik/Ri  dk)} iW1 If <2p is the Pearson x2 statistic from a 2 x 2 table where column 1 contains the cumulative frequencies of categories 1 through k and column 2 contains the cumulative frequencies of categories (k+1) through K. . 2. ... W is a diagonal matrix.d2 1. . . The cumulative probabilities for population i are given by 7 rik = Ej~ Pij If the K categories are assumed to be ordered the hypothesis is 7 Ho: rlk 2k k=1..Pikk = 1.dk) 2 The statistics in the class are obtained by the choice of the set {wk} where u'k > 0 for k = 1. Using the d we form the (K .. Wk k = 1.. d 2 .1. K . For yl...dk. K H1 : ( . ..dk.
Q and its transpose. Let A be diagonal of order K formed by the colum proportions {ck} and let r be the diagonal matrix of order (k .1) containing the eigenvalues of AtWAA then the decomposition yields AVA = QrQt where Q contained the eigenvectors of A 1 WAA such that ~= satisfies E1Q] substituting QFQt into T above with U= Q'(Nroi) yields K1 T Z li' where the rj's are elements of the vector of eigenvalues. and Uj's are elements of . r. Under H0 the distribution of Yi conditional on row and column proportions is multiple hypergeometric with 104 ..Thus T is given by T = y'AtWAyi/Nrjr 2 To express T as a sum of squares in yj we need to express A WA as a product of a diagonal matrix.
is equivalent to Mood's K M L k=l [k  (K + 1)/2]2 Ylk.e. It follows that E(u) cov(u) = = NVr(Q1A1) / VTrh7 = (1 .E(Y) Cov(Ylk.1/N)QA(I . . . The first component. = = NrjA1 N(l . Y 11) = = = Nrlck N(1 . ck = 1/k). That is the first component of TE or Uvl is equivalent to the Wilcoxon test on the 2 x K table and UE.1/N)Irlr 2 A((I 1) itA] 1 is a K x 1 vector of ones.Ck) N(1 k = 1 k 34 1  1/N)? r 2(ckcI) 1 or E(yj) cov(y. They do not require the solution of the eigenvalue problem as orthogonal decomposition is not necessary.1 r1 r2(1 .1/N). 2 the second component. 105 . all observations in the category are assigned a.1 1A]Q = 0 (1  1/N)'I implies the Uj's are uncorrelated with zero means. Thus X1 j1 Ki jul a weighted sur of independent X2 random variables. each with 1 df The approximate solution by Nair proposed two sets of statistics which have properties the same as those obtained for the equiprobable case (i. Under HO it can be shown that the limiting distribution of yj converges to the multivariate normal distribution as N goes to infinity.
2 and V2 ' = S1 /R1 + S 2 2 /R 2 where Si = st i 1." 0 =5 Let r = Bc and r* = 1 .. 0 0.5(1)... 2 S = e/cte ... To calculate the scores. First let The second set of scores is obtained in c Then = 1'1 (c'13)1)  1. where r *2 is a vector of squares of elements of r two steps. Note the r's are Bross's ridits.5 0 . 2 106 . let c be of length K with elements being the column proportions. The first set of scores is obtained from 1 = I/c'r 2 . Form B= 1 B . each set of scores is adjusted to satisfy orthogonality. The second component the scores are quadratic in the midrank. Additionally.score proportional to the midpoint of the category... The approximate statistics for the 2 x K table are 2 VI' L'/RI + L 2 2 /R 2 where Li = 1Vyj 1.
7.. Sr = ntc/nt1.. Recorded are the number of corpora luta on each ovary. not toxicity. growth retarded . number of fetuses. Table's II and III summarize the results by number and percent for each dose by category. They are then sacrificed in order to perform the skeletal and visceral examination. sexed and examined for external malformations. control and three dose groups Inseminated females randomly assigned to 4 groups of 24 rats each Dose levels.25. 4.Early or late resorption of dead at csection. Normal . 5.. 12. mfetal data Administration of compound follows daily dose regimen Treatment groups. summing and dividing by the number of implantations. 6. i.which are comparable in magnitude and consequently in power to U1 and U2 respectively.5. malformedgross visceral or skeletal variation. This index is calculated by multiplying the score for the category by the number of fetuses in the category.e. 6. 4dichloro4 nitrodipheyn] ether) Test compound administered during organogenesis Sacrifice prior to parturition and cesareansectioned Record litter ab. We now apply the method: Conduct of the study and data: PROTOCOL 1. The following definitions are employed to categorize the fetuses: Dead .body weight more than two standard deviation from the mean for the given sex or by a range test. The final columin of Table I is the calculated severity index. and the number of resportions in each utrine horn. Consider the following sample data: 107 .absence of any of the previous outcomes. 9. Table I displays the data for each rodent and close level. SpragueDawley rat study Herbicide: nitrofen (2. 2. 25 mg/kg/day body weight on days 615 of gestation. It should be noted that the differing number of letters is due to nonpregnant females. 8. Controls: gavage solution w/o test compound Live fetuses are weighed. Details of the calculations of a severity index are given in the following example. 3. number of implantations.
73692 0.34212 0.65527 0.) Severity Index 19 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.12286 0.00000 0.85481 0.49145 000000 0.65527 0.20142 0.00000 0.w.StragueDawley Rats Growth Number of Normal Retared Malformed Dead Id Implantations Dose Group = Control (0.56166 0.42124 0.0mg/kg/day b.w.49145 0.68423 0.42124 0.37 4 0 12 16 44 5 0 11 16 46 8 0 7 17 36 108 .49145 0.00000 0.25139 0.32763 0.31352 0.86004 0.) 0 0 0 1 32 2 0 10 12 28 3 0 12 9 43 4 0 10 14 26 0 0 14 14 31 3 0 11 14 39 5 0 9 14 41 4 0 10 14 47 0 0 14 14 48 5 0 10 15 33 5 0 10 15 38 1 0 13 15 40 3 0 12 15 45 5 0 11 16 25 4 0 12 16 27 6 0 10 16 34 4 0 12 16 35 7 0 9 16 .61432 1.49145 0.58890 2.24708 0 0 3 4 8 0 1 4 5 11 0 7 0 7 8 3 0 9 12 1 0 0 14 14 16 3 0 11 14 24 0 0 15 15 6 1 0 13 15 9 3 0 12 15 20 2 1 12 15 22 1 1 14 16 2 0 0 16 16 4 0 0 16 16 10 0 2 14 16 12 0 0 16 16 17 0 0 15 16 23 6 0 11 17 3 6 0 10 17 5 3 0 13 17 13 2 0 13 17 15 4 0 13 18 21 Dose Group m'Low (625 mg/kg/day b.50790 0.00000 0.Table I Nitrofen Data .69382 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.55326 0.73718 0.15712 0.39316 0.56166 0.39316 0.31352 0.49145 0.70207 0.61432 0.34590 0.
StragueDawley Rats Number of Growth Id Implantations Normal Retared Malformed Dose Group = Control (0.w.61674 1.54456 1.) 91 2 0 0 1 80 7 3 0 3 86 8 6 1 1 73 10 1 0 9 77 14 3 0 11 78 14 3 0 11 79 14 2 0 12 83 14 9 0 5 93 14 1 0 12 76 15 0 0 15 84 15 6 0 9 92 15 7 0 8 74 16 4 0 11 87 16 6 0 10 94 16 8 0 8 95 16 6 0 10 96 16 4 0 10 89 17 6 0 11 90 17 0 0 11 75 18 6 0 12 81 18 6 0 12 88 19 11 0 7 Dead 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 1 Severity Index 2.37047 0.) 54 2 0 0 0 70 3 1 0 2 59 4 2 0 2 64 8 5 0 3 53 11 4 1 5 55 13 7 0 5 58 14 7 0 6 60 14 7 0 5 65 14 8 0 5 68 14 10 0 3 62 15 6 0 6 67 15 13 0 1 71 15 8 0 4 49 16 6 0 10 69 16 11 0 4 56 18 15 0 2 57 18 13 0 5 72 18 7 0 11 Dose Group = High (25.) Nitrofen Data .98290 1.27199 2.0 mg/kg/day b.31352 1.73718 1.52255 1.98290 0.22863 0.73692 1.23797 1.76923 1.96581 1.33371 0.88047 1.35136 1.09306 0.20133 2.54450 1.23348 0.31054 1.86829 109 .0 mg/k/day b.Table I (Cont'd.31054 0.68408 0.31054 0.54606 1.22863 1.07160 1.96661 1.57075 1.w.70207 1.66251 0.22863 0.17049 1.04843 1.03798 1.40284 1.89757 0.25663 0.
0 1.Table II Number of Implantations Group Control Low Mid High Normal 252 239 130 98 Gr.Retarded 5 1 1 1 Malformed Dead 8 35 5 89 79 18 199 13 Total '300 334 228 311 Table III Group Control Low Mid High Percent of Implantations.3 .5 0.3 26.0 4.6 15 57.6 0.Retarded "Malormed Dead 84.9 31.2 110 .6 7.7 2.7 11. Normal Gr. 64.7 71.4 34.0 0.
61295823 . 1 as growth retarded. an index near zero would be indicative of a litter with nearly all normal fetuses at cesareansection and a "core 'nir 2.4720 1.1809 1.7369( 1)]/11=1.. a generalized randomized Iblock using ill .00682012 . a litter with 11 implantations of which 4 are classified as normal.29113385)2 + .48124468)2] + 1/2 The vector of scores (Nair.30647912 .e. let rk = rk .9520 Shifting the scores so that the score for a normal implantation (fetus) is zero. a oneway classification using litter size as a covariate. i.61636829 79113385 Calculate Bross's ridits (1958) by the formula rk = (cO+c +.98124468 Now. 1987) is then obtained by Ik = rk*/d: Ik 0 7849 0. Designs for the Analysis of the Severity Index Five designs were evaluated which assume normality.61295823(. The oneway classification.Control Low Dose Middle Dose High Dose Totals Number of Implantations (Fetuses) Norrnal Gr.34271100 rk .5: r! .9352088 1 d = .2566 This can be interpreted in light of the above scores. the final scores are: l 0.0000(4)+1. 5 as malformed and 1 dead.48124468 2 * + C 3 r32 + C4 74*2] 1 /2 Calculate the constant d = [eCIr* 2 + c2 rl 2 (.00682012(.11636829)2 .Retarded Malformed Dead 252 5 35 8 239 1 89 5 130 1 79 18 98 1 199 13 719 8 402 44 .7369 would be indicative of a litter with nearly all fetuses dead at cesareansection.7369 Then. 1986.9658 2.11636829 .29113385 .03751066(.9658(5 )+2.2569( 1)+1.+ck1)+ Sck where co = 0 . would have a severity index of: SI=[0.34271100( .19352088) + .0000 1.2569 1.24654207 ..03751066 Totals 300 334 228 311 1173 Calculate the column proportions: ck . .
81 3.37 . we would prefer the oneway analysis for its simplicity and robustness in application.46 .80 One Way analysis Covariance F 22.58 . 0 . associated P values and R 2 .75.55 As was expected the covariance and blocking provided an improvement over the oneway classification as measured by R 2. Table rV f 3. In view of the overwhelming significance of the parametric procedures.0001 < .99 P < . However.50 1. may be using the square root of litter size as a weight which provides nearly the same value of R I as does the blocking design.50. However.litter size as a blocking variable.52 15.0001 < .65 3. the magnitude of the improvement does not seem to warrent the chance of violating the more restrictive assumptions placed on the experiment by those designs.0001. The results are summarized in Table IV in terms of calculated F. As an alternative. The normality assumption on the severity index is quite suspect in many situations.97 25.00 0. af = 3 p < . A better alternative. Figure 1 compares the linearity of the mean severity index and the median severity index.0001 R2 .11 < . the nowparametric KruskalWallis procedure was carried out.81 20.53 Generalized RBD Weighted AOVr (litter size) Weight AOV'( littersize) 3. and a weighted anelysis using in one case litter size as a weight and in another the square root of litter size.81 3. in the parametric case.62 33.00 1. this result was not surprising X2 = 47.25 DOSE (mg/kg/dy) a MEDIAN o MEAN 112 250 .000 STAT 1250 6. Figure 1 2.0001 .0001 < .
If the SI's are reasonably normal. X . If F is significant. The following is suggested for toxicityteratogenicity studies. Jonckheere/Terpstra. The results above have been "tested" by simulation analysis of additional nitrofen studies and two other biological examples. Also. 113 . The K . 4. 3.Statistical Procedure The consideration of litter size is not necessary for analysis of the SI's. the method detects different dose patterns with equal ability. particularly in the control group and at the higher dose levels. In the presence of non normality use a similar sequence of nonparametric test. follow with linear constrasts to test for increasing trend. calculate the AOV Fstatistic for a one way layout. e. SAS code is available which reads litter data. 1. If significant use Dunnett's procedure to compare control mean with each of the treatment means to establish noeffect leve. computes SI's and calculated the statistics.W test showed consistently higher power than the Fstatistic in the simulation studies. 2. It is important to note than the SI's are probably not normally distributed. Use this statistic to test for differences in location. and Dunn's procedure.g. calculates scores.W.
l 14. Kupper. 1838. J. (1962). 287301. W. 27828. K.B. 162167 [2] Bradley. Optimal scaling for ordered [3] Bross.N. Gullberg. LaRiccia and R. K.M. 281293.E. 114 .D. 465480. J. The relationship between the number of implantations and the rate of intrauterine denth in mice. J. B 30. Test statistics derived as components of Pearson's phisquared distance measure. Coons. (1974). H. Hogan. K. The use of the jackknife to estimate proportions from toxicological data in the presence of litter effects.L. Teratology 12. (1966). A. symptoms. G. Katti and I. (1975). Diometrii 35. (1979). Mutation Research 3. Selection of the experimental unit in teratology students. P.REFERENCES [1] Altham.. Ytterborn and U. Loglinear models for frequency tables with ordered classifications.. aid M. I. J. American Statistical Association 38. [7] Haberman. Psychometrika 27. [11] Luning. J. How to under ridit analysis. (1955).D. Two generalizations of the binomial distribution. (1979).J. B. American StatisticalAssociation 74.American Statistical Association 82. [10] Ipsen.L. 165171. [5] Eubank. [4] Cochran. (1943).3. 589600. [6] Gladen. S. and L. Sheridan. Analysis of variance for percentages based on unequal numbers. [9] Haseman. JK. R. S. R. Analysis of dichotomous response data from certain toxicological experiments.K. V. Rosenstein. 355374. categories. Applied Statistics 27. 816825. (1978).. B Appropriate scores in bioassay using death times and survivor 2. (1958).. (1987). G. [8] Haseman. J. W. 444451.
American Statistical Association 82. (1975).A. 228238. An Ordered Categorical Approach to the Analysis of Qualitative Data From Developmental Toxicity/Teratogenicity Studies. VJ. (1987).J. [14] Morgenthien. 325333. The analysis of binary responses from toxicological experinients involving reproduction and teratogenicity. 116 . V. and D. [13] McCullagh. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 38 . [16] Nair. 283311. (1. Testing in industrial experiments with ordered categorical data (with discussion). (1976). B 42.A. (1988). J.976) A new statistical evaluation of the dominantlethal mutation test. P. Dissertation.D. Unpublished Ph. Mutation Research 38.[12] McCaughran. 109142. [17] Ryttman. Jechnomnetrigs 28. Regression models with ordinal data (with discussion). (1980). (1986).A. Biometic 31. Arnold. D. D. [18] Williams. University of Delaware. J. Statistical models for numbers of implantation sites and embryonic deaths in mice. 949982. Chisquared type tests for ordered alternatives in contingency tables. (15] Nair.W. Royal Statistical Society. 283291. H. E.
Crawford Moss. Taylor. useful for small sample sizes. 117 . US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Malcolm S. was constructed using the Cray2 supercomputer. Tlngey. An improved table of the quantiles of the AndersonDarling statistic. the double exponential. US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Henry B. University of Delaware Abstract The AndersonDarling goodnessoffit procedure emphasizes agreement between the data and the hypothesized distribution in the extremes or tails.A SMALL SAMPLE POWER STUTDY OF THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC AND A COMPARISON WITH THE KOLMOGOROV AND THE CRAMERVON MISES STATISTICS Linda L. The power of the AndersonDarling test Is compared to the Kolmogorov and the Cramervon Mises tests when the null hypothesis Is the normal distribution and the alternative distribudons are the Cauchy. and the extreme value distributions.
n f [Fn(x) . for k0. .. . One method of testing the hypothesis that the n observations come from & population with a specified distribution function F(x) is by a chisquare test.1) and 118 . Is to compare the empirical distribution function Fn(x) with the hypothetical distribution function F(x). To compare the empirical and hypothetical distribution functions a measure of their difference is required. The empirical distribution function based on n observations is defined as Fn(x)  n if exactly k observations are less than or equal to x.F(x)]2 V/4F(x)] dF(x) 00 (1. X2 . Anderson and Darling [1052] considered the following metrics in function space: 00 n . Xn from a population with a continuous distribution function.. 1 .. INTRODUCTION Consider a random sample Xi.. Addressing this. . n.1. A more objective method. This test requires a subjective partitioning of the real line R and a comparision of the empirical histogram with the hypothetical histogram.
1) and (1. 119 . In Section 4.1) becomes the basis for the AndersonDarling statistic. For '[F(x)] m 1. and the Kolmogorov statistics are compared.2) Samples producing large values of W 2 (or Kn) lead to rejection of the null hypothesis that the population distribution function is F(x). (1. the AndersonDarling test statistic is developed: in Section 3.F(x)IV F3J. 1033]. metric (1. specific ranges of values of the random variable X.F(x)[1  F(x)] With this choice for the weighting function. 1031] and K n becomes the Kolmogorov statistic [Kolinogorov. W2 becomes thR Cramdrvon Mises statistic [Cramir. The tails of the distribution function will be accentuated In the investigation detailed In this paper. By a suitable choice for k. the description and the results of a power study are given in which the AndersonDarling.2). Anderson and Darling suggest using 1 t44F(x)] . In Section 2. the most accurate tabulation to date of the test statistic is provided.Kn 00 sup < x < =0 \/ IFn(x) . may be emphasized. corresponding to different regions of the distribution F(x). the Cram:'von Mises. 1928 and von Mises. One of the contributions of Anderson and Darling was the Incorporation of a nonnegative weight function k In (1.
otherwise Then EZ counts the number of sample values xi 5 x. for k . the empirical distribution function Fn(x) is a statistic.2. The distribution of this statistic is established as a lemma. x n.n). n. where the indicator function I is defined as If f0 < Xi :5 x _ . Let Zi I(. Therefore.k) . X2 . nFn(x) is distributed binomial (H(x).k) .(x) .. ) P(PZi  ..P(exactly k values xi < x)..1): If Fn(x) Is the empirical distribution function corresponding to a random sample X1 . II..P(exactly k values x. n). THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC For a fixed value of the random variable X. 1 Here each Zi Bernoulli (H(x)). . 120 .0. Proof: P(nF. 1. Xn of size n from a distribution H('). xl (Xi). P(nFn(x) . ...... since it is a function of the sample values x1 . then for a fixed x.k) 1  I H(x) k H(x)) . x 2. so Z 1 binomial(H(x). Lemma (2. ("xi) 0. .. say X w x..
1.From Lemma 2.F(x)]. H(x) [1 . consider the expectation of the squared discrepancy E [oF(x) .1. Then n E[F(x)  F(x)] . E[F. (2.(x) and  1 E [nFn(x)].n E [Fn(x)  H(x) + H(x)  F(x)] 2  n E {Fn(x) . after algebraic manipulation (Appendix A) yields the variance nnd bias.2) 121 . a function that will weigbt more heavily values in the tails of the distribution F(x) at the expense of values closer to the median. (2.H(x)} + {F(x) . and the expectation Is with respect to the'random variable Fn(x) whose distribution was established in Lemma 2.  1 H(x){1 .H(x)  {F (x)  H(x) which. that is. H(x) Var[Fn(x)]  n2 i 1_ Var [nFn(x)]_.1) To assist in the determination of a suitable weighting function 4(').H(x)] . It is important to keep In mind that the value x Is fixed. so F(x) is a constant.H(x).
5) 122 .F(x) Vx. (x)  F(x)[1 ~) F(x)] . :5 x2 <5..3) 1 AndersonDarling chose as a weighting function. (2.. dF(x) . Then the AndersonDarling test statistic (2. 2 00 Fn(x) F(x)] d' ..)] (2.5) by expansion and integritlon (Appendix B).F(x)] ) 24 W2 1.F(x) [1 .. With this choice of weighting function and without loss of generality assuming x. and F(xi) .ui. + (2(nj)+l) ln(lu. <5x. (2.4) can be rewritten as expression (2.du. O[F'(x)) ~)[ ~) WeightIng by the reciprocal of (2.Under the null hypothesis HO: H(x) .3) takes into consideration the variance of the statistic Fn(x) and also maintains the objective of accentuating values In the tails of F(x).2) becomes niE [F.1 [(2j1)In u. let F(x)  ui.
a)100% quantile of the Kolmogorov statlst ic Km sup 00 < X < 01 V Fmx)(x)l .n) based on rn samples of size n. 8. where m is the number of saniple 123 . the width of a (I . 19661.1] [Feller. In general.n). n) .. computational restrictions essentially limited the accuracy of the table entries to within 0. 2. Lewis (1981] undertook the tabulation of F(z. A Kolmogorovtype bound (Conover. .a)I00% confidence band is equal to twice the value of the (1 . 1980] was used to construct a 95% confidence band for Jhe distribution function F(z. DISTRIBUTION OF THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC The asymptotic distribution of W2 was derived by Anderson and Darling [1952]. 8 and for Incremental values of z over the interval [0. the table appearing In Lewis' paper was recalculated using a Cray2 supercomputer. .00326 of the true value.000]. At that time.5) and the ob3ervation that the U are distributed U[0. Following an analogous procedure based on expression (2.3.P(W2 < z) for n .025. Lewis' table entries were computed using a Monte Carlo procedure to generate an empirical approximation Fm(z.n) to the distribution function F(z.1.
025 to 8. 2.values used in the construction of Fm(x).(m + 4)2 (3.358 M 3. 124 . In this simulation. Table 1 lists the reconstruction of Lewis' table. Again. z ranges from 0. With n fixed. 10561 asymptotic 9 5 th quantile Is 1.0005. now accurate within 0.1) Using approximation (3. m was chosen to be 7. rounded to four decimal places. the number of Monte Carlo samples.375. the 95% confidence band can be made arbitrarily small by a suitable choice for m.4 million..881.001.1. the value for m must be at least 7. 10. where r . However.. Harter [1080] 1.1) to construct a 95% confidence band with the width not exceeding 0.. approximation for the suggests using 1 The commonly tabled [Miller. The column labeled "oo" contains the asymptotic values.000 and for n . .358/\/ .51 for an Improved approximation.
g r 125~ .
dd c di0 0o0 126 .ti d d 0 0 c C6 d260a0C ic ' I" t   N o 6ooo  == .oc .
0i ag.1 44f*14 ri" C 4 0) vi i t 12 . H~ t 0E al e e 4 e 41 11orlel41 * al l l 4.
Cc 00 ai 0 a k~  128 .
.2) for ease of computation (Appendix C).max( D'.1) For an ordered sample x. ' : xn and F(xi) u.mmax ui l [ Ui and n The Cram~rvon Mlses statistc.2) with weighting function ?4 [F(x)] m 1 becomes Ko sup < x <00 /'n IIn(x). : x2 (4. (4.1) may be evaluated using D . D.F~x)] " dF(x) 00 can be reduced to (4. where D+ .4. The Itolmogorov statistic Introduced in Section I as metric (1. POWER STUDY The power of the AndersonDarling test was compared with two other goodnessoffit procedures based on the empirical distribution function: the Kolmogorov and the Cramirvon Mises tests.F(x)I.. 129 .).max D. . defined as 00 an n f [Fn(x) .
F(x). the null hypothesis Is Ho: A random sample X1 . The ratio of the number of rejections. Case 2 corresponds to the situation In which the parameters are not specified and must be estimated from the sample data. comes from a normal population or Ho: H(x) . the Cauchy. The power functions do not exist in closed form. against which the power of the three goodnessoffit tests are compared. . As alternative hypotheses. each with location parameter the same as the null hypothesis. For both case 1 and 2. X. where F(x) . This provided a heavytailed.. The number of times the null hypothesis was rejected at a specific level of slgnlficance was recorded. and extreme value distributions were chosen.W. . To determine a point on the power curve. X.. a large number of samples of size n was generated from a specific distribution serving as the alternative hypothesis.N(ua). Y. lighttailed. two cases were considered.. Case 1 corresponds to the situation in which the parameters of the hypothesized distribution are completely specified. double exponential. M E n + 12n '_  (4. and skewed distribution. they are approximated empirically via a Monte Carlo simulation.2) In the power study. respectively. to the total number of 1 30 .
025. N.975 and the confidence interval width not to exceed 0.samples generated. Then the confidence limits (4.N) where the parameter p is the true but unknown power. equating Y/N . 131 .1/2 and the variance o1 its estimate p is greatest.s imposed to prevent prrmature termination of the procedure. p . To determine the number of samples of size n required for a sufficiently accurate estimate of p.c was chosen to be 0. p. 1980] using  =~ P L z(I I <P <y +!)IN (4.1/2 in (4. provides an estimate. of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it should be rejected (power).3) was sufficlently small.3) suggests that saimples of magnitude 8037 might be required.3) samples of size n contlnued to be generated from the alternative distribution until the confidence interval for p given in (4. and a specific alternative hypothesis. A minimum "alue for N of 100 w. Considering a "worstcase" scenarlo in which p . a nonparametric technique was employed. a specific significance level a. and since an approximate confidence Interval for p can be constructed [Conover.3) were successively evaluated until the interval width was satisfied. Since the counter Y is distributed binomial( '. The value p determines a point on the power curve corresponding to a specific sample size n.Y/N. The confidence interval coefficient 1 .
anticipated This is perhaps to be in view of tie emphasis on agreement in the tails by the procedure.1). and Table 1 in Section 3 of this paper for the AndersonDarling test. but the magnitude of difference over the AndersonDarling Kolhogorov and Cramrvon Mises tests i !.025 to 3. The AndersonDarling test demonstrated orerall superiority for the sample siz ' and hypotheses chosen for this study.1.4. the location parameters of both the null and alternative hypotheses coincided.distAnguished by their characteristic of decreasing to a global minimum before becoming 132 . as previously mentioned.025.10. samples of size n . The results of the study are summarized in Figures 1 .000 in increments of 0. 20 were chosen for study and. For each of the three distributions serving as an alternative hypothesis. Case 1: Distribution Parameters Specified. The power curves corresponding to n .tpressive. 1b.5. 15. The level of significance for the study was 0. The critical value for each test was determined from tables In Conover [1980] for the Kolmogorov test.05. 10. The power study for case 1 specified the parameters of the hypothesized distribution as N(0. Stephens and Maag [1968] for the Cramirvon Mises test. 20 ar.12. The scale parameter for the alternative hypothesis were values from 0.
an increase (decrease) in the scale parameter C causes the tails of the distributions to become more distinct.1) and Cauchy (0. these procedures are sometimes used anyway with the caveat that the tests are likely to be conservative. As in case 1. the sample sizes are n . enablk the Stephens (1974] provides adjustments to the test statistics that tests to be used to test the assumptiun are Hm: H(x) . and so precludes their use in the more likely situation where parameters must be estimated.F(x). Kolmogorov. An explanation of this feature is suggested by consideration of Figures 13 .C) are compared. The AndersonDarling.15 in which the distribution functions of the N(0.27.50 marked the global minimum throughout the study. 10. N(p. 15. 4. Values in a neighborhood of " 0. corresponding to C There it is seen (Figure 14) that 0. In practice. are summarized in Figures 16 .50 the two distribution functions are similar. and 20.2. and Cramdrvon Mises goodnessoffit tests were developed for use in case 1 where distribution parameters are specified.a') and the population parameters The results of the power study for case 2. Case 2: Distribution Parameters Estimated. and 133 .5. where F(x)estimated from the data.monotone increasing.
44 . demonstrating that power does not change with scale parameter and provides empirical support for Stephens' transformations. as would be expected. Both location and scale parameters coincide.the level of significance is 0.05.025 to 3. all three tests are competitive for the sample sizes and alternative distributions chosen for this study.025. 1.000 in increments of 0. the scale parameter are values from 0. The power plots are horizontal. When both location and scale parameters agree. Power Increases with Increasing sample size.
....2 S * SL I U I S 5 '.. .. . . ... . * • .... II __I .I ^ . S SSo 'S 35 II I . ... ' .* * *. ..
.I I 1 9 9 9 9 99 I ~ 0 U I I * * I.3 9 99 99 9 iIj 9 9 9 9. 9 9 9 PU V x 1 * '9 9 9%. 9 9 9~ 9 519 N pm. 0 J~Mod 0 136 . '99 I 41 & 9 9 9 6 ~ Q 9. (. N 9%~ C.
i * * 1 I II..2 U? I. (V ~Mod 137 ... eo~ ~ ~ ~ * . *5 'S. S 4 4 * 4 0 9. P 4 1 I I 0 E elm 4 C S 4 S S. iI 0 6 * S I 4~ 4 4 Ii.
* 4 0 a 9 jJ: a ii~ >1 § 0 LI~ 'a U? B S 'a a I *~ 5 1 1 *0. a e0" d *0 ~ C C 138 .I: ~ Og 'a I ~ a 13 a I 4' . * 'a a Oo~ a I a.
UU 1% 0 ap4 1391 .
6 iC J*Ij * 0 14 .
il=ll 00 . Ci iOU CR to I I .Z. . 5 I I II 0 I I 141 .
PC.9414h 00 cl* * 9. 9a o I 142 ..
4 * 0 ________________________________________________ S I .II U U. U '4. U 5 * II * * 6 U U * U 5' 4. * a 4.S U U U 0 U' U 'U Umu U U IU U' U S ~Ii U U :111 ~uIu U q 'N w II U U ~.4'.S \Ib ** 4. U U. p. 0 a* "4 I '0 * 0 0 I 0 ~ 0 Z~ Mod 143 .* 4..
ccc hI £ aNo . Sm moml 4 a000 14 ...
S * 5 * S S C S S#q'*% 05 . S . '. S 4. ~ 0.4 ~ d S S 'S It 'S S 0.. *%.. U . 'S.. 4... I.3 5~ 0 ________________________________________________ o  I I 0 0 3 4' 0 N § 0 0 0 0 MOd 145 .5 A.I hO Ii U i U ~ N 0 I I U S S I I' U .
0'9. .. . i . ...14 im r !I "1 I P4b I I. .i b iw a UN . i 146 .  .
US"S M 04147 .C!0 I *.
z I o  o I: I: I C C § I 0 a I U  0 £ 0 (x) ~ 148 .* U U 10 o o * U * I * a P4 U a .1~~ Q  I a a a P4 * I A I S £ I o ~ Cia I.
S S Q A I '4  S S.w * S C  * ISU ( C. Sm I S S S SSS * Ii~ S.S.  Z 0 U otu PS I: S 0 0 0 0 149 .
00 .U U o t m i I SI I I.
' I I C 0 I a I a I I I 0  a I I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0  U 0 0 a Mod 151 .0 ~ U I I I bebOa o bAke I I U2 ha H: ii: 0 1 I I 1 I u2~ ~II ~Ib~ ~ I.
'Bi Is so I I~6l Is 1 RI S. I I.mo 00 U.IsI Io i:i AI.l 01 12 19 Is162 .
I. U' Em WiS C I U I a Mod 153 . II c mu I U' Q F U. bO ig C 3 S Is F C 0 oo~ lii I I: III BE' C I.' * & w z ~III I'* 'S I' U' Q 0 I: I.
 ii o a * a I * .q U a S a Ia a U a lii ~Gw I U I U U U U U * a I ii: ~II I.31 a U * * *  II a L. U a U * II a U U *  U U a I a U in o _______________ I 0 0 U o UI C2 C C N C .xuMod 154 .
C... C IO 0  mmI z i c 155 i i .q "" i 1 " ..
IS q 44I O WN I Wi I § 0 I N 5 PC FWA4 0M 1!1 ccS ci c. Sm 0I ii: m1 S .
e 'a 'S Urn B. 'U UB 'a I Q a: C 'B o Z ~ Mod 'S 'U U C 157 . 'B a: IS B1 KB 'B 'B I U 45 w~o I: B~ 'U o u U) C  lB 'U 'U 'B B. I~4 SB iii I. 'B 'B 'B  I~ SE U. bo S* I.C I. 'U. U.
i "iI . l0I gI NN k ....ii U. C '0o ZSMod 158 . I . . ..
5' 0 ~ C od 0 J SM 0 159 . 5' Is II I. II Si . ii WI 0 ci S U2 I. IS me I. S. C 0 I.. C IL ~Oy.q if obo~ ''if mm S.me 34.5' I.
"W . .. _I. ""ll i i i i t~ i i i i ' i Ii ii i ii i iI . _. . I I' n 4 5 1606 .  I . .II .6 e 'a I'  Ut * S Ii.
. . . _ . . ".  3 i ~ I I: I: i "E€ i _ II I I I I II . II.. . ...
Edward J." The American Statistician.. Volume 11. 1970. pp. 23. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Application. 765709. 2nd Revised Edition." Skandinavisk Aktuarietidkrift. Stegun.J. 1978. pp. 193212. Distributions inStatietica. "A Test of Goodness of Fit..REFERENCES Anderson.. J. Ritchie. Englewood Cliffs. National Bureau of Standards. 34. 1928. Feller. Edited by Milton Abramowitz and Irene A.. pp. A. Cogan. Inc. 141180. and Robert Z. W. New York: John Wiley & Sons.. "On the composition of elementary errors.: PrenticeHall. 49.. Harter. "Asymptotic Theory of Certain 'Goodness of Fit' Criteria Based on Stochastic Process. 1980. Inc. 1966. Graphs. 1952. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cramdr. The C Programming Language. Norman L. W. New York: Dover Publications. 1374.." Annals of Mathematical Statistics. Brain W. and D.. fiandbood of Calculus. Johnson. Kernighan.. Inc.. N. H. Continuous Uuivariate Distributions. Conovcr. B. 'Modified Asynptotic Formulas for Critical Values of the Kolinogorov Test Statltic. 1961. Inc. 110111. Difference and Differential Equations. Vol. Leon. Vo!. June 1964. 11. 1954. 162 . PracticalNonparametricStatistics. . Norman... 2ed. Vol.. anid Samuel Kotz. and Mathematical Tables. May 1980. Vol. New York: John Wiley and Sons. W. Handbook of MathematicalFunctions with Formulas. 2. No. pp. L." Journal of the American Statistical Association. William. Darling. 1958. Summation of Series. 1. T. Harald. Applied Mathematics Series 55. New Jersey: PrenticeHall. and Dennis M. Jolley..
4. 1031. "Table of percentage points of Kolmogorov statistics. Vol. Lewis.." The Annals of Mathematical Statitics. 163 . G. pp. Scries B.. A. A.. 11181124. "Sulia determinazione empirica delle leggi di probablilta. Reuven Y. ..." Royal StatisticalSociety. 347.. 51. 32.Kolmogorov. and 1g8. 69.. No. Leipzig. IG61..Von Mises and Related Statistics without Extensive Tables.. 55. F. Stephens." Journal of the American StatisticalAssociation. "Further percentage points for W2. M. pp.. 1981. No. Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. pp... Yon Mises.91. 115122. 1. Vol. 111112. Vol. 428430. Vol. 'Use of the KolmogorovSmirov.. Urs R. . VIt. Miller. Jr. R.. Maag." Giornale dell'fat tuto Italiano degli Attuari. pp. September 1974. Cram~r. Peter A. Rubinstein. pp." Journalof the Ameican StatisticalAssociation. Vol. 1956. 1970. pp 8. 19nS. R. 730737. N. 'Distributlon of the AndersonDarling Statistie. 32. "EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons." Biometrska. Deutlike. Wahracheinlichkeitsreohnungund Are Anwendung in der Statiatik und Theoretischen Physik. New York: John Wiley & Sons. W.
F(x)]'.nE nFf(x) . O[F(x)].2 {Fn(x) .Hx){F(x)  H(x) + F(x)  H(x)I   n E [F.APPENDIX A: EXPECTION OF SQUARED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN AN EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION AND A SPECIFIED DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION To help find a suitable Weighting function.H(x) . lets look at n E [Fn(x) .H(x)2 + jF(x) n E [F (x) H(x)]2 + {F(x)  H(x)} 164 .(x)  H(x)]2 2 {F(x) H(x)}E [F.F(x)] 2 2 .cx)  H(x)] . n E [F1(x)  F(x)j2 nE IF (x)  H(x) + H(x) .
H(x)} E ar [F.e. 165 .2 Fn(x)H(x) + H2(x)] + {(x) ..2 H2(X)+ H2 (X) + {F(x) .cX) 2] . H.(x)] + H2 (X)+ {F(X)  H(X)} L H(x){1  H(x)} + H2(X).2 H(x) E [F. I.H(X)] n E [F.H(x)}} + {F(x)  H(x)}2] Under the null hypothesis.cX)  F(x)]2 11 [L {E(X){1 .: 11(x)  x) n E [Fn(x)  F(X)]2  F(X)[1  F(X)].E [FDcX) 2 .
F(x)] 2 dF) Let F(x) mu dF(x) wdu F(xi) w JUx [oU12 du + n(1 f d +I 2 V U)2 dul 0~ u(1U) ki uk u(1u) dUf u(1U) _ 2k u + U2 n d nl Uj1 n2 ulI n I)+ u(1.U. [Fn(x) [I  F(x)]2 F(x)dF) ni 71 [F.) (1.?~F(x) + E P(x) [1 .(x)  Fx1 Fx ~ .F(x)] dF(')  Fx1 J  .F~x)j [Fn(x) .APPENDD3C Bs EXPANSION AND INTEGRATION OF THE ANDERSONDARLING STATISTIC 2  n 0 [F.(x) F(Y.) d + [1 n nui 166 .
Uk+1) .In Un} mn {u 41  In (1 .In (1ul  In Uk + In (IU) k ki n2Uf1 ni ki E T 2k rI (1 .V uk~l + du u(u) [a f ] + r~ .In (1 .ul) k2In (Uk+l) .Uk)I +~ Uk+l .1 fcU du + 11+ un .In(1 Uk+) +Uk +Inl(1 Uk)I 167 .
man uin (1u 1 ) + E  Uk n (1 Uki in+ In (1U  I2n2 + i± 1 +ln(l U 1 )Unln(l un) mfn{1 2 [(2 k InlfUk( ) 2(nk) +J 2 1JIn (1 Uk)] = n  n Ski [(2k 1) In Uk +(2 (itk) +1) In (I1Uk)] 168 .
 F(X)] 2 dF(x) Let F(x) .u1 169 .APPENDIX C: DERIVA..u dF(x) du F(x1 ) . the empirical distribution F.(x) I for Xk :5X< Xk+1 1 xn <x The Oram~rvon MIses statistic may be written 00 n f [Fn(x) n  F(X)] 2 dF(x) Jf [Fj(x)  F(x)]2 dF(x) + E f[F.TION OF THE CRAMfRVON MISES STATISTIC For an ordered samrple X :5 X 5 1 2 function Is defined as :5 x.(x) k.1 xk  F(x)]2 dF(x) .0 0 + f [Fa(x) X.
3un U3 + n.) 2k 1)] (n 2( ~k) fU } L 2k 1 2 2 n 170 .Then ii f [F.kE.3~[ + n2I.(x) F(x)] 2 dF(x) [oU2ubl2 +l Umn + u ~ i1U]d} + f fr+ 4u + 2 3] 3 Uk n n(. [ (Uck Uk)  uf 1n3 1  1n+ ub + 13 + U 2 1 3 n .
Ik En1 [Uk 2k 12 1 2ki1 3 E~c~ n ~2  JJ12 + n + 3 2 2 1~L 1 +  rk .Completing the square.)22n2+(2 2 4n 2ni ) yfi 2n 2k 1 2+3 [ Eka[U 1 2 2+ 171 .1 ( .
Nonpare. a Consultation System for Analysis of Data J. Nonpare exists as a prototype. Dumer III T. MD 210055066 Abstract. Nonpare. Hanratty M. Taylor US Army Ballistic Research Labor atory ATrN: SLCBR. It is intended to serve as an intelligent interface that will act as a guide. with a limited releaseplanned in 1989 for field testing.SEP Aberdeen Proving Ground.S. a consultation system for analysis of data using nonparametric statistical procedures. is under active development.C. and an interpreterto a body of statisticalsoftware. an instructor. 173 .P.
but nonparametric statistics has qualities that make it strongly appealing. [4] nonparametric procedures find use in a wide variety of disciplines. with a first release planned for 1989 for field testing. Declining computation costs. what facts are in evidence. but the papers given there. 2. For these and other compelling reasons advanced. and little is done to provide an explanation or interpretation of the results. called Nonpare. [3] and Lehmann. Many nonparametric statistical procedures are exact rather than approximate for small data sets. has further enhailced the opportunity for faulty data analysis. This reference is in essence the proceedings of the workshop. accept any properly configured data set and proceed to process It. what rules are being verified. is intended to serve as an intelligent interface that will act as a guide. an instructor. The system is currently a prototype. and they are the only confirmatory procedures which can be used to analyze data collected on a nominal or an ordinal scale of measurement. This requires a great deal from the user. by Conover. Introduction Statistical software packages. provide the most complete centrallylocated account of research In this topic to date. The system. some with extensive bibliographies. a workshop sponsored by AT&T Bell Laboratories brought together mainy of the active investigators in artificial intelligence and statistics and was the genesis of a book by the same title edited by Gale (1]. Few if any checks are made to ensure the adequacy of the data and the suitability of the analysis. to large extent. an expert system shell developed at the BRL. Nonpare Nonparametric statistics is too large an area to hope to encompass at once. 174 . Nonparametric data analysis is characterized chiefly by the absence of restrictive distribution assumptions notably freedom from dependence on the normal (Gaussian) distribution. In 1985. especially if the entire field of mathematical statistics Is partitioned into parametric and nonparametric procedures. This report details an effort underway at the US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) to develop a consultation system for analysis of data using nonparametric statistical procedures.1 The System Structure Nonpare uses Genie. for example. together with increased availability of computers and proliferation of statistical software. 2. [2] Hollander and Wolfe.1. Genie was chosen over commercial expert system shells for the research and development of Nonpare because of its accessibility for modification. The commonsense approach to construction of consultation systems suggests limiting the domain of application. [5] to provide a framebased production system with forward and backward inferencing as well as an explanation facility that allows the user to interrogate the system what hypotheses are being entertained. Application of expert system techniques from artificial intelligence to produce more cognizant software is one approach to reversing this unfortunate trend. and an interpreter to a body of statistical software.
Example 3. n. Expert domain knowledge." a detailed session with Nonpare follows. Nonpare system overview. Fourteen rounds are fired. the experiment. p. p. p. Graphics is used to summarize the data and enhance the explanation. p. n.1 Suppose that a ballistician nceds to assess the effectiveness of a newly designed kinetic energy penetrator against a specific armor plate. [. p. shown schematically in figure 1.Nonpare. 3. An Illustrative Session Following the dictum of Amurican educator John Dcwcy (185)1952) that "We learn by doing. the data are analyzed and the results explained by the nonparametric data analysis component. 175 .8V a level already attained with existing technology. and [p]erforation and [nJonperforation recorded to obtain: n. codified in Englishlike rules.. resides in the knowledge base.r the probability of perforation exceeds . In particular. In total. Nonpare is written ir InterlispD and currently runs on Xerox 1100 Series Lisp machines. consists of three subsystems' in addition to Genie. in which the main system features are illustrated. p.r would like to establish wheth. p. the user is led within system limitations to an appropriate statistical procedure through an interactive process in which the uer is questioned and can in turn question the consultation system. p. Once an appropriate procedure(s) has been identified. Genie inference engine forward reasoning reasoning nonpararnetric data analysis knowledge basebackward explanation facility user system dictionary Figure 1. The system dictionary is a facility whose purpose is to provide online explanation of statistical jargon that may appear during the interactive dialog between Nonpare and the user.
Xn. this means that any procedure is a likely starting point. but only with some degree of qualification.bili. .r categorv or event? y Enter the name of the . )n you have a sample XP .. . The user is interested in the probability of occurrence of a perforation. An occasional system response may be italicized but should not be confusing within the context of its appearance. for whom this portion of the system is designed. [y]es. . respond . since the base of potential users is so broad.. The purpose for collecting the data should first be established. a second procedure next most likely. p. A nonstatistician.) It should be apparent from the onset that the question regarding Pr{perforation} > .80. Are ')you interested in 'uhet'er the data cotorrii t: a spe:ified distri bution? 1 Are 'yoLI interested in the probt:.:dl i ng the values XI. Lamentably.80 ? (A diversion here.. 176 .> :erfcir. . might find a [y]es response is appropriate here. Searching for a statistical procedure with a set of data already collected is precisely how not to proceed. Xn ? The data. the conventions that boldface denotes system prompts and brackets contain user input will be adopted. tior Are the ri trial s pr. ..tegor"y ot interest . look like X1. A statistician. Beginning dialog with Nonpare. .. anticipating an approach to this problem. n..p..:<. the number continues to increase.. For the user. as indicated. and who is interested in whether Pr{perforation} > . No assumptions have been made about their frequency of use. one procedure has not been declared most likely to be exercised. Dlo y'ou have a . so this example is not too contrived.. iful. Is the Pr(perforation} > . p. Are you Interested In the probability of occurrence of a particular category or event ? [y]es.n independert" A Figure 2. Nonpare presently has nineteen distinct data analysis procedures at its disposal. Then the collection and analysis of data can proceed in an informed manner. the methodologysearch scenario is enacted over and over again. should respond (nbo.n'? '. and then the statistical tools available to support this purpose determined. mple X 1.80 can never be answered unequivocally yes or no. the dialog of which begins in figure 2. In the remainder of this section.' of occurrence ct . The session begins with a question about the configuration of the data. as in this session.:. Are you interested In whether the data conform to a specified distribution ? Nonpare is investigating a possible goodnessoffit situation. and so on.
..m e. It may be impossible to rigorously define a term without reliance upon other terms that are equally obscure to a user with only a modest statistical background. of independence.. This illustrates a dilemma for the subject area specialist. Are the n trials producing the values X. For now. dependent Incepenuence relates to freeacm . when it talks about probability of perforation. After a [y]es response..at raay Ihe fnaae.. Nonpare's response conveys the notion. This is the case here. . the reference is to measurements (data) being free to assume values without regard to other measurements that may be made. but regrettably not the substance. Does each trial have the same probability p of producing the perforation ? [y]es. Notice that Nonpare is now using language the user provided.. where independence is bound to basic concepts of probability theory. . X. ." An acceptable response is [What is independent] . Independent ? Suppose the user is unsure of the technical implications of the term "independent.. A call to the system dictionary. Are the n trials producing the values Xp . the system suggests a possible approach. free to assumne values Are the n trials producing the values. (r. shown in figure 4. X. Independent ? [y]es.X. [perforation]. .as shown in figure 3. Are the n trials producing the values X1.here. Are you interested in considering whether the probability of occurrence of the perforation equals or Is bounded by some specified value p* ? (y]es.Enter the name of the category of interest. assume the experimenter has collected a set of independent data.here. 177 .n inclependent? y Does each trial have the sane probability 1) of producing the perforation ?y Are 'you interested in considering wihether the probability of occurrence of the perforation equals or iS bounCed by some specified value p? A Figure 3. Domaindependent terminology is being introduced. Independence relates to freedom from external influence or control.terna inIlu'nce or contro.80..i. More work is needed here. the referenc&e is to measurements (aate) be. The user is interested in the inequality Pr{perforation} > . Mr independent? hat is in without regard to otiher meapsurements 0.
I I Figure 4. To execute the bir omli a test. I am interested in te. is an. io.B0  rpec ty I the number of d t uni vaues assigned to the per for t in Figure 5. the user obtains for confirmation (figure 5) the statement: I am Interested In testing the null hypothesis that: The probability of occurence of the perforationdoes not exceed p 1.. (. some level of statistical competence is required. uSe the menu to comp lete this atatem nt: I am interested in testing the null hypothesis that:The pelohtabflity of occurrence of the per'forarforf Ie'qu]s somie value gl JCloes not exceed p).yplthesis that T. arpropriate procedure. might mistakenly choose is at least p* at this juncture. Beginning statistics students.e' . occ'urret':e of the perfor.prof . A call to the nonparametric data analysis subsystem.o Specify the sample Size n > 14 Specify a value for p* ) . Specify the sairrle size n. f14] Specify a value for p*. Hypothesis confirmation and input parameter declaration..801 178 . The menu allows the user to select either a twosided or onesided test of hypothesis and is a potential source of error. not realizing that a null (or empty) hypothesis is chosen to be rejected. Selecting the hypothesis does not exceed p* from the menu using a mouse. Here again. does riot tmceed p' i .t ing the null '.The binornial test.
Vl whc peaso h Thrthleel togra dhispayst threpobbiltof obseigtrin rexacln .hlssm teuse easrnereadn compuatios. "commands determine the appropriate binomial distribution.Spec4~ the number of datum values assigned to the perforation. [11] The first two "Specify .0 arorpefraios nfortensot i tetre bu nkow) rpefoa1o79 .I teue eeylok ti sapo involving~ special~ ~ ~ hc an ~ ~ ~ h itpoiessm ~ ~ ih ~ ~ ~~~5 ~~~~~.S5S ryrgononsi n sigifcace orsodn on>1. Region of Rejection Pr (X) . the third determines the size of the critical region for the statistical procedure.0 fute Attsiinwllraiyasmlteti rp. 4 .* hav sered explinstha simutaneusly is puposehere Figur 7. MM~% 01 2 X "~ 31 Figure~~~~~ Sttsiarahsmay 6. following the systemgenerated histogram shown in figure 6..25 IV RN% '1WRk P Sf f %SV IN '~~%" AmmVN'. which is explained in figure 7..V M%&A %ANS IRA\S \.~ The~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 dipastepoaiiyo hitga bsrigeatyn(o0 4 aro eroaiosi sosiftetre(utukon)P~eroaio).wil i terminal5.
first graphically. is .80. the evidence collected eleven perforations.al level of this test.69 probability of being In error.80. but this is an excellent place to use Nonpare's tutorial capabilities to study the sensitivity of the binomial procedure to modification of parameter values or slight changes in the data. the response to the original question. Since the investigation began with the assumption (null hypothesis) that the Pr(perforation} <_ . of occurrence of the perforat. Are you interested in determining an interval In which the probability p of occurrence of the perforation lies? The foregoing analysis suggests that an assertion that the probability of perforation lies in the interval (. A response of [y]es here allows the user to exercise the binomial procedure directly.io tol h a . the qualification being expressed through invocation of the critical level. as in figure 8. without having to respond again to all the preliminary questions. A probability of being in error of .69 is more than a reasonable person would be willing to assume. 1] cannot be made. What interval might be expected to capture this unknown parameter? A response of [y]es causes this question to be answered. car respording to the light gray region. WVould you like to run the ti'.80 ? is a qualified no. "What if I had been able to afford three more firings?" or.8) you do so with a . three nonperforationsis not sufficient to support abandonment of that assumption. the hypothesis (The prateabiit. Is the Pr{perforation} > . and then verbally.'y of being in error.ion coes not eceect 8) you . 180 . And so. The cr iti.This means that If you reject the hypothesis (The probability of occurrence of the perforation does not exceed .. "What if I had observed one more perforation?" and so on. Would you like to run the binomial procedure again ? At this juncture.. as in figure 9.air. s that if 'YOu reject.rorilial procedure ag.69 This nea. an experimenter might well be asking a number of "What if questions. A [n]o response is given. Explanation and interpretation of results.? 1 k Figure 7.69 so probabillt.
interval [ 4?.i pn'hability .4] :.78 .'5. The formal interpretation of the confidence interval is given as The probability of occurrence of the perforation Is contained In the Interval [. liit..f iJlth an a .of'.78. . Display for a 9501 confidence interval.. t l. The 95% confidence levcl was prechosen. lies within the interval [. shown in figure 9.48. . 181 . . whose estimate based on the fourteen firings is p = . but they are valuable as diagnostics to the developer and provide some measure of reassurance to the user. In figure 10.95.. Buttoning with a mouse any node of the fact tree produces the logic leading to that location.48.currerce Would . This interval is so broad one can see why the assertion that Pr{perforation} > . These are features of the inference engine rather than Nonpare.94 Figure 8..:e level other tha Q5 ' 1 Figure 9. i.. fact'11 was buttoned.95 ? (io]. . At the conclusion of the session the inference engine displays a fact solution tree for all the intermediate decisions leading to the final conclusion.itned In the t.94] with a high level of confidence.:.hows that the Pr(perforation}. Explanation and interpretation of the confidence interval.0% Confidence Level p.94] with an a priori probabilIty .u irterested in'.:1rfiderI.:e of the per fortiron 1ies'? / i wh I t he pfIob. A [y]es response allows the user to control the confidence level.v F:l The prol:ah 1lity .48 .dter nin 'D I iltorva1 f occur rer.r... 1iiyou e C.CONFIDENCE INTERVAL with 95.80 is illadvised. Figure 8 . The session is terminated with a [n]o response.bI. and the corresponding trace is displayed beneath the fact tree. Would you like n conldcnce level other than . Are y.he pert or.
. . .. i m I n i ii i iI I.  . 1' .II g ".. ./ Ul .. I I 18 . IIII I 0 1 . ~.1 ..  CP1. . .. \   !.
Atificial Intelligence and Statistics (AddisonWesley. ¢~~~ I Y3 :I1 . tangential problems in basic research have been spawned by this effort. but its feasibility as an operational system has been estabdshed. The essence of the system is the rulebased interface with accompanying software for data analysis and the interpretation of the ensuing computations.L Lehmann. Enlargement of the rulebase and the addition of more statistical procedures is clearly indicated before it can approach its potential. Nonparametrics(HoldenDay. Ed.. a consultation system for analysis of data using nonparametric statistical procedures.al. Conclusions Nonpare. Conover. Wolfe. Aberdeen Proving Ground.4. has been described. 1980). (2] W. (3] M. 1975). is under active development. Gale. US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory.. 1986).A. References [1] W. Hollander and D. Brundick. PracticalNonparametricStatistics (John Wiley.J. [4] E. Nonpar. Not surprisinSly.S. A first relewe is planned for 1989 for field testing.A. 1973). [5] F. Nonparametric Statistical Methods (John Wiley. MD (1986). and most of its operational features have been illustrated.Genie: An inference engine with applications to vulnerability analysis. et. Technical Report BRLTR2739.
Numerical Estimation of Gumbel Distribution Parameters
Charles E. Hall, Jr. Research Directorate Research, Development, and Engineering Center U.S. Army Missile Command Redstone Arsenal, AL 358945248
AB.,A.I.
The parameters which maximize the loglikelihood function
of the Gumbel distribution were estimated by two different methods. A derivative approach was used, which calculated the intersection of the zeros of the implicit functions obtained from the derivatives of the loglikelihood function. A direct maximization was also performed. Both methods gielded positive results.
185
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK CHROME SOLAR SELECTIVE COATINGS I. J. Hall and R. B. Pettit Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 A]ISTAL. Some years ago Sandia Laboratories was given the task of investigating selective coatings for solar applications. Early experimental results, which were based on one variable at the time experiments, produced acceptable coatings in the laboratory. However, when full scaled parts were coated by commercial electroplaters, the coatings quickly degraded when heated in air. At this point a systematic approach using a fractional factorial design was used to determine both the effects and interactions between several variables, including the bath composition(four variables), current density, plating time, substrate, and bath temperature. Response surface for the optical properties of the coatings were constructed for both the amplated and the thermally aged samples. These response surfaces were then used to specify ranges for the bath compositions, and other plating parameters, that provided coatings with optimum thermal stability. With proper control of the plating variables, stlective coatings were obtained that should maintain high solar absorptance values during years of operational at 300 C in air. 1. INTRODUCTION. Two variables are of interest to selective coating investigators, namely, absorptance (a) and emittance (a). Good selective coatings have high a's and low 6'S. In our investigations we concentrated on making a as large as possible and settling for the corresponding e if it was not "too big". The independent variables that effected a and 6 divided themselves into two groups (bath variables and plating variables) in such a way that a splitplot experimental design would have been appropriate. The bath variables would have been associated with the whole plots and the plating variables with the subplots. The bath variables were chromic acid, trivalent chromium, addition agent and iron. and the plating variables were plating time, current density, bath temperature, bath agitation and substrate. For a specified combination of bath variables a entire set of experiments were possible for the plating variables as in a splitplot design. Because of many constraints we did run the experiment as a splitplot design. The dependent variable readings ( a's ) were obtained by coating a substrate and then measuring the absorptance with a Beckman Model DK 2A spectroreflectometer. Readings were obtained for the substrate both asplated and asaged. The asaged readings were obtained after the specimens were heated in a 450 0C furnace for 40 hours while the asplated readings were taken before they were subjected to any extreme environments. The aged readings were the most important because we were concerned about the thermal stability of the coatings, i.e. would coatings not degrade at high temperature for extended time periods. The experimentation was done in three phases that are briefly described below. 187
2. LEx~erimentationj. Based on previous experience, we decided that the bath variables were most important and thus we concentrated most of our effarts on investigating these variables. The plating variables wero set at nominal values. We used standard response surface methodoloqy to guide us in the experimentation. (See Box, Hunter, and Hunter, "Statistics for Experimenters", Chapter 15, 1978) The first phase consisted of running a 1/2 replicate of a 24 factorial experiment on the four bath variables. The experimentation was done in a rather limited range of the factor space. The results of this experiment were used to determine a path of stoepest ascent (Phase two). Three more experiments were done along this line of steepest ascent. These experiments would normally indicate a region in the bath variable space that would produce larger a values. In our case however all the coatings turned gray after a short time in the furnace  a highly undesirable result. The most valuable information from these three bath experiments was that a "cliff" existed in the response surface. Because of time limitations we did not repeat the experiments along the steepest ascent line. Based on a combination of engineering judgement and factorial design methodology, several more baths were mixed and the a's measured on the coated substrates (Phase three). A total of eighteen baths were mixed and the results from these baths were used to estimate a quadratic surface  i.e. a was written as a function of a second degree polynomial in the four bath variables and the variable coefficients were estimated using a backward stepwise statistical package. The final regrepsion equation had 11 terms including the constant term with an R'  0.96. Several graphs were drawn based on this equation that allowed us to map out an acceptable region in the bath variable space. This space was very near the "cliff" in the response surface. A limited number of experiments also were done involving the plating variables for a fixed bath. Based on these experiments we were able to specify ranges for the plating variables as well. 3. Summary. Using response surface methodology we were able to determine the variables and the range of variables that produced stable selective coatings. The procedures developed in the laboratory were subsequently implemented in a production environment with excellent results. The close interaction between the statistician and the experimenter led to a satisfactory solution with a rather limited number of experiments.
188
DETERMINATION OF DETECTION RANGE OF MONOTONE AND CAMOUFLAGE PATTERNED FIVESOLDIER CREW TENTS BY GROUND OBSERVERS George Anitole and Ronald L. Johnson U. S. Army Belvoir Research, Development And Engineering Center Fort Belvoir, Virginia 220605606 Christopher J. Neubert U. S. Army Materiel Command Alexandria, Virginia 223330001
ABSTRACT
Field evaluations have determined that camouflage patterns reduce detectability ranges for uniforms and vehicles in woodland environments. This study identified the effects of three patterned and two monotoned FiveSoldier Crew Tents using detection ranges and number of false detections as determined by ground observers. The distance of correct detections were recorded along with the number of false detections. An analysis of variance for the detection ranges and number of false detections was performed. The Duncan's MultipleRange Test was used to determine significant differences (a  0.05) in groups of tents. From this data, it was deter. mined that the three patterned FiveSoldier Crew Tents were more difficult to detect than the two monotone tents.
1.0 SECTION I  INTRODUCTION Several years ago, the U.S. Army decided that camouflage patterns have a definite advantage when used on uniforms and vehicles in woodland environments. This had led to a similar consideration for teats, since the current U.S. Army tents are solid (i.e., monotone) color. Tents present a large, relatively smooth form, making them conspicuous targets. The use of patterns to break up this signature could increase camouflage effectiveness. However, before such a judgement could be made, a field test was planned to determine the relative merits of various patterns versus monotones in a woodland background. The Natick RD&E Center fabricaLed three patterned tents and two monotone tents for evaluation. In consultation with Belvoir, the patterned tents were fabricated in the standard fourcolor uniform pattern, one in the standard pattern size and the other two in progressively larger expanded patterns. The two monotone tents were in colors Forest Green and Green 483 (483 being the textile equivalent of paint color Green 383). A test plan I/ was developed by Belvoir at the request and funding of Natick, and the field test was conducted by Belvoir at Ft. Devens, Massachusetts, in the summer of 1987. This report describes the test and its results.
189
2.0 SECTION 11 . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 2.1 Test Targets Five, FiveSoldlor Crew Tests were supplied by Natick for this study in the following pattorus and colors: o Tent A  Standard size fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 27.25 inches o Tent B  Forest Green a Tent C  Expanded fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 36 inches o Tent D  Expanded fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 50 Inches o Tent E  Green 483 2.2 Test Sites The study was conducted at the Turner Drop Zone, Ft. Devens, Massachusetts, a large cleared tract of land surrounded by a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees resembling a central European forest background. Two test sites were selected. Site #1 was located on the western end of the drop zone, so that the morning sun shone directly upon the test tent. Site #2 was located on the eastern edge of the drop zone, so that the afternoon sun shone directly upon the test tent. An observation path, starting at the opposite end of the drop zone from the test tent location, was laid out for each site. Each path followed zig.zag, random length directions toward its test site, and afforded a continuous line of sight to its respective test tent location, The paths were within a 300 to 400 cone from the target tents, and were surveyed and marked at approximately 50meter intervals using random letter markers. For Site #2, the distance between markers after the first 15 markers was about 25 meters along the path. A night evaluation involving other camouflage targets led to this procedural change. The markers and distances from the tents are shown In Tables 1 and 2
190
Table I
Distance& of Markers to Tents for Site #1
ALPHABET MARKER
DISTANCE IN METERS ALONG PATH FROM STARTING POINT TO TENT 1,182.64 1,128.57 1,094.00 1,049.93 1,008.07 978.31 947.02 902.75 858.10 817.81 778.91
750.15
ALPHABET MARKER
DISTANCE IN METERS ALONG PATH FROM STARTING POINT TO TENT 464.78
S y a L F P E K A T V
B
so Y,446.74 0'428.17 L'
F1
Po El K' A' T'
.V,
413.48 398.48 383.34 364.04 348.27 334.46 322.69 308.59
289.59
B'
M
Li H
709.76 674.87
702.65
Mo U'
H'
281.60 269.08
253.16
Z R
N X I D C 0 J G W
677.99 648.46
613.35 602.56 594.57 578.05 561,16 541.70 525.33 505.62 483.64
Z' R,
N' X,178.93 I', D' C, 0' J'85.37 W1
235.50 217.81
199.60 156.76 141.15 120.05 102.34 62.81 41.84
Table 2 Distances of Markers to Tents for Site #2 ALPHABET MARKER DISTANCE IN METERS ALONG PATH FROM STARTING POINT TO TENT 1,205.36 1,168.63 1,130.58 1,086.03 1,048.10 1,006.15 982.00 974.13 942.37 901.58 889.75 858.01 851.84 841.28 803.95 764.09 723.48 695.32 073.60 ALPHABET MARKER DISTANCE IN METERS ALONG PATH FROM STARTING POINT TO TENT 653.34 813.20 574.09 540.30 513.10 496.46 475.57 459.10 417.71 379,40 338.25 296,90 278.53 258.20 220.73 180,87 143.94 111,00 89.78
F W U o C R V 0 M B J L X G D Y T N
A Z E P H K S F' W' U' 0, C' R1 V' 0' I' B' J' L'
2.3 Test Subjects A total of 153 enlisted soldiers from Ft. Devens served ad ground observers, All personnel bad at least 20/30 corrected vision and normal color perception. A minimum of 30 observers were used for each test tent, about evenly split between test sites. Each observer was used oaly once, 2.4 Data Generution The test procedure was to determine the detection distances of the five tents involved by searching for them while traveling along the predetermined measured paths. Each ground observer started at the beginning of the observation path, i.e., marker S for Site #1 and marker F for Site #2. The observer rode in the back of an open 5/4ton truck accompanied by a data collector. The truck traveled down the observation path at a very slow speed, about 35 mph. The observer was instructed to look for rtilitary targets in all directions except directly to his rear. When a possible target was detected, the observer informed the data collector and pointed
192
Table 3 gives the mean detection range in meters for each tent. the FiveSoldier Crew Tent.. If the detection was not correct.59 755. and 5 show the detection data for the FiveSoldier Crew Tents. if pattern and color had an effect upon detection range.94 INTERVAL LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT 280.58 397.17 387.68 362. The tents were rotated between the two test sites on a daily basis.75 173. terval. 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE TENT N A B C D E 31 30 32 30 30 MEAN 327. The truck was immediately stopped.74 129.12 674.62 374.76 594. (This number of observers allows the use of parametric statistics which have a guod opportunity to yield absolute conclusions).e. Table 3 Mean Detection Ranges (Meters) and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals. 3.83 304. Their orientations with respect to the sun were kept constant at both test sites. The FiveSoldier Crew Tent was positioned so that a full side was facing the direction of observer approach.e.1 Range of Detection Tables 3. Figure 1 is a graphic display of the detection ranges of Table 3.88 STANDARD ERROR 127.40 492. the false detection was recorded. and the data collector sighted the apparent target. and the data collector' informed the observer to continue looking. 4.79 214. and its associated 95 percent confidence in. mine if there were significant differences in the detection ranges.42 161.51 326. If the sighting was correct.71 351.0 SECTION IIIRESULTS 3. Table 5 indicates which tent patterns and solid colors differed significantly from each other in this respect. This search process was repeated until the correct target (tent) was located..83 447..54 427.to the target.14 193 . i. until all tents had been observed by at least 15 observers at each site. the data collector recorded the alphabetical marker nearest the truck. The truck proceeded down the observation path. Table 4 shows the analysis of variance 2/ performed upon the data of Table 3 to deter. i.
Table 4 Analysis of Variance for Tent Detection Across Five Levels of Color Variation DEGREES OF SOURCE TENT COLOR ERROR TOTAL FREEDOM 4 148 152 SUM OF SQUARES 2.6113 t530 o00 49.983. Mean Ranges of Detection and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for FiveSoldier Crew Tents 194 .6794 lao I a I C I.214.228 MEAN SQUARE 594.00* *Significant at a less than 0.90768 3.21 594.9927 26.099 FTEST 22. Table 4 indicates that there are significant differences in the ability of the ground observers to detect the FiveSoldier Crew Tents in different fourcolor patterns and solid colors 785 770 72S5 710 ~6$ 610630 .834 33S 320 305 '90I 273 326.3047 3850 365T 350 62.122.7615 304039 290.5799 6 0 470 43! 447.3931 440 Z <~ 19 420 397.260 6.361.377.21 635" 605 590 560 S4O 545  75. .913.476. D I A FIVE SOLDIER CREW TENTS Fipre 1.0083 SIG LEVEL 0.001 level.8210 410 3910 374..
12 SUBSET 2 GROUP MEAN C D B 351.17 387. and 8 show the false detection data. Table 6 Mean False Detection Rates and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals g5 Percent Confidence Interval Lower Limit Upper Limit 3. etc. for each of the FiveSoldier Crew Tents. 7.53 1.50 Standard Error 3. the range of detection was the shortest for tents A. 3. Tables 6.Table 5 Duncan's MultipleRange Test (Range of Detection) SUBSET 1 GROUP MEAN A C D 327. As tents do not differ significantly from each other (a . trees.27 2.90 3.88 The harmonic mean group size is 30.0.08 4.87 3. The subsets are significant at a . the harmonic mean of the group was used as the group seen above. and D and these into subof equal size.67 2.54 351.21 Tent A B C D E N 31 30 32 30 30 Mean 4.91 195 . the greater the number of false detections. as a rule.48 4.87 2. shadows.05 The Duncan's MultipleRange test separates a set of significantly different means sets of homogeneous means.12 427. Table 8 indicates which tent patterns and colors had rates of false detection. C. Since this was not true. and its associated 95 percent analysis of differences significant confidence interval.0.71 SUBSET 3 GROUP MEAN E 874.59 2.53 3.76 1.87 2.83 1. The more difficult the detection task. In this study such detections are rocks.0.17 387.58.07 4.96 2.05). One of the assumptions is that each random sample is size.05) different from the other 4 tents in this respect.2 False Detections The number of false detections is defined as the number of times a target other than the test target is detected by an observer. Tent E had the longest mean range of detection and is significantly (a .79 6. Table 6 gives the mean false detection value. are a function of how hard it is to detect the test target. Table 7 contains the variance performed upon the data of Table 6 to determine if there were significant in the rate of false detections.38 3. These detections.
0717 4.01 level.Table 7 Analysis of Variance for Rates of False Detection across Five Levels of Color Variance DEGREES OF SOURCE TENT COLOR ERROR TOTAL FREEDOM 4 148 152 SUM OF SQUARES 90. 5.44 FTEST 3.670o 3.0393 [.009 Significant at less than 0.6671 A I C D FIVE SOLDIER CREW TENTS Figure 2.11 WI L8341 I7j8s 2.521 e. .50 LEVEL 0. 23.Soldier Crew Tents.Soldier Crew Tents '19F . Mean Rates of False Detection and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals For Five.417 1043.088 953. Table 7 indicates that there are significant differences in the rates of false detection for the Five.503 MEAN SQUARE 22.
One of the best methods to determine data stability Is through a testretest procedure. in particular. B. and D. and B.87 SUBSET2 GROUP MEAN B D A 3. When working with detection ranges.0 SECTION IV. C.75 meters. which is not solid color Green 483. From these results. In 1985 this net had a mean detection range of 411. Tent E. Forest Green. but that the pattern should not be expanded beyond the repeat of every 36 in. Thus.66 meters. The pattern at Tent A Is repeated every 27. A ground evaluation of camouflage nets was conducted in the summers of 19853/ and 19874/. becomes distinguishable from the woodland background when overexpanded). In both net studies. Field studies are very expensive and time consuming. hes.05). it can be concluded that the patterned tents are harder to detect from ground observation. D. while Tents C and D are expansions of this pattern. the pattern for Tent C is repeated every 36 inches. different from the tree and bush background (the color brown. The rates of false detection for tent groups E. the standard camouflage net was evaluated. However subset 1 is significantly different from subset 2. We do have such an opportunity to examine this type of data for the Turner Drop Zone.87 Harmonic mean group size is 30. C.41 meters. so this data is very rare. and this is significantly (e . Tent B is solid color.0.38 3.89 meters).53 3. D. and A were not significantly different (a .05) longer than any of the other means for the FiveSoldier Crew Tents.50 3. it is inferred that the mean detec 197 . This difference in mean detection range is only 2.0.87 4.58. had the longest mean detection range (674. the question of field data stability is always paramount to the amount of weight that can be given to the test conclusions.Table 8 Duncan's MultipleRange Test (Rates of False Detection) SUBSET I GROUP MEAN E C B D 2. The net sites and test procedures were identical to the sites and test procedures in which the FiveSoldier Crew Tents were evaluated. and B are significantly different from each other.53 3. Tents C. The human eye is probably resolving the larger pattern repeated every 50 inches as bei6. Tent A is the standard size woodland uniform fourcolor pattern.DISCUSSION The Duncan's MultipleRange Test (Table 5) shows that the group of FiveSoldier Crew Tents A.25 Inches. and D had the shortest detection range. while in 1987 the mean detection range was 414. and the pattern for Tent D is repeated every 50 inches. 4.
Forest Green * Tent C . with Tent E the worst performance. These tents were in the following fourcolor camouflage patterns and solid colors: * Tent A . the distance to the tent from the truck was determined.05) from each other. while the true order of rates of false detection is C. B. and Tent E the least number of false detections. based upon mean range of detection. would have the most false detections. This is exactly what occurred. and they informed the data collector when they thought they saw one. The observers were looking for military targets. Five.e.87. with the truck traveling down the observation path until the test target was seen. The expected order. B.0 SECTION V. From this letter. and C. The false detection rates of tents B. these three tents are considered to have the same ordinal position. An analysis of the resulting data provided the following conclusions: A. Duncan's MultipleRange Test (Table 8) shows that the two rates of false detection differ significantly (a .Standard size fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 27. the ciosest alphabetic ground marker to the truck was recorded.0. from a statistical view. If the detection was correct. and solid conclusions about their camouflage effectiveness can be made. The ground observer then continued the search. it was noted on the data sheet. The analysis of false detections seen in Table 8 and Figure 2 also lends credence to the belief that the FiveSoldier Crew Tent A had the best performance as to camouflage effectiveness. In the following discussion of false detections in Section 3.Green 483 A minimum of 30 ground observers per FiveSoldier Crew Tent were driven toward each of two sites on marked observation trails in the back of an open 5/4ton truck. 5. Fourcolor pattern FiveSoldier Crew Tents are more camouflage effective than solid colors. with the lowest mean range of detection and highest rate of false detections. it would be expected that Tent A. being the hardest to find. 198 . If the detection was not correct. FiveSoldier Crew Tents were evaluated by ground observers to determine their camouflage effectiveness as measured by the mean detection range and the mean rate of false detection. a check of Tables 5 and 8 shows that these tents are not significantly different from each other either for range of detection or for rate of false detection.tion ranges for the liveSoldier Crew Tents are stable. and D. i. However. would be B.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Five. with Tent A having a mean false detection rate of 4. * Tent B .2. C. and D are not in the expected ordinal position.Soldier Crew Tent A was the most camouflage effective. and Tent E a mean false detection rate of 2.25 inches. false detection.Expanded fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 36 Inches a Tent D Expanded fourcolor uniform pattern repeated every 50 inches * Tent E . D. Thus.50..
3. repeated every 50 inches. Mary G. and Johnson. Army Belvoir Research.41 meters respectively. Fort Belvoir. Ronald. Fort Belvoir.S. U. The expanded fourcolor pattern. VA.75 and 414. 1988.aL Camnuflage Tosn. August 1986. and Johnson.C. Army Belvoir Research. VA. Unpublished OutlIne Test Plan. Department of Commerce. The mean range of detection data appears to be very stable. Army Belvoir Research. Ronald. Ronald. A testretest field study using identical sites and test procedures in the summers of 1985 and 1937 involving the standard camouflage net yielded mean detection ranges of 411. (The color brown becomes distinguishable from the woodland background when overexpanded). is too large to be effective in denying detection. 199 . George and Johnson.. REFERENCES 1. D. Anitole. George. 1966.S. U. 1987. Washington. U. Development and Engineering Center. The solid colors Green 483 and standard Forest Green should not be used. 2. 4. Evaluation of Woodland Camouflage Ners by Ground Observer. VA. Expertmental Statistlcs. Fort Belvoir.. US. E. Natrella. D. Development and Engineering Center. Stnittlcal Evaluatinn of Woodland Carnnuflaue Net by Oraund OehArwArx. Development and Engineering Center. National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91.S. Anitole.. George. Exaluatin. Anitole.C.
Accordingly. Operating characteristic curves and power curves are presented for this procedure. we have devised a new procedure by adapting an existing technique. we were unable to identify a sampling plan directly applicable to this problem. BAKER PROBABILTY & STATISTICS BRANCH SYSTEM ENGINEERING & CONCEPTS ANALYSIS DIVISION US ARMY BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. known as chain sampling.AN EXAMPLE OF CHAIN SAMPLING AS USED IN ACCEPTANCE TESTING JERRY THOMAS ROBERT L UMHOLTZ WILLIAM E. 201 . Because the available sample sizes were extremely small. to both the attribute portion (structural integrity) and the variable portion (penetration depth) of the acceptance testing process. and suggestions are made concerning the simultaneous use of quality control charts. MD 210055066 ABSTRACT The Probability mnd Statistics Branch of the Ballistic Research Laboratory was asked to develop a procedure of acceptance testing for armor packages.
Sampling may be based on an attribute criterion. Product acceptance. the consumer is forced to make a decision based upon a very small sample size. and rejection occurs if its sample value crosses the acceptable threshold. or he may measure the time in milk before the cereal becomes soggy (variable). Given a particular acceptance sampling plan. Unfortunately. the sample size was one. Sampling by attributes is a dichotomous situation in that. the OC curve depicts the associated error risks and demonstrates the relationship among all of the variables. since it provides a graphical display of the probability of accepting a product versus the value of the particular parameter being inspected. Sampling by variables establishes an acceptable level of a particular variable. but occasionally. c4 and i9. The Acceptable Process Level (APL) is a highquality level that should be accepted 100(1a)% of the time. The Operating Characteristic (OC) curve is an important part of any acceptance sampling plsn. for one reason or another. these error factors vary inversely. 202 . in our example of a box of cereal. this will not be the case. Because decisions are made from samples. Their general structures were accepted with the guidance that the processes would be officially adopted pending some refinements. as the consumer's risk grows. Here. to be accepted or rejected. each item is either defective or nondefective. rejection occurs if there is a high percentage of defectives in the sample. The US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) has developed acceptance sampling plans for armor packages. The Rejectable Process Level (RPL) is a lowquality level that should be accepted only 100(3)% of the time.as well as sample size.I. These plans were briefed to the Project Manager MiAl on 14 April 1988 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. that is. Maryland. that is. Generally. corresponds to the consumer purchasing more boxes of the new cereal. 3 is thus defined to be the consumer's risk. the producer's risk diminishes and vice versa. INTRODUCTION In most cases a consumer's decision concerning whether or not to accept a manufactured product is based on an examination of a sample from that product. In our example the consumer may judge the sweetness of the cereal as satisfactory or excessive (attribute). The amount of protection desired against such risks can be specified. The OC curve is a function of APL. or some combination of these. This is merely an everyday example of what is known as acceptance sampling. a variable criterion. When General Mills introduces a new presweetened breakfast cereal. there is some risk of error. various techniques which allow for discrimination between an acceptable product and an unacceptable one. Of course. RPL. the consumer considers the entire supply of this new cereal as a single manufactured lot. based on a particular attribute. either the error of accepting a bad product or the error of rejecting a good product. in this case. a is thus defined to be the producer's risk. they spend millions of dollars in advertisement costs with the hope that the consumer will sample it.
When quality diminishes to the point where a production lot must be rejected. one shot is fired into each side. a total of at least four shots is required in order to make a decision concerning that month's production. If quality becomes marginal. There are two portions of the acceptance sampling plan. inspection Is tightened by taking samples more frequently. the chain) were acceptable. if spacing on the target permits. production should be a steady. This provides additional confidence during the early stages of the plan. If the first or second box he buys is unacceptable. In each of the first three months. 203 . he will probably discard the product forever. a fixed sample size will be maintained with the investigator taking more or fewer samples as tightened or reduced inspection is dictated. more accurately. The first is structural integrity. In our case extremely small sample sizes were warranted due to the expense of both the armor and the testing procedure. each with special properties that make it applicable to particular situations. Certain assumptions must be made before chain sampling is considered as a sampling technique. a second shot follows. we have devised a new procedure by adapting an existing technique. For a given set. At that point a new chain begins and continues as before. ACCEPTANCE SAMPLING PLAN The armor packages tested at the BRL consist of a right side and a left side. Accordingly. That is. he might continue with one more purchase of the same cereal taking into consideration its past history of nine boxes of acceptable quality. handled using attribute methods. III. An advantage of chain sampling is its automatic incorporation of reduced or tightened inspection procedures when applicable. for use in this project. Sampling plans reviewed in the literature required sample sizes much larger than those feasible for armor testing. as quality remains acceptable over a period of time and our confidence grows. decisions concerning a production lot should be based upon the data from all available shots on that lot.II. continuous process in which lots are tested in the order of their production. handled using variable techniques. and.e. chain sampling. which are designated as one set.. the second is depth of penetration of a particular round fired into the armor. it is possible to accept a marginal Jot provided that a given number of lots immediately preceding (i. Also. if the tenth box is unacceptable. One month's production is considered to be a production lot. he utilizes chain sampling in his decision of whether or not to subsequently purchase the same product. CHAIN SAMPLING Numerous sampling techniques exist. the production process is stopped and necessary adjustments and corrections are made. Every month we continue testing one set at a time until a decision can be made about that production lot. there should be confidence in the supplier to the extent that lots are expected to be of essentially the same quality. For both portions. When a consumer uses an expendable product such as the breakfast cereal in our previous example. However. In particular. augmented by the destructive nature of the test itself. Even with small samples. Generally. Chain sampling Is particularly appropriate for small samples because it uses information over the past history of production lots. the sample size is reduced (or. samples are taken less frequently).
A. With attribute sampling. Any decision to either accept or reject a lot is based on the number of defective plates in the sample being considered. another set should be examined and both categories reevaluated using the addi. The structural integrity is assessed to be either defective or nondefective. Table 2 shows the decision rules for a chain building to a maximum length of eight. one set and at most four shots are all that is required in order to make a decision for each subsequent production lot. rejection would occur only when there were three or more failures in the most recent eight sets. Acceptance Sampling by Attributes Projectiles are fired at these packages. tightened inspection will dictate the examination of additional sets. hence. The maximum length of the chain was fixed at eight. Otherwise. the lot is accepted. Table 1 shows the relationships among months. the maximum number of shots decrease over time as the chain is being formed. but if no decision can be made. we will consider the current set along with the seven immediately preceding. Results from the most recent eight sets influence decisions regarding a lot. the probability of rejecting a lot from a process whose true defective rate is 5% is equal to 0. and testing resumes with the construction of a new chain. then when the chain is at its full length (definitely by the eighth month). If neither measure results in a rejection but at least one falls within the nodecision region. if these probabilities are deemed to be unsatisfactory. a safeguard is built in to prevent rejection of a good lot after only one set. only two outcomes are possible. Note that the maximum number of sets and. 204 .A combined chain sampling plan was proposed. sets. Following the third month and the concurrent drop in the minimum number of shots. which are then inspected for structural integrity. While the chain is growing. a different plan providing more satisfactory levels could be developed by varying the maximum chain length or modifying the decision rules). possibly up to a maximum of eight. the probability of accepting a lot whose true defective rate is 5% is equal to 0. Power curves for the plan are depicted in Figurle 2. and shots for this particular procedure. (Note.21. there is an area between the criteria for acceptance and rejection in which we can make no decision. In the sampling plan. If there are no defectives in the first set. a decision to accept or reject is made immediately. regardless of the number of shots. The OC curves for this plan are depicted in Figure 1. Subsequently.ona data. adjustments and corrections are made. no decision is made.79.96. For a chain at full length. meaning that after the chain has been established. After a chain reaches its full length of eight sets. A rejection in either the structural integrity or the penetration depth will result in overall rejection of the production lot. while the probability of rejecting a lot whose true defective rate is 10% is equal to 0. It shows that for a chain at full length. At least one set will be tested each month. In that case production is stopped. A lot can be either accepted or rejected at any time (except for one case discussed in the next paragraph). In the early stages of sampiing there is also an area in between acceptance and rejection where no decision is rendered immediately but sampling is continued. while the probability of accepting a lot whose true defective rate is 10% is equal to 0.04. Chain sampling is employed in this attribute sampling plan.
Relationships Among Variables in Chain Sampling Procedure Month 1 Required Sets Minimum Maximum 1 8 Required Shots Minimum Maximum 4 32 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 4 k 1 1 2 4 205 .TABLE 1.
number of failures in set i 206 ...2:3 6f.. Decision Rules for Acceptance Sampling by Attributes.>3 i1 9 9 f2 i.f..52 11 5 6 66 ~ f. 2 2 Ef Jul 0 E f.0 6 .2 E f23 1 2 k k k E f <2 1 fk7 Zf >3 1k7 = f.1 f.t>3 i1 7 1:'5Jf1 :52 Eft=Jul 7 6 2 .fll 11 7 7 E f15_I l1 8 E fi>3 i8 " Elia 2 iI 8 1.TABLE 2.3 1._52 . DECISION RULES SET NUMBER 1 2 ACCEPT l n REJECT NO DECISION f 2 .l 1:5 E f.
joXT~qeOl a20 .QC aaldo.
) U~3p C) ~I) I 0 I oq~J  0 UOU32~J Jo ~ 2U8 .~Ci2 t 0.
The 22 shots had a mean (Xb) of 5mm with a standard deviation (Sb) of 30mm. the distribution of the variable of interest must be known. In our particular problem there were 22 baseline shots from which we were to determine a distribution and estimate its standard deviation.9s represents the 95th percentile of the tdstribution for the appropriate degrees of freedom (nI). and it has a region of no decision until the chain reaches its full length. while the chain Is being formed. or four data points. Basically. allowing for both positive and negative penetration values.05. Because this might not always be possible. each set can result in either two.99 and 0. due primarily to discrepancies between the aim point and the hit location.for a sample of size four. Note from Table 3 that in order to reject 209 .the first two pertaining to a 0. When variable sampling plans are established. a set consists of a right side and a left side. The plan will not reject based on the first sample. three. Figure 4 shows the power curves for this variable sampling procedure. Acceptance Sampling by Variables When primary interest Is in a process level rather than a percent defective. Note that for all n. Thus. For each set an attempt will be made to fire a second round into each side. D. Generally. the probability of accepting at the APL is 0. depth of penetration for a particular munition was the process level of interest. a good estimate of its standard deviation must be available. Because the probability of accepting at the RPL is too high for n2 and n3. The abscissa value. the hypothesis of normality could not be rejected using statistical goodnessoffit tests. the numbers in parentheses are the penetration depths in millimeters. 32. When plotted. thus. the procedure will not allow lot acceptance at these small sample sizes (see Table 3). two major assumptions must be satisfied: first. indeed. the data appeared normal. at least four shots are available upon which to make a decision. P would equal 0. Figure 3 shows these curves for sample sizes 2. Table 4 provides the values for the tstatistic for (1cx)levels of 0. Table 3 outlines the decision rules for the variable sampling plan. and t. any one of many OC curves may be applicable. there are two sets of curves . depending on whether or n~ot both shots on each side are considered to be good hits. s represents the standard deviation of this sample. the probability of rejecting at the APL.10. Power curves show the probabity of rejecting a particular lot. and 0. The data had been transformed. as well as establish acceptable and rejectable process levels (APL & RPL). and second. As in the attribute case. o. sampling by variables is the proper procedure. The APL was established at 20mm (1/2 baseline standard deviation from the baseline mean) and the RPL was set at 80mm (2 1/2 baseline standard deviations from the baseline mean). However.05 and the next three pertaining to a .95 and degrees of freedom from 3 to 31. For the armor packages. the probability of accepting at the RPL. In this table. it Incorporates chain sampling with a maximum length of eight sets. was allowed to vary with the sample size . X represents the mean penetration depth for all shots currently considered. represents a multiple of sb from Xb. and many integers in between. since there is a region of no decision.95 (1a). It is important that during the first three months. Because n varies so widely. for our procedure this is not the case.01.0. was set at 0. and. Like the attribute sampling plan. n is the total number of shots used in computing X. n can vary from 2 to 32 depending upon the length of the chain and the number of shots available on each side of the armor package. they are nothing more than the complement of OC curves.B.
. I (n . XAPL 9 > tP X APL (combine with 1. 9 (combine with 28) r'.APL A .P > s I/..95 X." .L r.< 9s ../'.9_ sl. ACCEPT REJECT NO DECISION I (n < 4) .. Decision Rules for Acceptance Sampling by Variables...4) 2 (combine with 1) / APL X .. DECISION RULMS SET NUMBER..> IAPL t ..APL XA XAPL .APL 7 (combine with 16) 8 (combine with 17) XA . regard as "No Decision"..PL > tX APL '. >t95 X. otherwise. 210 .APL X..2) S/ln .95 At least four shots are required in each of the first three months. 95 sl~n >t.(kL)) s Il../ s l /' > t.TABLE 3.APL _ t95 k (combine with (k7) . XAPL ALL < .< t ' XAPL  s Ivf XAPL > t95 t95 . 9 t.
t4 P4  aouedaooV JO S~jflct:qchId' 211 .0p4 o// of .9. 0~~. /6 r~ _ _I _ / Il.
68 2.47 2.46 2.52 2.49 2. Miodusid BRL Technical Note # 1570.71 1.74 1.48 2.E.83 1.50 2.51 2.72 2.73 1.73 1.78 1.82 2.71 1.86 1.46 2.76 2.70 0.72 1.70 1.99 2.TABLE 4.14 3.70 1.72 1.02 1.75 3.62 2.77 1. August 212 .94 1.54 2.81 1.76 1.70 4.54 3.0 1.73 1.13 2.0.58 2.00 2.75 1.75 1.90 1. by R.57 2.35 2.71 1.71 1.55 2.60 2.90 2. Values of the Cumulative tStatistic Derees of Freedom (n1) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (Ia) level 0.37 3.65 2.47 2.80 121.45 Interal of the Central tDistribution' *This table is abridged from Tables of the Probability 1965.49 2.53 2.95.
Ch uo~o~.jjo A TITq'eqoad 213 .
If. In each case appropriate upper control limits must be established. 99. over a period of time. This leaves a falsealarm frequency of less than 1% (0. trol chart (cusum chart).so low that this control limit seems to be a reasonable threshold to distinguish between random variations and assignable variations. therefore. our sample size must be somewhere between 16 and 32. A similar chart should be constructed for the range of penetration depth within the sample. we would incorporate a lower control limit as well. 214 . we see a drifting toward the control limit. The APL is the central line with an upper control limit equal to the RPL. of the past data. may eventually result in rejection of a manufactured lot. However. Somewhere in between the Shewhart chart and the cusum chart are quality control charts that use some. the variable of interest in our armor package acceptance sampling plan. the process can be examined and adjusted. One of the most popular has been the cumulative sum con. control limits are somewhat less intuitive and. Figure 5 is a Shewhart control chart for mean penetration depth. two baseline standard deviations away from the APL If we were concerned about extremely low penetration depths. each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages.01. Quality Control Charts Variations in the manufacturing process are either random or assignable. A process is "in control" whe only random variations are present. C.38% of the time the mean penetration depth of the sample will fall below the upper control limit. If we reject at an alevel of 0. with fewer samples and less expense) than a comparable Shewhart chart. The mean penetration depth is plotted for consecutive sets of armor plate. However.05. and these curves are also shown in Figure 4. A third chart for structural integrity. Walter A. This might possibly eliminate some future rejection of an entire lot. Generally. decisions are made based on all the data rather than just the last sample. Shewhart.before the chain is at its maximum length. Dr. Here. Assignable variations. the attribute of interest in our acceptance sampling plan.62%) . to insure that the variability of the armor packages is not increasing. would also be useful. the power curves are of more interest to the producer than the OC curves. providing more weight to the most recent data. The most common quality control chart Is the Shewhart chart. and Figure 4 shows some possible sample sizes for a = 0. more difficult to establish. A quality control chart Is a graphical comparison of test data with some previously computed control limits. Over the years alternative quality control charts have emerged. they can often be identified through the use of quality control charts. we use the smaller alevel. named for its originator. An advantage of the cusuin chart is that it often displays sudden and persistent changes in the process mean more readily (that is. If uncorrected. Assuming a normal distribution with parameters equal to those of the baseline data implies that if only random variations are present. but not all. Many of these techniques incorporate a weighting factor. since they highlight the producer's risk.
* (t 4Iel u.44.) 4j.9.a U d a @ 215I .
preventing rejection of an entire lot of armor plate. There Is. It was approved and will be adopted subject to any refinements agreed upon by both the US Army Ballistic Research Lboratory and the Project Manager. since destructive testing dictates small sample sizes. IV. we can see when one of the parameters is drifting toward the rejection region. Operating characteristic curves and power curves provide the probability of accepting and rejecting lots given a percent structurally defective (attributes) and given a mean penetration depth (variables). possibly.It is important that some type of quality control charts be represented in the acceptance sampling plan. It utilizes the most recent lot information to provide more confidence in the decision. It allows for rejecting the production lot only after testing at least two sets. By continually examining the control charts. Maryland. In addition to the acceptance sampling plans. CONCLUSIONS Generally. 216 . One set of armor packages Is represented by both a left side and a right side. Chain sampling Is'a particular method of lot acceptance sampling used when sample sizes are small. chain sampling provides a logical method. enabling the producer to make adjustments and. and variability of penetration depth. but after the chain has reached its maximum length of eight sets. The proposed lot acceptance plan was briefed to the Project Manager MIAl on 14 April 1988 at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The procedure allows for accepting the production lot (one month's production) after examining just one set. In testing armor packages for acceptance by the US Army. control charts should be used for both the attribute and variable parameters. They are relatively easy to maintain and might provide early warning signs which could be beneficial to both the producer and the consumer. A judicious choice of a lot acceptance plan will allow him to sample the production lot and determine with a preestablished level of confidence whether or not it meets his specifications. a decision must be rendered. The data might be presented as individual sample points or as sums over a preceding number of samples. A technique involving both structural integrity (attribute sampling) and penetration depth (variable sampling) has been proposed.a region of no decision. These charts display sample results for particular parameters such as percent defective. mean penetration depth. it is not feasible for a consumer to Inspect every item from a production lot that he might want to purchase.
Duncan. Edward G. Dover Publications. Quality Control Handbook.W.. 1974. McGraw Hill Pook Company. Edwin L.. Acheson J. J. 217 . D. Inc. Juran. Statistical Quality Control Handbook. Schilling. Acceptance Sampling in Quality Control. Statistical Quality Control..M. Richard S. Tables of the Probability Integral of the Central tDistribution.BIBLIOGRAPHY Crow. Thomas. Irwi. BRL Technical Note # 1570. Mioduski. Grant. 1974.. Editor. Western Electric Company.E. Inc... 1956. Statistics ManuA with Examples Taken from Ordnance Development. Inc. McGraw Hill Book Company. 1960. Eugene L. Quality Control and Industrial Statistics.. & Leavenworth... Inc. Chairman. August 1965.. et. Marcel Dekker.. 1982. Richard N. R. 1980. al.
X. .S. . . There are several decision rules for determining when to enter additional independent variables into linear multiple regression. researcher wants to form some model k Y' a a + b 1.1 X (1) This would indicate the model (equation 1) where k_ q. . . 219 . consisted of the best set of candidate independent variables. . Xse XVQ YM X. .) are candidate where independent variables (that make senie according to some The theoretical bases) and Y is the dependant variable.. Hocking and Emanuel Parzen for their comments and suggestions. Given experimental Y X1 data X. (Xi. The author wishes to thank Professors Ron Acknowledoement. It is this spirit of freely shared ideas that makes these "Design of Experiments Conferences" valuable to Army statisticians. . . 1. The Problem. Yi Ya Ya Xil X2 1 Xia Xas X33 . Three of these are: (1) examining the incremental significance in the multiple correlation coefficients. . . examine some of the Interrelationships between the three methods cited above. and (3) considering the changes in This paper will magnitude of the standard error of estimate. These relationships will be applied to a data set and the results presented. I X X.X.* . Dutolt U. X. This paper will provide en overview of the following measures and criteria In order to shed some light on this probicm. (2) Mallows' Cm statistic to determine the best combination of independent variables.SOME NOTES ON VARIABLE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR REGRESSION MODELS (AN OVERVIEW) Eugene F.1m . . Xa. X&. . Georgia Abstract.. . in the form: . Army Infantry School Fort Banning. XI X12 Xaa Xaa X.
The Multiple Correlation Coefficient.. Mallowa' Cp Statistic. R 2 adJ R2 W~ k Q1 . (N  kic  1). order to account for this mathematical Increase In R2. N *number 3. statistically not significant).. *estimated variance of the complete modei all Independent variables Included). b. Incremiental Significance.lKi 1)  (k'i  k2) (2) where k.ka)/ 'k 1 / (N . the Value Of P2 Will alga Increase. (0  . As Independent variables are added to equation (1)... the socalled shrinkage formula Is used to calculate an adjusted Ra as:. Adjusted R*. Myers (reference 1) presents the Cp statistic In the fol lowing form: Cp Ep + (S2 Mz( 6 2 N P) (4) where p *k + 1 (He*..12a R2 . a number of independent variables for larger R* ka number of Independent variables for smaller S2 o larger Ra N a number of cases The teat follows an F distribution with degrees of freedom equal to (ki  ka).Raw) N ki1 In (3) where kc number of Independent variables In regression. anumber ( and 33 are obtained as the residual mean squares from the regression ANOVA. The well known test for the incremental significance In R2 by adding an additional Into equation (1) Is: X1 independent variable F  (R2. The following Imterpretntlon Is based an the discussion from the Myers (reference 1) text: 220 .e.. ia.2 . a N set IMLted variance of the candidate (subset) model.2. This Increase may be small (i.ki R2V... of cases. of oases... (R2) a..
Full Model Source Explained Residual DF. It should be noted that If (S2 r & *. q N 1 SS (Ni) (S21) [Nq1] (Rz. the total regression model =a + biX. (not here) that equation (5) is equivalent to 3A. It can be shown equation (4). P D# A I 1 2 3 2 B. then equation (4) becomes Cp a p. Only point C In the above diagram meets this condition. the plot of Cp will fall below the line Cp w p. This Is always the case for the full model. This concept will be discussed In the following paragraph concerning the standard error of estimate about regression... . FIgure 2 Regression ANOVA . C 3 4 P Reference to equation (4) shows that if S2 < 2. Another Alternative Form for Cp. variables.6 ^2  [N  2 p1 (5) where p  k + I (as before) Independent variable RSS.+bX% Given q Is: (8) independent The regression ANOVA table Is presented below as Figure 2.1 . + ba×a+. An alternative format for Cp Is given by Daniel and Wood (reference 2) as: Cp a RSS.) S2. The above inequality Is deslrable for It states that the variation about soma subset regression model is less than the variation about the full model. a residual sum of squares with k (p parameters) 2 w residual mean square of the complete model (as before). i 221 . MS..Figure Co 4 N 1 Cr.
N. > Say In other words X1..I Referring to the Myers format of Cp (equation 4) and substituting equations (8) for SOan 6 2t Cip N Ck+i) + ( jjtX.Subset Model Source Explained Residual DF kc Nki N . S'Ylx . The ratio Is actually Note that equation (4) ci iowe for cases where some subset model 2 has less variance (S ) than the varian~ce for the complete 222 .t that in var Ious f orms the Cp test can be expressed as a tunction of P2. S~y X. This leads to another Independent decision method.)  2) (9) Not.!.: Xw The regress ion AfN0VA table Is given In Figure 3..The model with k independent variables: where k < q is: (7) j a +biXi + ba Xa +. the vaiue of S2YIX usually gets smeller as Independent variables arii added to regression. q. 4. k. namely the standard error of regression (SyI X).b. this is not always the case.. (10) However. Figure 3 Regression ANOVA .I SS (N1) (S2Y)M(R J (NkI) Salk SVX Ms where S2YIXb S~y IX" * Ni1 Nki (Say) 0lR~ (S2 ") ( R 2q) N1 Nq. SyL When performing stepwise regression._2I~) N) Further substitution [reference equations (8)) algebra yield another format for the Cp test: Cp w end simple Nci lR~)(N2k (1Ra. (usual ly).
I and > . that the adjusted Intuitively it appers in equation (13). where (Nk2) (Nkl) Nk2 Nk1 1R . In this case the Cp plot (.) The ratio In.) (1lR='A (12) N1 Nk2 (SaY) (1R=. can be Inferred: S'YIX . 5. 1Ilk 1 .: Minimum value of SAX. should be a maximum for the correlation coefficient (RWao) The value of subset of regression where S2YIX is a minimum. * N1 Nk1 (S2' . The example It Is found on page 110.!. The fol lowing example wav taken from Myers ExampIa. contains a shrlnkage factor with that equation (3) (Rlsa] These terms are also contained terms (1. the value of the ratio citec as inequal ity (11) Note wil I depend on the magnitudes of the ratios shown above. uses soles data for asphalt shingles obtained from (N=15) The variables considered In this example are: districts. I XI. Cp should also be minimum for the same subset of Independent var lables. Table 41..R2 ) and (Nk1). The subset of regression that has minimum variance would be The ratio the best predictor of the dependent variable Y. Inequal ity (11) now becomes: (13) S=YIX. < . Therefore. can be rewritten to gain some Insight described by equation (11) From equations (8) the fol lowing expressions to the process. 1 1 Reb.=) This can point C in Figure 1). 1 2 31 Ik The minimum value In Figure 4 corresponds to point C In Figure 1 . SaY IX . Figure 4 is below the be expressed I ins in Figure 4: S. 223 .e.model (i. (refernce 1).RE.. • S2Y IX.
03240 .50900 .4 3.99695 .3.99707 .Number of competing brands.71 81. . = Number of promotional accounts.9 4 1052.2 3 11. Figure 6 All Cases STEP 1 VARIABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 1.97 5.98 5.51395 .568197 .49 58.63725 . 3 4 4. Xz = Number of active accounts.67 1227.50101 ..4 1. This is always true for the full model. The results of a stop wise regression are given below: Figure 5 Stepwise Results STEP 1 2 VARIABLE 3 .2 1. * ADJ Ra'* .4  x 82. j0l35 '28302 p 2 a C .4 2.2.3 5 224 . X*.42159 .60936 .63 49.99612 . X3 .9 3 3011. 4 . The combination shown In step 11 Is the best subset regression. Is presented In Figure 6..62726 . 2.1 2 3085. It Is this step (variables X.27 6.50422 . It Is the same combination of optimum values of RaidJ.68051 .X.4 3 1683.590 4 6 3.64160 .99403 . 2 3361 . stop 3 is the beat subset regression.90 50.26 6.99 79.2.83 4.).60493 . .01200 ADJ R2 .3.09284 .8 3 1213. .4 1 1.99303 .3 2.02306 .98 62.1 11.2.4 1.3..1i2" .05 60.99612 . The results of all variable case. Xa.46263 . SY IX..99404 .4 5 Notice that the last stop (number 4) has a Cp value equal to p Also note that (5). 2.4 4 13.53 51.99241 . Xa. '1. * 6.3 1.99590 2 1692 2 1227. Y = Sales In thousands of dollars.12 S Ra . 06400 P C.99. 3.4 4 1651.67 60.3 1.82 4a.1 3 1666.1 3 11081. 4 1 3.38139 . X 2 .68959 .4 2.4 3 "4 1.11609 . Sygx and Cp (variables Xi. X* a District potential.42716 .) where the values of SYIx and op are minimum and adJusted R2 Is maximum.
each measure provides a different perception on the subject. Wiley. R. Sylx and adjusted R2 These three Indicators appear to provide the same information in the model selection decision process. Boston. References Myers. The are studied. 1986 Fitting Equetions to Date. Classical Duxbury Press. Daniel. New York. This paper has examined several methods of 6. 1971 and Modern Regression with Applications. Interrelationships between Cp.Summary. MA. Although they all lead to the same decision regarding the subset regression selection. Wood. determining when to enter additional independent variables into linear multiple regression In order to form a oRtimum subset from all the candidate variables. 225 . F. C.
The presenter demonstrates their usefulness to that end in the above mentioned tire program. must be accompanied by a clear understanding of the problem(s) to be resolved. must support some vehicle mobility according to that vehicle's mission profile. Maryland 210055066 ABSTRACT An effort is underway to enhance the battlefield survivability of combat vehicle tire systems. Sound experimental strategy. The presenter has been tasked to develop an appropriate test plan. in a runflat condition. The test plan and the process by which it evolved is discussed. 227 . the most promising among the new tire technologies. Bodt US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground. for this or any study. for further research. The Army is currently investigating several new tire technologies with regard to their ability to function after battlefield degradation.TWOSTAGE TESTING OF COMBAT VEHICLE TIRE SYSTEMS Barry A. The immediate objective of this program is choosing. The tires. 1984) as part of more general guidelines. A list of question areas worth exploring to help gain this understanding is suggested by Hahn (Technometrics.
The technical phase. INTRODUCTION An effort is underway to enhance the battlefield survivability of combat vehicle tire systems. As part of the discus 228 . The operational phase. In 1985 the Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) established a tire task force. the tires became unserviceable and had to be replaced. The objective of the TACOM Tire Task Force is to identify a survivable tire system (STS) technological replacement which demonstrates acceptable battlefield survivability. was completed by the Combat Developments Experimentation Center (CDEC) in 1987. A twophase approach (operational and technical) has been adopted to screen available STS technologies in search of candidates for more intense research and development. the need for which was supported by the results of a 1984 independent evaluation of one tire system performed by the Operational Test and Evaluation Agency (OTEA). the focus of this paper. is being conducted by the Vulnerability Lethality Division (VLD) of the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) according to the test plan developed by the Probability and Statistics Branch (PSB) of the Systems Engineering and Concepts Analysis Division (SECAD) of the BRL This paper is intended to accomplish two tasks.TWOSTAGE TESTING OF COMBAT VEHICLE TIRE SYSTEMS 1.not in great detail but sufficiently to demonstrate the degree to which experimental objectives are satisfied. OTEA observed that when the runflat tires for the High Mobility MultiPurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) were run flat for 30 miles. submitted to DA by the US Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). considering the standard and seven new STS technologies. The impetus for current investigations dates back to a 1979 issue paper. The first is to discuss the test plan that has been adopted for the technical testing phase .
The guidelines have been juggled to allow for a logical presentation and the order shown in Figure 1 corresponds. tire performance specifications. We seek only to show how encompassing those question areas are by developing in full the Army's problem through their use. Hahn (1984) suggests imposing the structure of question area guidelines (see Figure 1) both to help sort the information coming in and to direct consultation sessions down new promising paths. factors thought to influence performance. and that constitutes our presentation of his technique. It is hoped that this presentation will both give fair treatment to the Army concern as well as illustrate a reasonable approach to consultation. italicized words and phrases refer back to guidelines in Figure 1. with few exceptions. This is simply a matter of convenience and not a claim 229 . The fragmented manner in which information is passed from client to consultant inhibits a cogent assimilation of facts needed for efficient problem solving. In the text. for example. punctuated by Hahn's guidelines. EVALUATION OF THE TEST PLAN Problem information is divulged in this section according to Hahn's guidelines. In Section 3 a brief critique of the test plan's strengths and weaknesses is given. and physical and budgetary corwtraints are incorporated in the test strategy. followed by some closing comments. but information essential to that understanding is often difficult to obtain. In Section 2 the problem and test plan are developed. 2.sion it is shown how. to that of this section. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The second is to illustrate the usefulness of welldefined consulting guidelines in extracting the necessary information from experimenters. Any sound experimental strategy must be accompanied by a clear understanding of the problem to be resolved.
The objectives of the experiment. 6. The details of the physical setup. Special considerations which Indirectly impose experimental constraints. The uncontrolled variables .1. Figure 1. 9. Past test dat. The response variables and how they will be measured. 5. 8. especially. 10. The anticipated complexity of the relationship between the experimental variables and the response variables and any anticipated interactions. any information about different types of repeatability. including the ease with which each of the variables can be changed from one run to the next. The variables to be held constant and how this will be accomplished (as well as those that are to be varied).what they are and which ones are measurable. 12. 2. and. The budged size of the experiment and the deadlines that must be met. 230 . The desirability and opportunities for running the experiment in stages. especially for programs where an optimum is sought. 11. 3. 4. Conditions within the experimental region where the expected outcome is known. Important Question Areas for Statisticians to Address. the anticipated performance is expected to be inferior. The procedures for running a test. 7. and experimentation is impossible or unsafe.
The selection criteria must be driven by the military objectives summarized above. design or nuisance variables and to subclassify them for each of the last two categories. The experimental objective is to screen six. It Is in the identification ind classification of these variables that the experimental strategy begins to take form. each consulting session is likely not only to naturally gravitate toward different orders but also to move around from area to area. possibly returning several times to some. The military objective is that HMMWV tires remain serviceable when degraded through battlefield exposure to small caliber munitions and shell fragments. Because the variables listed in Table I represent only those 231 Ll . Care is taken to initially classify them as candidates for response. Serviceable means that the tire exhibits perfonnance consistent with the standards specified in the NATOFnabel 20 A 5 1956 NATO Test Procedure.1. Understanding the Problem Let us begin by considering objectives. including the standard. normal military performance of the vehicle is still required when no more than two tires (one drive and one steering) are damaged. The scale of measurement is also noted. development. We consider two types. After degradation. In Table I the most important ones are given. tire systems with the purpose of selecting a subset for further research. Summarized expectations set forth therein say that the combat tire must possess (as nearly as possible) the same over the road performance as the classic radial tire In terms of maximum vehicle speed and lateral and longitudinal traction and stability. military and experimental. A short definition of each of these variables Is given in the appendix.for an ideal sequence. Question areas 24 in Figure 1 each concern variables. 2. In fact. and the eventual upgrading of combat tires.
'"i "'II I I ' i .e > > " i ]G .....> ii ii >Q ". I 7i . II .. . . e "> .I I I _. ."> .
i H '4d w ~ r   II "I . i. !! I t i I 233 .
s: tears caused by the shell fragment sand threat is a consideration in involving the BRL in the technical phase of experimentation. A limitation of the CDEC exercise is that tire degradation from shell fragments is not considered.considered essential. but there are basically only four technologies. and thereby negate the threat damage. for it Is the selection from among these prototypes that is the objective of this experiment. solidify. To make inferences about tire performance after fragment damage the consensus is that either live shells should be detonated near standing tires or the expected resulting fragments should 234 . '. are to be considered. the sealant tire systems contain chemical compounds which are intended to flow to a source of air loss. inhibiting vehicle mobility (Drelling et al. Then in order for military objectives to be satisfied. all must be incorporated in the experimental strategy. Runflats take the second tact and are able to support the vehicle with a metal or plastic insert which acts in the tires stead when the tire is deflated. Taking the first tact. including the standard.ut they do so at the cost of additional weight. Interest in the more irregular pt . Six manufacturer offerings. the survivable tire will either successfully negate this damage or be structurally capable of supporting vehicle mobility without benefit of full tire pressure. 1987). We briefly discuss several c them here so that the reader may gain a sense of the complexity of the problem. or in some other way be damaged so as to induce partial or complete deflation. Solid urethane tires circumvent the problem by containing no air to be lost. Selfsupporting tires are so named because molded into the tread is a rigid fiber glass band. designed to carry the tire's full load in the absenice of tire pressure. The logical starting point for discussion is with tire technology.. When combat tires are exposed to small caliber munitions and shell fragments they will surely tear. puncture.
respectively. Rather we option to create two fragment profiles. A specialconsideration in long range plans is that an acceptance test consistent with current testing be developed. and cross country. Velocity and mass are determined as follows. Each are a function of the distance between the shell at detonation and the tire. the HMMWV is 4wheel drive. Further it suggests that in a characteristic mission those three terrains might comprise 30%. The distance selected corresponds to a 50% mobility kill for the vehicle according to models accessed by the Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA).own. size.condary roads. Other factors of keen interest include the terrain traveled and tire position. Avoiding the experimental region where the expected outcome is . In addition to this oneatatime damage. Avoiding great detail. a standard BRL fragment design is specified for shape. Trial firings suggest some deviations in these choices so that resulting damage seemed similar to actual fragment damage previously observed. and 40%. we do not consider distances so close that the personnel are not likely to survive.be simulated. The mission profile for the HMMWV dictates that it shall be able to travel primary roads. Due to the repeatability requirements inherent in acceptance testing the shelldetonation approach was dropped in favor of fragment simulation This decision led to variables involving fragment shape. The median velocity and mass among computer simulated fragments possessing an appropriate trajectory then serve as representative values for these characteristics. motion. and pressure. Due to budget and time constraints it appears unreasonable to select many values for each and then proceed in a factorial manner when incorporating them in the design. 30%.. of the total mileage covered Tire pcsiticn refers to its designation as a drive tire or a drive and steering tire. each representative of a distinct threat. recall that the NATO Finabel standards require acceptable performance when two tires on the vehicle are 235 . se. and velocity.
Manufacturer recommended high and low pressures for each tire will be considered. the HMMWV may be moving or at rest. To examine each uf these conditions in a factorial manner will require mote resources than the experimental budget will allow. Past test data reveals that some degraded tires remain serviceable after 100 continuous miles of operation. failure could depend on the size and strength of the operator. then fatigue will not enter into the failure determination. the test course is extended to 125 continuous miles. TACOM decided that the response would remain defined as miles until failure. Under a rigid value for normal speed. A fairly large number ot experimental conditions define the experiment outlined in Section 2. We propose to account for that by establishing a profile on operators (actually driing teams) in their normal operation of the vehicle. Moreover. that is. for all but the standard tire no more than 30 prototypes will be made available. 2. In order to avoid truncated data. Proponents of the sealant technology claim that if the tire is in motion when punctured. When attacked. recall 236 . The 50% rule is then based on normal team performance. clean or ragged. The specialconsiderationthat this experiment complement the CDEC exercise fixed two important test definitions.1. It is felt that If two operators are allowed to rotate after each 25 mile lap. Failure occurs when either the tire begins to come apart when in use or the operator must slow to less than 50% of normal operating speed in order to maintain control. Driving teams are established to avoid failure due to fatigue. but at the additional cost of trial time.2 Test Plan The test plan will be implemented in stages. then the sealant mechanism will be mote effective in finding and repairing the damage. Past test data indicates that tire pressure may influence the type of puncture.damaged.
Here we run only the risk of wasting some more plentiful. In stage 1 all the experimental conditions are incorporated in the design as factors or fixed test procedures. The division of testing meets the above concerns. Placing too much emphasis (sample allocation) on ancillary issues may partially obscure (weaken conclusions regarding) the main experimental focus.tor. resource limitations and emphasis. drive or steering. thereby increasing the experimental information per sampled test condition. Since the complete details will not be available until stage 1 is concluded. It is hoped that some will prove unnecessary for inclusion in stage 2.that the principal objective of this study is to facilitate comparison among tires. requiring twice as many samples. is handled only in a limited sense. are considered. requiring 32 observations. Second. The design factors. Only the standard HMMWV tire is considered in stage 1. Field test exercises nearly always present unexpected problems. In the remainder of this paper stage I testing serves as the main focus. and a large fragment simulator. The case in which two tires are danaged. we defer further discussion of stage 2 to future papers. each discussed in Section 2. The purpose of this stage is twofold. The 4 levels for threat include a 7. First the various test conditions may be examined. Stage I will be run as a 1/2 replication of a 4x24 factorial design.62mm round fired at 450 and 90" obliquity on the sidewall. standard tires instead of the scarce new prototypes. often resulting in samples which must be invalidated for the analysis. Note that only 2 tire position levels. a small fragment simula. test procedures may be smoothed. For these reasons.1. we choose to run the experiment in two primary stages. In stage 2 the prototypos wiU be examined by an experienced testing group under the conditions remaining after stage 1. Imbedded in the stage 1 factorial design are four treatment combitations having two damaged tires which arise from a 1/2 replicate of a 24 237 . are listed in Table 2.
IC a 6eq > 1~   23 .
Due to the anticipatedcomplexity of the relationship amoong variables some firstorder interactions can be sacrificed to the experimental error formed by the remaining second.1 comprise the test track. Beginning with the military objectives. In consideration of the proceduresfor runninga test and the ease in which variables can be changed and the details of the physical set up some compromises were made. The course layout attempts to mix or randonmize the terrains so that not all the mileage for one type will be traveled before the next is encountered. The first driver in the rotation for each team was randomized. To mitigate their effect on the outcome. Randomization for the stage I design is complete except in the case of driving team. all of the variables considered important by TACOM or the NATO Finable Stan239 . The remaining 4 observations are already included in the principal stage 1 design. the three terrains mentioned in Section 2. and above. four vehicles are used but are not Included as test factors.design. they have been selected according to age and state of repair and have been partially randomized over the design. Also noted in Figure 2. vehicle. The other three factors are handled as previously noted. The complete randomization of the driving teams is not possible because both teams are to be used simultaneously. order interactions. and terrain. The remaining variables are addressed in stage 1 as suggested in Figure 2. 3. This design allows hypothesis tests on all main effects and on most firstorder interactions. CRITIQUE OF APPROACH In this section we address the primary advantages and disadvantages of the test plan interpreted in terms of the stated military and experimental objectives and follow with some comments pertaining to the consulting technique employed. As indicted In Figure 2.
1.~.. 240 II4. . .
In addition. In the end. Choice of an error term for the imbedded test of the twotire effect is far from straight. we had to take some liberties in the combination of variables to form factors so that a design would be possible with the available samples. Also.forward. Terrain is considered only through Its inclusion in the test course in proportions consistent with the HMMWV mission profile. Surely. normal operating speeds in the failure definition are m'. As to consulting. By examining the standard tire only in stage 1. we cannot prove the usefulness of Hahn's guidelines. particularly since four of the eight observations must be used in the analysis twice. For example. Further. the selection of STS prototypes for further research and development follows directly from analysis of the second testing stage. comparisons between it and other STS prototypes are hindered. efforts to handle the fragment threat result in a reasonable fragment simulation procedure which may be used in followon acceptance testing.2. the stage 1 plan imposes an analyzable design structure on a complex problem providing for the testing of all important hypotheses. all methods must be judged by the experimental strategies which they help to 241 . such as in the use of terrain. With regard to experimental objectives. but the imposed structure of this approach facilitates a very comprehensive investigation. For some othe: variables the military Interests are clarified in the test plan. Finally.dards are included in the test plan in a manner suitable to TACOM.e sensibly tied to the normal performance of individual driving teams. the information can be obtained through other methods. Sometimes this requires compromise. the test plan has several weaknesses. running the experiment in stages has the emphasis and resource advantages mentioned in Section 2. Experimental error is an issue since complete randomization is not possible and since some pooling of loworder interactions into the error term may be necessary. However. but we hope that the illustration is convincing.
but their performance is hopelessly confounded with the skills of the consultant using them. or the problem are questions left for the reader to decide. and if not.develop. Whether this strategy satisfies those purposes. the approach. whether fault lies with the consultant. 242 . Of course the purposes of those strategies are to meet both application objectives and satisfy statistical theory.
Schrag. 0. 193 1. J. Pietzyk. New York.REFERENCES Drelling. Kempthorne. 243 Mimi . (1987). IS. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Hahn. John Wiley & Sons. "Survivable Tire Test. 0." Technometricsa 26. "Experimental Design in the Complex World. S. (1952).. (1984)." CDECTR87014.. H.
244 miles until failure delivery method . placement of the damaged tires. right rear. The influence of different drivers should be accounted for. influences tire stress. effects the tire vulnerability. operator of the vehicle. High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). secondary road. response. or both may be degraded. threat obliquity tire technology fragment shape fragment size fragment velocity road temperature vehicle load driving speed distance to tire round six Survivable Tire Systems to be compared. the right front. In testing. fragment propelling methods considered. and cross country. refer. Each will induce different tire stress and all are included in the vehicle's mission profile. partially determines the nature of the tear or puncture. This vehicle's tire system is the program's focus. to distance traveled by fragment or smal caliber munition. partially determines the nature of the tear or puncture. partially determines the nature of the tear or puncture. The individual HMMWV effect is an issue. Previous testing revealed reduced susceptibility to puncture with low tire pressures.terrain APPENDIX the three driving surfaces listed as primary road. threat munition(s) to be used. Influences tire stress. either static or rolling. tire position vehicle driver tire motion the state of the tire.
comments.# shots on tire subjective assessments  the number of punctures to be made in each tire to obtain Its degraded state. solicited from drivers regarding handling of vehicle when tires are in normal or degraded mode. 245 .
Cleveland and McGill (1984a) and Car et al. to the parallel coordinate diagram than Hartigan exploits. Fienberg (1979). xn) Is plotted by plotting x. projectionbnsed techniques lead to important insights concerning data. (1988). Introduction. Parallel Coordinates. a profile diagram with all profiles plotted is a parallel coordinate plot. Figure 21 Illustrates two points (one solid. component has essentialy the same representation. Unfortunately. in three dimensions.. say n. This technique was pioneered by Friedman and Tukey (1973) and Is now available in commercial software packages (Donohoe's MacSpin and Velleman's Data Desk). The parallel coordinates proposal has its roots in a number of sources. one must be cautious in making inferences about high dimensional data structures based on projection methods alone. one dashed) plotted in parallel coordinate representation.) is represented In a planar diagram mo that each vector . the two points agree in the fourth coordinate. it is difficult to represent more than three orthogonal coordinate axes. x. In place of a scheme trying to preserve orthogonality of the udimensional coordinate axes. Cartesian scatter plots may only easily be done in two dimensions and.Parallel Coordinate Densities' Edward J. i the fact that while a data vector may be arbitrarily high dimensional. The cause of the failure of the standard Cartesian coordinate representation is the requirement for orthogonal coordinate axes. An Important technique based on the use of motion is the computerbased kinematic display yielding the illusion of three dimensional scatter diagrams. x3. We propose as a multivariate data analysis tool the following representation.. largely unsolved one. Wegman Center for Computational Statistics 242 ScienceTechnology Building George Mason University Fairfax. scatter diagrams do not generalie readily beyond three dimensions. The points plotted in this manner are joined by a broken line. x 2 . Alternative multidimnsional representations have been proposed by several authors Including Chernoff (1973). with computer graphics and more effort. VA 22030 1. . the kinematic display techniques have spawned the exploitation of such methods as projection pursuit (Friedman and Tukey. In a 3dimensional world. Each vector (xl. A vector (xi. For this reason." Although he does not recommend drawing all profiles. There is however far more mathematical structure. 2. clustering. Griffen (1958) considers a 2dimensional parallel coordinate type device as a method for graphically computing the Kendall tan correlation coefficient. on axis 1. of course. 1974) and the grand tour (Asimov. It allows the eye to detect such structures in data as linear or nonlinear features. Inselberg (1985) originated the parallel coordinate 'This research was sponsored by the Army Research Office. It would be highly desireable to have a simultaneous representation of all coordinates of a data vector especially if the representation treated all components in a similar manner. the problem of visually representing multivaiate data I a difficult. The principal advntage of this plotting device is clear. . Contract DAAL0387K0087 247 . In this Illustration. 1985). outliers and the like. draw them as parallel. We propose to give up the orthogonality requirement and replace the standard Cartesian axes with a set of n parallel axes. Nonetheless. Clearly. Coupled with easy data manipulation. x 2 on axis 2 and so on through xn on axis n. The classic scatter diagram is a fundamental tool in the construction of' a model for data. particularly high dimensional structure. Hartigan (1975) describes the "profiles algorithm" which he describes ar "histograms on each variable connected between variables by identifying easea. The principal difficulty. .
2 for an illustration of large positive and large negative correlations. For m=I. this formulation breaks down. that the solution to this computation is not a locus of points. however. These parallel lines intersect at the ideal point in direction b " . Depending on the details. 1). Inselberg (1985) generalizes this notion Into parallel coordinates resulting 248 . say (a. By suitable linear resallng of one of the variables. 1 In the case that (1m)" <0 or (1m)'>1. c+b). In the case of this computation. A ready statistical Interpretation can be given. by suitable nonlinear transformations. ma+b) and (c. For 0 < (1m)" < 1. For highly positively correlated data. However. a+b) and (c. the point conic in the original Cartesian coordinate plane Is an ellipse. Their special case of a I and 1 plot is a parallel coordinate plot in two dimensions. 0) to (ma+b. The dual lines to these points are the lines in parallel coordinate space with slope b " and Intercepts ab and cb " respectively. linepoint duality seen In the transformation from Cartesian to parallel coordinates extends to conic sections. We thus append the ideal points to the parallel coordinate plane to obtain a projective plane. For highly negatively correlated pairt. In this case the slope of the linear relationship between the rescaled variables Is one. Indeed. It should be noted. We superimpose a Cartesian coordinate axes t. In the statistical setting. The pointline. Indeed. an ellipse will always map into a hyperbola. Of course. In the special case m=1. For simplicity of computation we consider the xy Cartesian axes mapped into the xy parallel axes as described in Figure 3. Certain of these can be given highly useful statistical interpretations so that this representation becomes a highly useful data analysis tool. a parabola or another hyperbola. Consider a line Z in the Cartesian coordinate plane given by Z: y=mx+b and consider two points lying on that line. the lines may be made approximately parallel in direction with slope b" . the image in the parallel coordinate plane Is as we have just seen a line hyperbola with a point hyperbola as envelope. 0) to (mc+b. A fuller discussion of projective transformations of conics is given by Dimsdak (1984). in particular. it Is clear that the point pairs are (a. malb) In the xy Cartesian system maps into the line joining (a. maps mathematical objects into mathematical objects. For purposes of conserving space we do not provide the details here. the dual line segments In parallel coordinates will tend to cross near a single point between the two parallel coordinate axes. However. The envelope of this line conic Is a point conic. mc+b). but a locus of lines. mc+b) maps into the line joining (c. 3. the 1 and I plot is sometimes called a beforeandafter plot sud has a much older history. The parallel coordinate representation enjoys some elegant duality properties with the usual Cartesin orthogonal coordinate representation. we will tend to have lines not intersecting betweeu the parallel coordinate axes. a line conic. we have the following interpretation. The converse Is not true. The scale of one of the variables may be transformed in such a way that the intersection occurs midway between the two parallel coordinate axes in which case the slope of the linear relationship Is negative onie.representation as a device for computational geometry. (c. the intersection Is exactly midway. The point (a. m is negative and the Intersection occurs between the parallel coordinate axes. Notice that this point In the parallel coordinate plot depends only on m and b the parameters of the original line in the Cartesian plot. a hyperbola may map into an ellipse. Parallel Coordinate Geometry. Thus I is the dual of L and we have the interesting duality result that points in Cartesian coordinates map into lines In parallel coordinates while lines in Cartesian coordinates map into points In parallel coordinates. nonlinear relationships will not respond to simple linear rescaling. (1m)'). It should be possible to transform to linearity.1. m is positive and the intersection occurs external to the region between the two parallel axes. It is a straightforward computation to show that these two lines intersect at a point (in the tu plane) given by 1: (b(1m) "1 .u on the xy parallel axes so that the y parallel axis has the equation u=1. hence. Similarly. The fundamental theme of this paper is that the transformation from Cartesian coordinates to parallel coordinates is a highly structured mathematical transformation. 1) in the tu coordinate axes. Finally we note that Diaconis and Friedman (1083) discuss the socalled M and N plots. His 1985 paper is the culmination of a series of technical reports dating from 1981. it in true that a conic will always map into a conic and. An Instructive computation Involves computing in the parallel coordinate space the image of an ellipse which turns out to be a general hyperbolic form. Thus the duals of these lines in parallel coordinate space are parallel lines with slope b" . See Figures 3.
Figure 4.ation structure can be diagnosed from the parallel coordinate plot. a perfect negative linear relationsitip. Consider Figure 3. rankbeld htatistIcA to have an intimate relstionship to parallel coordinates. stack these diagrams and relresent rill n diauensions illustrates f6dimensinnal Gaussian uncorrelated data plotted in simultaneously.2. As the correlation approaches positive one. Further Statistical Interpretationa.2.uses theme properties In detail.ip with no cromings. As the corrolation approaches negative one. we would expect the 2dimensional scatter diagram to fill sebstantally a circumscribing circle. Figure 3. Similarly. C:iffen.iMonal formula is where X is the number of intersections resulting by connecting the twqo ranklngs of each member by linw. the hyperbolic envelope would deepen so that in the limit we would have a pencil of lines.dimensional data set.in what he calls hstars. the parallel coordinate plot would approximate a figure with a hyperbolic envelope. Thus the iilatively hardtodetect inflection point property of & function becomes the notably more easy to detect cusp in the parallel coordinate representation.1 trs parallel coordinates. that cluste'ing (n)1 =_I 2 3 is easily diagnosed using the parallel coor. Thus corre. As discussed above. Perhaps more interesting from a statistical 1oint of view is that pointis of hillection in Cartesian space become cusps in parallel coordinate space and vice versm. It is clear that if there is a perfect positive linar relationi'!. Rotations in Cartesian zoerdi'late beco. A 6dimensional ellipsoid would have a similar general shape but with iiyperbolas of different depths.e tradslations in paiallel coordinates and vice versa. We mentioned the duality between points and lines and conics and conics. In this illustration. then X = 0 and r = 1. Figure 4. the hyperbolic envelope would widen with fewer and fewer crossovers so that in the limit we would have parallel lines. in fact. the number of intersections is so that r21 r It should be further noted representation. the first axis is meant to have an approximately normal distribution shape while axis two the shape of the negative of a X2 .&nate So far we have focused primarily on pairwiae parallel coordinate relationships. sc to speak. This data is deep ocean acoustic noise and is illustrative of what might be expected. Tha coniput. what we like to call the crossover effect. Inselberg (1985) dim. it is clear that the numbe. hence convey graphically the onedinensional marginal distributions.2 is again appropriate j we have a pencil of lines. Since ellipses map into hyperbolas. the pairwise comparisons can be made. attributes the graphical device to Holmes (1928) which predates Keudall's discussion. Since every line neets every other line. of crossings is invariant to any monotone increaeing transformation of elter x or y. une would expect. As illustrated in Figure 3. 4. Bucauce of this scale invariance. With a completely uncorrelated data set. we can have an easy template for diagnosing uncorclated data pairs. if there . It is worthwhile to point ou6 two other nice dualities. Figure 249 . Griffen (1958) used this as v graphical devicu for computing the Kendall tasu. As nuted earlier. the ranks being one su"L transformation.2 is illustrative of some data structurom one might see in a five. The idea however is that we can. one ranking havinb been put in natural order While the original formulation was framed in terms of ranks for both x and y axes. First it should be noted that the plots along any given axis represent dot diagrams (a refinement of the histograms of Hartigan).
Conversely. Indeed.3 are these three presentations. Graphical Eziensions of Parallel Coordinate Plots. 5. these two characterizations describe respectively domestic automobiles and imported automobiles. gear ratio. Quite striking however is the negative slope going from low weight to moderate cubic Inch displacement. However. the relationship between gear ratio and miles per gallon is instructive.Ight and cubic Inch displacement. intuitively speaking. Consider also the appearance of a mode in parallel coordinates. In 1980.4 is a repeat of this graphic but with different shading highlighting a clas of vehicles with relatively good gas mileage. Hence. The basic parallel coordinate idea 250 .3. Indeed. This Is a graphic representation ot the fact that big cars tend to have big engines. a light car would tend to have a small engine providing small amounts of torque thus requiring a higher gear ratio. In this diagram we have a considerable amount of approximate parallelism (relatively few crossings) suggesting positive correlation. the location of the most intense concentration of probability. a fact most are prepared to believe. is that there seems to be really two distinct classes of automobiles each exhibiting a linear relationship. Consider as well the relationship between weight and cubic inch displacement. nonlinear and cludtering situations. threedimensional features (clustering) and a fivedimensional feature (the mode). relatively inexpensive. this is reasonable since a heavy car would tend to have a large engine providing cou3iderable torque thus requiring a lower Sear ratio.2. 6. They consist of price. In Figure 4. we should look for the most Intense flow through the diagram. The lefthand side shows an approximate hyperbolic boundary while the righthand side clearly illustrates the crossover effect. The relationship between miles per gallon and price Is also perhaps worthy of comment. the mode in parallel coordinates will be represented by the most intense bundle of broken line paths in the parallel coordinate diagram. Notice that there are a number of observations represented by line segments tilted slightly to the right of vertical (high positive slope) and a somewhat larger nlimber with a negative slope of about 1.1. For n = 5.2 illustrates a number of instances of linear (both negative and positve). This suggests that the relationship between gear ratios and miles per gallon is approximately linear. perhaps the most striking feature is the crossover effect evident In the rdlationship between gear ratio and weight. Since observations are represented by broken line segments. relatively light weight. Figures 5. This suggests for Inexpensive cars or poor mileage cars there is relatively little correlation. What is intriguing.2 thus illustrates some data analysis festures of the parallel coordinate representation including the ability to diagnose onedimensional features (marginal densities).2. in a sampling situation it will be the location of the niost intense concentration of observations. Figure 5. Figure 4. relatively heavy. In the next section of this paper we consider a real data set which will be illustrative of some additional capabilities. we are able to highlight this separation intu twn classes in a truly 5dimensional sense. a believable conjecture since low gears = big engines = poor mileage while high gears = small engines = good mileage. relatively inexpensive. Indeed in Figure 5.'. the third permutation. The mode is. relatively large engines and relatively low gear ratios. but with different linear relationships within each class. In Figure 5.1. 3 presentationo are needed to present all pairwine nermutations. This suggests a negative correlation. miles per gallon. twodimensional features (eorrelations and nonlinear structures). This is clearly an outlier which Is unusual in neither variable but in their joint relationshlp.3 describes a clas of vehicles with relatively poor gas mileage. The shaded region in Figure 5.2 and 5. costly cars almost always get relatively poor mileage while good gas mileage cars are almost always relatively inexpensive. We Illustrate parallel cooordinates as an exploratory analysis tool on data about 88 1980 model year automobiles.2. however. This diagram is suggestive of two classes. w. relatively small engines and relatively high gear ratios.4. The same observation is highlighted in Figure 5. such a flow begins near the center of coordinate axis one and finishes on the lefthand side of axis five. Within each of these two classes we have approximate parallelism. 4 and 4. An Auto Data Esample. 5. Roughly speaking. it is clear that there is a 3dimensional cluster along coordinates 3. Turning to Figure 5.
there Is no "correlation" and xj is unrelated to xm. For an ndimensional data set. with xj regarded as the lower of the two coordinate axes. say xk. While the basic parallel coordinate plot Isa useful device itself.2 Relative Slope Plots. An example of an parallel coordinate density plot is given in Figure 6. the minimum negative where q is the angle between slope as 1 and a slope of oo as 0. the relationship is nonlinear. To get around this. For each observation. As in our automobile example. each corresponding to a pair of axes. Obviously if we have k adimensional observations.nd Ezperience8. Each individual observation in the relative slope plot corresponds to a vertical section through the axis system. the colors being chosen to form a color gradient. Along this axis. it is possible for two or more sets of linear relationships to exist simultaneously. every horizontal slice mAy not have tht.suggests some additional platting devices. 6. W. one a PASCAL program operating on the IBM RT"under the AIX operating system. We used the phrase "correlation" advisedly since in fact if the color gradient isthe same but the color block sizes are different.2. An exanple of a color histogram is given In Figure 6. We call these respectively the Parale: Coordinate Dernity Plots. the slope of the line segment between the pair of axes isplotted as a magnitude between 1 and +1. The observations on the other axes are arranged in the order corresponding to the xk axis and color coded according to their magnitude. 6. Notice that since slopes are coded as heights. Our algorithm isbased on the Scott (1985) notion of average shifted histogram (ASH) but adapted to the parallel coordinate context. The idea is to code the magnitude of an observation along a given axis by a color bin. In an ordinary parallel coordinate plot. This gives us an exact count of k for ebch horizontal slice. As with an ordinary two dimensional histogram. Parallel coodinate desity plots have tWe advantage of being graphical representations of data setc which are cimultaneously high dimensional and very large. then we know xh is positively "correlated" with xm. An example of a relative slope plot is given in Figure 6.1. The work of Cleveland and McGill (1984b) suggests that comparison of slopes (angles) is a relatively inaccurate judgement task and that it is much easier to compare magnitudes on the same waie. we convert. 7. The relative slope plot ismotivated by this. Of course. we decide on appropriate rectangular bins. Relative Slope Plots and Color Histograms. 6. This code allows for up to four simultaneous windows and offers simultaicous 251 .3 (for pdrposw of reproduction here it Isreally a grayscale histogram). same count. it suffers from heavy overplotting with large data sets. there are n parallcl axes. line oegments to points by intersecting each line' begunent with a horizontal line passing through the middle of the bin. Of course if the xm axis ahows color speckle. the count for any givea horizontal slice Is at least k and may be bigger.iloit additional features or to convey certain information more easily. In order to get around this problem. say xd and xj. The diagram is drawn ny choosing an axis. However. we use a parallel coordinate density plot which is computed as follows. since the line segment could appear in two or more bins iua horizontal slice. These are extensions of the basic idea of parallel coordinates. if the same color gradient shows up say on the xm axis as on the x&. In an'ndimensional relative slope plot there are u1 parallel axes. The maximum positive slope ic coded as + 1. Implementigions . The magnitude Is calculated as tot q] the xj axis and the line segment correspoading to the observation. Our parallel coordinates data analysib software has been implemented in two forms. we know the *correlation" is negative. simply laying a straightedge will allow us to discover sets of linear relationshipe within the pair of variables xj and xj. The basic setup for the color histogram is similar to the relative slope plots.1 Parallel Coodinate Density Plots. We construct an ASH for each horizontal slice (typidally averaging 5 histograms to form our ASH). Moreover. have used contours to represent the twodimenslonal density although gray scale shading could be used in a display with sufficient bitplane memory. If the color gradient is reversed. We typically choose 8 to 15 colors. but structured to ex. We have already seen that parallel line segments In a parallel coordinate plot correspond to high positive correlatiou (linear relationship). A vertical section through the diagram corresponds to an observation. like the conventional scatter diagram. and sorting the observations in ascending order.3 Color Histogram. we see thefse as sets of parallel lines with distinct slopes. A potential difficulty arses because a line segment representing a point may appear in two or more bins in the same horizontal slice. we would like to form a histogram based on k entries. we see blocks of color arranged according to the color gradient with the width of the block being proportional to the number of observations falling into the color bin.
Relative Slope Plots and Color Histograms.. Because of the projective linepoint duality. Nicholson. Hall. We have gotten around this problem by plotting distinct olnts Indifferent colors. 361368. point through the entire diagram. S.  H0I I I III I I Il 252 .. Our experience on this Is mixed.. This is a natural way of doing a subset selection.). S. In data sets nf somewhat smaller scale. one might interpret all the Ink generated by the lines as a significant disadvantage of the parallel coordinate plot. . if many points are plotted in monochrome. (1986). and Friedman. L. 79.S54 Diaconis. Cleveland." JIAM J. Statist. SaLtist. "M and N plns. with the second also using VGA or Hercules monochrome standards. We have found painting to be an extraordinarily effective technique In pruallel coordinates. Moreover." in Siatiaical Image ... L. it is hard to distinguish between points. "The grand tour: a tool for viewiag multidlrnsional data. 807822. It. _ . Certainly for large data sets on hard copy this is a problem.. Carr. "Interactive color display methods for multivariate data. desoc. it has a mousedriven painting capability and can do realtime rotation of . In one experiment.. Chernoff. 128143. Inc.. (1973). It offers highlighting.. (Wegman. We have a painting scheme that not only paints all line. the structures seen in a auatterplot can also be seen in a parallel coordinate plot. Howover. this means 16 colors. M .. Both programs use EGA graphics standards. "The many faces of the scatterplot. ." in Recent Advances inS atsics. References Asimov. and application to the development of graphical methods. . (1984a). Am. 425447. and McGill. Assoe. We regard the parallel coordinate representation as a device complementary to scatterplots.. The speed of scintillation Isis proportionil to the number of points overplotted and by carefally tracing colors. Asioc. E. 4. New York: Marcel Dekker. This linkage is difficult to duplicate in the scatterplot mattix. Littlefield. We also use invisible paint to eliminate observation points frot the dp\ta het temporarily. zooming and other similar features and also allows the possibility of nonlinear resealing of each axis. "Graphical perception: theory. the work of Cleveland and McGill (1984b) suggests that it is aWier and more acwurate to compare observations on a common scale. 68.Processing and Graphics. (1983). . l ." J.. Am. It incorporates axes permutations and also Includes Parallel Coordinate Density Plots." J. J. The parallel coordinate plot and the derivatives of it de facto have a common scale and so for example a sense of variability and central tendency among the variables are easier to graSp visually in pallul coordinates when compared with the scatterplot matrix. Rt.. When viewed on an Interactive graphic screen particularly a high resolution screen. Rt. 79. That does not happen in a parallaP coordinate plot. D. when there Isoverplotting we comue tLe screen view to scintillate between the colors representing the overplotted poluts. P. Compul. Cleveland. New York: Academic Press." J. With this technique. W. within a given rectangular area. D. and DePriest. This is very effective in seprating clusters. W. one can follow an individual. Statist.. but also all line lying between to slope constraints. 31 . we have often found that individual points in a scattetplot can get lost because they are simply not bright enough.display of parallel coordinates and scatter diagram displays. This Is surprisingly effective in separating points. In an EGA implementation. Our second implementation is under development in PASCAL for MSDOS machines and includes similar features.. we have implement a scintillation technique.. etperimetitAtion. Am.. D. On the other hand. and McGill. we plotted 5000 5dimensional random vectors using 16 colors. and inspte of total overplotting. B.. Scient. Statist. we were still able to see some structure. H. "Using faces to represent pointo in kdinienslonIal space. W. A major advantage of the parallel coor lnate representation over the scatterplot matrix isthe linkage provided by connecting points on the axes. In addition.. Daniel (1985). eds.. Inc. .3dimensional scatterplots. (1984b).
881889. "Appendix B: a graphical method for estimating R for small group.. John A." The Vsael Computer. John Wiley and Sons. New York. J..". CA Bin 88 Productions. J. "Graphical methods in statistics. New York: Lon mans. 10241040. Inc. "PRIM9" a film produced by Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. April. Statisicin. W. D. "A projection pursuit algorithm for exploratory data analysis. Am. 33. (1985). Stanford. and Tukey. and Tukey. Clustering Algorihm. W." 4. (1973). Grifen. (1985). 0. J. StatisL. D.in several dimensions. 253 .185178.23. (1979). (1984). "Aveorage shifted histogram: effective nonparametric density estimators . 0991. Statist. Fienberg.Dimsdale. S. Friedman. Scott. W." Am. J. Hartigan. *The plane with parallel coordinates. CompuL. Holmes." IBM Los Angeles Scientific Center Report #63202753. "Conic transformations and projectivities. (1958). *Graphic computation of tau as a coefficient of disarray." IEEE Trans. (1928). A. D. (1974). Ann." 391394 in Educatioqal Psychology (Peter Saudiford.). 1973. H. 53. auth. 13. 441447. (1975). Friedman. Green and Co. Assoc. S. B. Inuelberg. 1.
00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 S.. 0~ 0~ 00 0 o0 0 0 0 it oS 0 I hi. S. Ii N 254 ..I I..
4C .0.5 .
Wolu t plot  g am slo 256 ainsO .
1. Fip" 4. Parallel cOOKRdiat plot of a circle.lb Parallel coordinate plot of 6 channel sonar data. The data Is uncorrelated Gaussian aos. 4. 257 . The second coordinate represents a relativioly remote hydrophone and his a somewhat different mean. Notice the approximate hyperbolic shap.Fipi.
N thm.fIpre4. disauloaa clusteria and a five dinwaviomaI mode. coordna Mluatal mar~na dwui*Ia cwmlaon.. 258 .2 A fl" dknuwhal @Wat diapam In pu&aUo.
adHweight 259 .ratio.
260 .2 The hecond Permuta~Iti at the five dimnensionul prewntAtlOn of the &utomjobile data. Notice the two alum of hume relations pear rtio. and miluesa 9&11on.Fisure 5.
Note the highllghtiag of the domestic automobile group. 261 .Figure 5.3 The third permutation of the five dimensional automobile data.
262 .21. nI Image m PrispceI Figure 5.4 The thi~rd purmutation showing highlighting of the Imported automobile group.
7% and 95%. Figure 6. This plot Is show in grey sca for purposes of reproduction. 263 .1 Parallel coordinate densty plot of 5000*unlfonn random variablesn. of 13 dimensional automobile data. 50 %. ?A~%. This plot has five contour levels 5%.Figure 8.3 Color histogrm.
' Prie I Displacen Gear Rati Figure 6. Data prusented In the same order as in Figure 7.' l il11"'".1" IIIIIIS~ II.2 Relative slope plot of five dimensional automobile data. I~I I Il"1Li ll ll111111It I" '.till Hhilimps in " " II II I II 1IIIIIIsIIIIL" II1111111 II'IIIlI IIIBlI.4 264 .
In this paper we review the principal methods available for analyzing both the transient and steadystate simulation problems in sequential and parallel computing environments. output analysis. Jglehart Department of Operations Research Staniord University Stanford. parallel computation. CA 94305 Abstract Discreteevent iimulation is one of the most important techniques available for studying complex stochastic systems.COMPUTATIONAL AND STATISTICAL ISSUES IN DISCRETEEVENT SIMULATION Peter W. variance reduction. reduction methods designed to make simulationa run more efficiently. Finally. and system optimization. Next we discuss Leveral of the variancz of the methods available to study system optimization using simulation. a short discussion is given Keywordi: stochastic simulation. 265 . Glynn and Donald L.
[Discrete time proeses can ilso be handled. Examples of a include the following: a . For the steadystate problem we assume the Y process is asymptotically stationary in the sense that T as t . where Y(. . Here to is a fixed time (> 0). The transient problem is to estimate a a E{X}.Ef(Y~t0)}. continuous time Markov chain. The goal being to develop sound probabilistic and statistical methods for estimating system performance. Examples of a in this case include the following: a:= EYh) (when Y is realvalued). a Here no denotes weak convergeace and I is a given real. Introduction. oo. Two principal problems arise: the transient simulation problem and the steadystate simulation problem. The sturting point for this method is to formulate the time vmyng behavior of the system as L basic stochas9tic process Y m {Y(t) : t ! 0).) may be vectorvalued. Computer simulation of complex stochastic systems is an important technique for evaluating system performance.] Next a computer program is written to generate sample reeizations of V. where It is a given realvalued function. f is a given reivalued function. J (Y(. valued function defined on the statespace of Y. Our discussion in this paper is centered on the analysis of this simulation output. and A is a given subset of the statespace of Y. j (YCa))d.))ds} and a P{Y does not enter A before to}. 266 .. In this case Y(t) =o Y as t 4 oc and a 3 E f(Y)}. The transieut problem is relevant for systems running for a limited (but possibly random) langth of time that canot be expected to reach a steadystate. Let T denote a stopping time and X m 4{1'(t) : 0 : t _5 T}.1. Simulation output is then obtained by running this program. Our goal here is to provide both point and interval estimetes for a. aE to. positive recurrent. TlCe easiest example to thUnk about her is an irreducible..
If E{7r} < 0 and E{I X.v Ie N(t) 8 t 1 0 I N~ ) . Assume we have a computational budget of t time units with which to simulate the proceu Y and estimate a m E{X}. where N(O. 2. .E{rl) Var{X})'/ 2 . Section 17. Let N(t) denote the number of copies of X generated In time t. and where c is a given cost function. 1) is a mean zero.s.) are the strong law of large numbers (SLLN) and the central limit theorem (CLT). where the X 's are copies of X and rj is the computer time required to generate Xj. as defined in Section 1. STRONG LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS. Again as in the transient cae.(Xr2) . identically distributed (lid) copies (X1 X1). In a sequential computing environment we would generate independent. 267 . W E N(t)>O im lN Mt o . variance one normal random variable. CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM. then t1/2EXN(1)  a] * (.. The CLT result can be found in BILLINGSLEY (1968). M The standard asymptotic results for X'N(.. If E{r} < oc and var{Xl} < oo. this is Just the renewal process associated with the iid ri's. we wish to construct both point and interval estimates for a. then Xvw +a a. as t + 00. A natural point estimator for . 1} < 0. Transient Problem. N(O9 1).c=P(Y EA}. The SLLN follows from the SLLN for ild aummandd and the SLLN for renewal processes.
(t)+1 P~ [ 1 (t) + 1] ii 268 .rp2) 2 . (X.(s). On the other hand.. )} a. Thus we for large ' would use g'N(g as our point estimate. On the p processors we generate ild copies of (X.s.(t)).t where n £.(p. a. For this estimator we let all processors complete the replication in process at time t. the CLT can be used in the standard manner to construct a confidence interval for 0.E{X} The most natural estimator to consider first is that obtained by averaging the realizations of X across each processor and then averaging these sample means.t) a p * oc..(p.(X 22. Here 1A is the indicator function of the set A. If E{'ru) <00o and E{I X 1) < 00. E ( N(t) j g J0 t . This leads to a.m. The next estimator for a was proposed by HEIDELBERGER (1987).721). A number of estimators have been proposed for estimating a . Here the constant E{.22) (XPIsri).. l(r5) ) and so aI(p. Suppose now that we are in a parallel computing environment with p independent * processors. E{XN(.rl }. N .. Unfortunately. . (XP .) is a strongly consistent point estimator for a. The estimator is p 02(At) 12 N.?2N.s. l{.. var {Xj) appearing in the CLT would have to be estimated.).(.From the SLLN we see that X'N(.. Z{X} # * E{X.oo.)) (XN.t) is not strongly consistent for a as p . Now we wish to estimate a for a fixed t as p .0o. r): (X21 .)} = E{X.(.'pN. E(t) M Here the processing ends on all processors at time T~ then for all t > 0 t. .
oi2(p. Thus the completion time for all p processors is given by While T. S(XVN(t).. as p o co (if P{ril > t) > 0)..e. Unfortunately. a CLT is also available from which a confidence interval can be constructed. note that if . However. 1) .* oo a. then as p . i. Using this fact. The last estimator we consider was proposed by HEIDELBERGER and GLYNN (1987). t). the standard CLT holds (under appropriate variance assumptions) and can be used to develop a confidence interval for a. t) Is a ratio estimator. we see that as(t) is strongly consistent for a = E(X}.j.. as p # oc. a The equality about Is simply Wald's equation. To * +oo a. Finally. Since the IN"(m)s are iid. r). Note that the definition of ±N(b')(t) requires the ith processor to complete the replication in process at time t. t) Is strongly consistent for a. since a2(p.. T. Since the summands in as(p. To see this.E{Xi}. rJ(. They also show that the following CLT holds: t12 a) E 269 1 2 {ri) N(O.t) = Pm ( where Nj(t) "'N(j() + X011t>. Here we set a(p. t) are lid.Here all processurs complete by time Tp = MX [rd + rd +.R (.. Heidelberger and Glynn show that the paits of random vaxiables (XI. goes to infinity at a much slower rate than is the case for a2(p.) ) .) Given N(t) 2t 1.)) are exchangeable.E{ X 1) < c and P{r > 0} > 0. if no obervltions have been completed by time t. they prove that E(.. + riN(t)+1l.oc (N(t)+ a2 (pIt 0 j= E{Nj(t) 4+I ) EX} ( ) a. . ri > t.
While classical statistical methods can often be used for the transient estimation problem.as t 4 0c. The steadystate estimation problem is considerably more difficult than the transient estimation problem. where we assume 0 < a2= var{X} <00 and 0 < Z{r1 }< o. we wish to construct point and interval estimators for a. Estimating a is generally the hardest problem. In addition to (1). since multiple replicate methods tend to be inefficient because of the initial bias problem... SteadyState Problem. For consistent estimation of 0. (1i) an initial bias (or transient) usually is present since the process being simulated is nonstationary. Assume our simulation output process is Y a {Y(t) : t 2_0} and for a given realvalued function f (t) 0 [Y(j)]d a. o. Thus . A variety of methods have been de Aloped to address the steadystate estimation problem.((t)as t . many methods also assume that a positive constant ty exists such that the following CLT holds: It. NO.tN(w) can also be used in a sequential environment to estimate a. . In Figure 1 we have given a breakdown of these methods.* ] . Here we only consider single replicate methods. This difficulty stems from the following considerations: (1) need to estimate longrun system behavior from a finite length simulation run. These methods are of two types: those that consistently estimate a and those in which a is cancelled out. these methods generally fail for the steadystate estimation problem for the reasons mentioned above. From (1) and (2) we can construct a point estimate and confidence interval for a provided we can estimate a. we need a process {s(t) : t 270 0} such that s(t) * a. (1) As stated above. 3. 1) (2) . Most of the methods are single replicate methods. and (ii) strong autocorrelations are usually present in the process being simulated.
MULTTIME REPENECATION SENIES SPETRAIAATOLNG METHODS METHODS ONIguE 1ACLLTO ESTIATIN M271D .
the regenerative method. Again it is convenient to think of Y as an * irreducible.In which cas (2) lehs to L 100(1 .. Note from (3) that a ha& been cancelled out in a manner reminiscent of the tstatiltic.oo.i 2_ 1. (ii) if E{I f(Y) 1 < o. Let T(0) = 0.dce interval for a given by 1/2 [((t) .6/2). On the intrinsic time scale our point estimate for a is given by 22f(Y())d. First we discuss one of the methods in which a is consistently estimated.ri).TI. oo. The ri's are the lengths of the regenerative cycles' Next defne the areas under the Y process in the kth regenerative cycle by A() (i) the pain {(Y(f). 1). where O(z(1 .. Here we assume that the simulation output process Y is a regenerative process. aZ] as t . Then using the continuous mapping theorem (cf. {Yj(f))1E(. The following basic facts provide the foundation for the regenetative method: 1) a) iid. On the other hand.* Y as t .6/2)) = 1 .6) %con h&. T2.z(1 . where Y(t) . 1)/Z (3) as t * o.Tj .6/2 and 4 is the standard normal distribution function. Z(t)] * (oN(0. then a(f)  The regenerative method can be developed on either the intrinsic time scala (t) or on the random time scale (n) corresponding to the number of regenerative cycles simulated.... see IGLEHART (1978) for a discussion of this method plus other background material. the canceling out methods require a nonvanishing process { Z(t): t _ 0) such that [tl/ 2(a(t)  a).(t)/t/ 2.. 272 .(t)/t ].rk) : k  L [Y(j)jd. positive recurrent.Ti.1. We are given a realvalued function f aid wish to estimate a(f) a E{f(Y)}. p. 30) we have tl/ 2 (a(t)  a)/Z(t) * N(0. be the regeneration times for Y and set ri . BILLINGSLEY (1968). namely. a(t) + (1 '61/2). continuous time Markov chain.
Efri I can be estimated. It can be shown that both a(t. 'Using the basic facts (i) and (ii) above. f ) and a.where t is the length of time the simulation is run.*(f)k and assume that var{Zk1 is a2 < cc. Then It can be shown that the following two CLT's hold as t * oo and n .at(f)] * (&/E'12 {?i})N(O. 273 (4) . 1). given by F It n Y(s)das and X. 1]. ). The mean E{riI ii .)in the sample mean of Y1 f.iily estimatod by %. Now we make the basic assumption that a finite..(t) * n 1 / 2 (P?(t) v js1 where 0 !5 t !5 1 and n : 1.Y(f) (r1 . From our~ output process Y we form the random elements of C[0.cc: t'/ 2 tQf) .. (f ) are strongly consistent for a(f) as t aznd n respectively tend to infinity. Here the Y process is simulated to the completion of n regeni~ative cycles. Next we turn to a discussion of the principal method available for canceling out a. and n112ran(f) . positive constant a exists such that Xn *o a'B as n # oo. Our discussion is based on the paper GLYNN and 1GLEHART (1989) and uses some results from weA convergence theory. %. This is the method of standardized time uerics developed by 5CHRUBEN (1983). see BILLINOSLEY (1968) for background on this theory. the space of realvalued continuous functions on the interval (0. 1).(f) (respectively. Next we defin~e 4k a Yh(f) .O(/) * (OP/Ef ri N(O.1].and a2 can be These two CLT's can then be used to construct confidence inlter'vals for a(j) provided both 2 ap and estimated from its definition in terms of Y 1(/) and ri. On the random time scale our point is given by an(f) M*"W % where ?.
This assumption holds for a wide class of output processes. o.< I is called a standardized time series. ?R(1) + z(6/2)g(?.). M of functions g: C[O. We conclude our discussion of the method of standardized time series by displaying this special g tunction. Thus each g e M gives rise to a confidence interval for a provided we can find the distribution of B(1)/g(B). 1] . 1]. One of the g functions leads to the batch means method.where B is standard Brownian motion.x((i . To this end we first define the Brownian bridge mapping r : C(O. To find the scaling process {Z(t) : t 2> 0} consider the clam.. where k(t) m t. 1] as xec .1)/m)2] 274 . E C[O.6)% confidence interval for (?R(1)  z(1 . where P{B(1)/g(B) 5 z(a)) . Unfolding this CLT we have the following 100(1 . C(0. 1] * R by ( "11/2 ) b 1(x(i/n) . 1] 1 R such that (i) g(*:) = ag(x) for all a > 0 and x (ii) g(B) > 0 with probability one. (iii) g(z + ik) .at 0 _.)].g(z) for all real / and The process C[O. Now think of partitioning our original output process Y into m > 2 intervals of equal length and define the mapping bm : C(O. where D(g) is the set of discontinuities of g. (iv) P{B E D(g)} = 0. this can be done for a number of Interesting g functions. Fortunately. perhaps the most popular method for steadystate simulation. Using weak convergence arguments it is easy to show from (4) that Sn(1) * B(1)/g(8) as n al: * (5) 0c. 1].a for 0 < a < 1.1]. sn(t) A ?n!t) .6/2)g(?.5t 5 1 ()(t)o(t)tx(1).
= b. confidence intervals of the same length from a shorter simulation run. and SCHRAGE (1987). the g function of interest is g..z 1iml  ((n)  Jul zs(n)) Z (n) J(i1). To see that gm corresponds to the batch means method we observe that heeg(?n) where . say. WILSON (1984).1 since B has independent normal increments. Frequently 275 . 4. This will. of course.1 degrees of freedom. confidence intervals for parameters being estimated are generally constructed from an associated CLT. Once a basic method is developed to produce point estimates and confidence intervals for a parameter of interest.I is a Student'st random variable with m . Good references for many of these techniques are BRATLEY. For other examples of functions g e M for which the distribution of B(1)/g(B) is known see GLYNN and IGLEHART (1989).for x E C(O. Here we have elected to outline three of these techniques.M Zj(n)  c]/gn(?n) * tin. Each CLT has an intrinsic variance constant. lead to confidence intervals of shorter length.mor. As we have seen in Sections 2 and 3. 1]. The idea for many variance reduction techniques (VRT's) is to modify the original estimate in such a way as to yield a new CLT with a variance constant 7 < o.m 1 /2 [.. Y(x)!(n/m) is the ith batch mean of the process {Y(t) : 0 : t < n).. FOX.. a'. Over the years a dozen or more techniques have been proposed to improve simulation efficiency.(B) is distributed as t. This follows from the fact that B(1)/g.nm Jd. Specializing (5) to the function gm we see that nt (. we turn our attention to making these methods more efficient. Variance Reduction Techniques. where t. or alterna tively. Finally. 1 as n # oc.
see HAMMERSLEY and HANDSCOMB (1964). SHAHABUDDIN et al. The example we consider here is the M/M/1 queue with arrival rate A. In general. We generate the process with a new probabilistic structure and estimate a modified parameter to produce an estimate of the original quantity of interest.f . where If I is largest. and a long simulation would be required to accurately estimate a. This idea was first developed in conjunction with the estimation of E{h(X)} a a. and the estimation problem becomes much easier. but happen to know that E{Y} = aE{X) + b where a and b are known. The idea used here in importance sampling is to generate a socalled conjugate process obtained by reversing the roles of A and p. ASMUSSEN (1988) reports efficiency increases on the order of a factor of 3 to a factor of 400 over straight regenerative simulation depending on the values of p and u. say. The first VRT we discuss is known as importance sampling. Then we estimate a by the sample mean of h(X)f(X)/g(X). and traffic intensity pm A/ < 1. Let V denote the stationary virtual waiting time and consider estimating the quantity a n P{V > u} for large u. Instead of sampling X from f. Sometimes it happens that a CLT associated with the estimation of E{Y} will have a smaller variance constant associated with it than does the CLT for estimating L'{X}. (1988). we sample X from a density g which has been selected to be large in the regions that are "most important". namely. For the conjugate process the traffic intensity is greater than one. Thus the chance of the process getting above a large u is small. Assume we are interested in estimating a n E{X}. importance sampling can yield very significant variance reductions. where h is a kmown realvalued function and X a random variable with density. In this case we would prefer to estimate E{Y} and we use the affie transformation above to yield an estimate for E{X }. Further work along these lines can be found in SIEGMUND (1976). This same basic idea can be carried forward to the estimation of parameters associated with stochastic processes. service rate p. and WALRAND (1987). the virtual waiting time process has a negative drift and an Impenetrable barrier at zero. When p is less than one.VRT's are based on some analytic knowledge or structural properties of the process being simulated. This idea has proved to be useful in queuing simulations where 276 LMI 0 . GLYNN and IGLEHART (1989). The second VRT we discuss is known as indirect estimation.
variance reductions arealized using this method are not dramatic. The third and final VRT we discuss here is known as discrete time conversion. ' and select setting that optimizes a(8j). Then X(t) o X as t + o and we may be interested in estimating a = E{f(X)}.the affine transformation is a result of Little's Law. Then stochastic approximation and ideas from nonlinear programming could be used to optimize a. We could naively simulate the systems at a sequence of parameter settings 01. A better way would be to estimate the gra ent of a and use this estimate to establish a search direction. Our concern here is to find that system. Gains in efficiency for this method can be substantial. being usually less than a factor of 2. In general this would not be very efficient. where f is a given realvalued function.. Also.. Consider a family of stochastic systems indexed by a parameter 9 (perhaps vectorvalued). It has been shown that this leads to a variance reduction when estimating a. The discrete time conversion method eliminates the randomness due to the holding times by replacing them by their expected values. Suppose a(9) is our performance criterion for system 0. IGLEHART. We will discuss both methods briefly 277 . T o general methods have been proposed to estimate gradients: the likelihood ratio method and the infinitesimal perturbation method. continuous time Markov chain (CTMC). positive recurrent. For further results along these lines. 5. and SCHASSBERGER (1976). see LAW (1975) and GLYNN and WHITT (1986). since k would have to be quite large. System Optimization Using Simulation. the regenerative method can be used to estimate a. which optimizes the value of a.. it is conceivable that other transformations might arise in different contexts. as an added side benefit computer time is saved since the exponential holding times no longer need to be generated. say 9o. and FOX and GLYNN (1986). For a complex system it is frequently impossible to evaluate ev analytically. Suppose that X = {X(t) : t 2_ 0) is an irreducible. As we have discussed above. A CTMC has two sources of randomness: the embedded discrete time jump chain and the exponential holding times in the successive states visited. While the affine transformation works in queuing theory. 92. Simulation may be the most attractive alternative. In general. Further discussion of this idea can be found in HORDIJK.
ZAZANIS. for a fixed value of 00.. A similar approach can be developed to estimate the gradient of a performance criterion for a steadystate simulation. VgO.. 278 . The expected cost of running syotem 9 is then given by O~)isA..(009..X)) I.Xn)) . Xo. we might be interested in estimating the mean stationary waiting time for a queueing system u well as its derivative with respect to the mean service time.... Then we can write .{'} were independent of 9.. : n > O} is a discrete time Markov chain (DTMC) and that the cost of running system 0 for r + 1 steps is g(9.f9(1o tX)(O. The second method which has been proposed for estimating gradients is called the infinitesimal perturbation analysis (IPA) method.x)(. 7g(0. If E.. In this method a derivative. The IPA method assumes that if the change in the input parameter.XoI ot($) = Es... . CAO.. to Va(O) = Ze. where Es is expectation rtI tive to the probability measure P(O) associated with system 9. where the interchange of V and Es must be justified.Suppose X = {X. nLO Xo. of a simulation sample path is computed. with respect to an input parameter..) it is possi ble to write a(6) as .. It has been shown that the IPA method yields strongly consistent estimates for the performance gradient in a variety of queueing contexts. X. For example.. 9.'... is small enough..). the interchange of expectation and differentiation must be justified in order to produce an estimate for the gradient Vc(0). oI. . X. Since we are taking a derivative of the sample path inside an expectation operator. then the times at which events occur get shifted slightly. but their order does not change. say. Xo. Xo.). we would simply simulate iid replicates of By introducing the likelihood function L(9. For an overview of this approach see GLYNN (1987). Xo... Xo.. see HEIDELBERGER. X. . .. and REIMAN and WEISS (1986). and SURI (1988) for details on the IPA method and a listing of queueing problems for which the technique works..
BRATLEY. A. 772788. W. and SCHASSBERGER. M. Rt. Methuen. and HANDSCOMB. New York. P. The Regenerative method for simulation analysis.. HEIDELBERGER. and SUB.. (1988). P. (1989). 12811302. Operations Research Letter. Bias properties of budget constrained Monte Carlo simulations. GLYNN. a. Heights. New York. D.. IBM Remerach Report RC 12733. Convergence of Probability Measure. New York. I: estimating a mean. GLYNN. 82103. B. Adv. and HEIDELBERGER. p.. (1987). Department of Operations Research. of Operation. (1987). To appear in Math. SpringerVerlag. Operations GLYNN. Prob. P. BILLINGSLEY. (1978). XR. A. (1989). Yorktown. P. Management Scd. To appear in Management Scd. IGLEHART. GLYNN. (1987). (1987). FOX. p. D.!. Stoch. Discrete evezut simulations and parallel processing: statistical properties. ZAZANIS. John Wiley and Sons.. CAO. R. Likelihood ratio gradient estimation: an overview. Simulation output analysis using standardized time series. and GLYNN. Stanford University. and SCHRAGE. Research 3Z. Discretetime conversion for simulating semaiMarkov processes. D. P. FOX. and WHITTI. A Guide to Simulation. P. London. and IGLEHART. D. and IGLEHART. Proceedings of the 1987 Winter Simulation Conference. Conviergence properties of izfaitesimal perturbation analysis estimates. Conjugate processes and the simulation of ruinproblems. Appi. Proc. 368375. Appl. D. B. (1985).REFERENCES ASMtISSEN. IGLEHART. L. 3A. (1976). 213229.. J. HEIDELBERGER. P. Discretetime methods for simulating continuous time Markov chains. GLYNN. (1989). P. (1986). Indirect estimation via L = AW. (1964). In Curreni 27q . S. Monte Carlo Methods.191196. I{AMMERSLEY. IIORDIJK. Technical Report. ?&. p. Importance sampling for stochastic simulation. Re. 2nd Ed. (1988).
SHAHABUDDIN. 673684. Englewood Cliff. P. P. Iazeolla. NJ. (1986). Amer. Math. P. WILSON. J. Variance reduction techniques for digital simulation. Importance sampling in the Monte Carlo study of sequential tests. J. (1987). WALRAND. PrenticeHall. Proceedings of the 1088 Winter Simulation Conference. Yeh. GOYAL. (1984). editors). 4. 3041. and GLYNN. 5271. Statist. J. T. North Holland Publishing Co. and 0. M..). Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Applied Mathematics and Performance/Reliabillty Models of Computer/Communication Systems. HEIDELBERGER. REIMAN. 285289. P. in Programmisng Methodology  Software Modeling. 275286. Ings of the 1986 Winter Simulation Conference. LAW. Efcient estimators for simulated queueing systems. 22... 280 . J. A. 491499. V. Proceed. SIEGMUND. Variance reduction in mean time to failure simulations. Boxina (eds.Trends. G. Sensitivity analysis via likelihood ratios. and WEISS. 4. A. Amsterdam. 277312. A. Management Scl. Management Sci.. (1988). Quick simulation of rare event in queueing networks.. D. NICOLA. (1976). Chandy and R. J. Courtois.. Ann. (K. (1975). M.
17. This approximation does not involve 3 numerical integratibn and is of order 0 (n' /2 )$ apparently it is adequate even for samples as small as ten. 1973). (1987). JASA.Bayesian Inference for Weibull Quantiles Mark G. 68. DiCiccio. Examples from strength data for composite materials are presented and a specific application of importance to aircraft design is discussed. Even a nonbayesian may find the posterior cdf'a useful since they provide an easy graphical means for obtaining accurate tolerance limits. Technometrio. J. (1973). 33. and Pierce. 29. 3. Technamterics. 2. Lawless.A. T. 281 . References 1. (IS75). The focus of this paper is on the use of DiCiocoo's result for the routine calculation of Weibull quantile posteriors.J." Weibull quantile for a noninformative prior may be obtained exactly (Nogdanoff and Pierce. 659.A.F. Vangel U. 255. D. 1975). Dogdanoff. Army Naterials Technology Laboratory Watertown MA 021720001 The posterior distribution of a two parameta. Credible intervals for this posterior have an alternative frequentist interpretation in terms of conditional tolerance limits (Lawless. although the necessary numerical integration detracts from the usefulness of this result. An approximation to the Lawless procedure was proposed by DiCiccio (1987).S. D.
tribution of the pivotals (e. Also.1 lain. 1976). One reason is because the Weibull distribution in the limiting distribution of the suitably normalized minimum of a sample of positive ild random variables under quite general conditions (Barlow and Proschan. and consequently the minimal sufficient statistics are the entire sample. The model is therefore appropriate for the strength of a system composed of a string of many links where the strength of the links are lid and the system fails when the weakest link fails (Bury. of the Welbull parameters. ing configuration. Another reason why the Weibull model is used is that the distribution is very flexible and consequently it often fits data well. ch. Bain and Antle 1969. At least three approaches to Weibull inference have been taken. tions are empirical and consequently they are not very satisfactory from 282 . Antle and A second appraoch is to approximate the disThese approxima. although MLE's are easily obtained iteratively. 1970). theoretical point of view.The Weibull model is widely used to represent failure data in engineoring applications. for the extreme value distribution. An example of a physical system which can be modeled in this way is the strength of a brittle fiber in tension. 1972) are inadequate. which is the distribution of the logarithm of a Weibull random variable) is complicated by the fact that the Weibull is not in the exponential family.g. equivalently. 6). Inference for the Weibull distribution (or. The The same is true of linear estimators first is to tabulate approximate quantiles of the pivotals obtained by Monte From these tables one can obtain confidence intervals on parameters A problem arises for incomas well as confidence intervals on quantiles (tolerance limits) for complete samples (Thoman. Carlo. the distributions of the MLE's and pivotals based on the MLE's can not be obtained in closed form. oh. since tables must be prepared by simulation for each censorThe tables which have been prepared (Billman. Lawless and Mann. plete samples. 1975. 16). 1975.
samples for which only the r smallest order statistics are observed) and requires no tables. Bayesian and frequentist terminology may thus be interchanged freely and I will do so in this paper. In addition. ariant estimators of the parameters (e. If one choses an appropriate noninformative prior distribution for the parameters of a locationscale family.g. A posterior cdf of a Such a edf can by quantile. From these pivotals one can get exact conditional confidence The method in applicable bound.Finally we reach the third approach.e. to both complete and Type II censored samples (i. and tolerance limits for any sample size. MLZ's) tfe distribution of certain pivotals can by obtaloned exactly if one conditions on the ancillary statistios. however. 1973).. is immediately understood intuitively. This is particularly valuable when discussing tolerance limits. which have a frequentist interpretation which is difficult for nonstatisticians to understand. procedure appears in (Lawless. 1982). This conditional approach is apparently An exposition of the due to Lawless. who introduced it in (Lawless 1972). For any locationscale family (e. The main disadvantage of this conditional approach is that it is computationally intensive. then the posterior distribution either of the parameters or of a quantile conditional on the ancillaries are formally identical to frequentist confidence and onesided tolerance limits respectively. which is the focus of this paper. which is also useful as a guide to the literature. used to obtain graphically arbitrary one sided and approximate two sided conditional tolerance limits since for the cases discussed herein these intervals coincidi with noninformative prior Bayesian credible intervals. though for the Weibull model this does not appear to be a practical concern (Lawless. Many numerical integrations must be performed for 283 . Since the intervals have exact conditional confidence. this method has the advantage of making use of all of the information with respect to the parameters which is in the data (the parameter estimates are in general not sufficient statistics). it follows that they are also exact unconditionally.g. the extreme value family) and any equiv.
The results of a small simulation to assess the accuracy of the approximation are presented. for performing these calculations is given in 284 .each dataset as one iteratively approximates the confidence limit.I *e( X /P)* Maximum likelihood where p is a scale parameter and a a shape parameter. A) . and (1* x') " The following equation is solved by Newton 1/a . n a r is the sample ~w  i +(n r) wr A F RTRAN subroutine 'WEIMLE' the appendix. though little effort war spent on the simulation since the order of convergence in probability has been determined. This approximation makes the the calculation of posterior distributions feasible. estimation is straightforward.. Raphson for *: (W* xi* log x.1/r Z log xi .) where x : x2 : 1 size. A FORTRAN program to calculate and plot the posterior distribution of Weibull quantiles which makes use of the DiCiccio result is discussed. One goal of this project has been to implement the Lawless procedure for the extreme value distribution in a 'robust' FORTRAN program which can be used with little user interaction. The cdf of the Weibull distribution is F(x. S x r are the order statistics. 1987) which 1 is accurate to OP(n'3 2 ). a.. Another goal has been to investigate a recent approximation to the conditional procedure (DiCiccio.
y1 ) for any e and any d > 0. . .. The parameter estimates u and b may be taken to be NLE's.u) where b .exp (exp ((y.lo(X) Is M(y. .G((yu'/b) . The maximum likelihood estimates are readily seen to be equivariant. . dy..d G(Y1 ... .c) ..that is any statistics 5 and which satisfy l(dy. b) is called the extreme value distribution. distribution..+c) . u.2 Xht &Ntreae YJU Dit bt SIt X be distributed Veibull vith shape a and scale p. U. 285 . The distribution of Y .) + C G(dyl+c. The locationscale family Results for the /b)) H(y. b) is taken to be the extreme value distribution as in the previous section. A A u.log are scale and location parameters respectively.. The presentation below follows Lawless (1982). dyt4.1/a and u . extreme value distribution are easily interpreted in terms of the Weibull J.jA]& Zaie The distribution H(y. b) . "Qnditiona2 Inference f&I Ioat n.d G(y.. ' y.+c. and vice versa. .. but the results hold for any equivariant estimators .
that s... A . Only r2 of these ancillary statistics are independent since 286 . A A .U)/b U Z b /b Z3( u b Consider Lost yji S r be the order statistics of a random sample from H(y).(x1 u)/b are immediately seen to be ancillary mince 1 the (a.u)fb.u((y. Denote the density of G(*) by O1((yu) /b) . Hence Z3in pivotal.((Uu)/b) (b/b)  32 The quantities a .. to allow for Type II censoring.10wr) .Let the sample size be n and. where G(') is a completely known distribution.) u)  (uu)/b . .. .u)/b) 1/b (u(y. let r I n be the number of data values.1/b &((yu) /b) First we demonstrate that the following random variables are pivotal. Since the estimator u is assumed to be equivariant we have that UNIO. y. the random variables V. is a pivot since A b~wj' b( (y.. (y...)..(y u) /b 1 The wLare the order statistics of a random sample from OC') and hence are obviously pivotal.) are a random sample from G(. Similarly. (y. .u)/b) Finally. they have probability distributions uhich do not depend on the parametersA A0A ZI. ..(uu)/b . Z.Z3 . A A Z..u)/b.
y) A u A PE0 and b(al .ZI b + u. A Y P. The pdf of (Z P I &2) given a is of the same form as h above except that the normalizing con Begin with the Joint pdf of.. . 287 .A u(aI. . A second change of variables u . a.. za. + Z122)) [ O(a z a + zAI)] 1 ' where k(l..b a.. an) bXyl. n) is a function of a1 .M2. The Jacobian of this transformation is a constant given a.{yl. . A A too$ yr)/° EP 1.. yr) and make the change of variables A . only. . a1 .. r. n) a ' IT ( LEI (a. a2 .. stant is different. is of the form .2 ) h(z.bZ Z + u 1 2 A AA b ..0 Ad). r. + u. Za . A The fundamental result upon vhich conditional inference from a frequen tLst perspective is based is that the Joint pdf of (Z). The proof is straightforward.Z b gives the desired result..k(!... ) ... a1 .
this time letting y . To got the density of Z. the Weibull) distribution. and Z is . we This result determine the distribution for the scale parameter pivotal Z2 . merely integrate out Z. make the change of variables zP where  ZI vP/Z. and Za z a wP M In (In (Ip)). giving h(%a ji) k(s) exp (1az.Z The cdf of Z * z exp (I (aLz2 + zPz 2 + wP) exp (a zZ + z2zz + wP)). from the joint pdf given in the previous section. is of interest in it's own right since it leads to confidence intervals on the extreme value scale (or Weibull shape) parameter. S t)  Jdz. 288 .. The joint density of Z. it is not difficult to obtain exact confidence intervals on quantiles of the extreme value (or equivalently. and Z2 as can be expressed in terms of the density of Z a t P(Z. z2 1 A) I exp (.) s a 'r /[Z* exp (az )1'.Con2fidene IntirA"a.axp (zPz a + w) X* exp (aLz 2 ) and z z . 2 Next. I dz P f(zp Z2 ). f=x k~tmma V1alue Quauxizie Using the pivotal density derived in the previous section. Toward this and. Change variables again.
advantages of Bayesian motivation for a particular application will be discussed in a later section. r) Since the pth quantums of an extreme value random variable is the pivotal Z. can be expressed as A A *XP) P (u /b. h(z2 0 utiere ) I(exp (tzh + vp) Kexp (aIz:). the confidence bound on xP is trivially obtained by pivoting. Next.I dz. and th. confidence intervals on a quantile. layesian results are much easier to explain to nonstatisticians. i. One first obtains the constant of integration kc(&) numerically. the P(Z P S t) is evaluated numerically for several choices of t until the quantile of the distribution of ZPis determined to the desired accuracy. Finally. The probability distribution of Zcan therefore be used to obtain exact conditional confidence intervals on extreme value quantiles. 2E9 . Bogdanoff and Pierce (1973) arrived at results identical fo those outlined above from a Bayesian point of view. This is particularly true for the problem that I'm prinarily interested in.& aysa Integettc Independently of Lawless.The double integral can now be written as a single integral by recognizing that the integral over y is the incomplete gam U function: P(ZV S t) .
u + log(log (1p)) b Some useful choices for t are (location parameter) (pth quantile) 290 . Assume that V(u.u *(u. the corresponding posterior distribution is seen to be w(u. then the following results may still be applied to each monotonic section of the function. b) . The location parameter is readily integrated out giving w(b iy) * (1/b) ' exp (I y1 /b) /[Z* exp (Yi /b)] The normalizing constant is determined by numerical integration. b) a 1/b. ') is monotonically increasing in u for fixed b. Let *(u.Let (yj) be the order statistics of a Type 11 censored sample of size r S n from an extreme value distribution. *(u.b IZ) * b I+) exp (I (YL  u)/b) ' ((xp p ((y u)/b)). b) be any scalar function of the parameters about which inference is to be made. Usin& the expression for the extreme value pdf given in a previous section. b) . Inference based on this result will be shown in the next section to be formally equivalent to Weibull inference using the pivotal for the shape parameter. The usual Joint noninformative prior for the location parameter (u) and scale parameter (b) of a locationscale family is: w(u) a constant w(log(b)) a constant w(u. If a function can be found which satisfies this condition piecewise.
r)) x(b lY) db where 1(9.b) I s Iy) " 1lI. we have finally that P (*(u.*(u.exp (.u .X Z*exp (y.y) w(b Iy) db It is easy to show that the conditional distribution of X .(oxp 0 (n(sb)/b) I'exp (y.yb Define the inverse function u(s.r) ./b)).(l/r(r)) I x r ' 0 exp (x) dx.P(h I exp(n(s. b) . 291 . Simple algebra also shows that P (u s n(s. b) . y) . b) by means of the relation O[n(s. y) Combining these results. b) 5'I!) r 0 P(u s n(s. y is Buler's constant) V(u.exp(exp((tu)/b))) (reliability at time t) (mean./b). The posterior cdf of e can be expressed as S P (O(u. b)/b) 1b. b) Ib. b) Ib. b] . r) denotes the incomplete gamma function 9 I(e.a. b).exp (u/b) given b is the following gamma distribution: w(h 1b. y) (l/rr)) [Z*exp (yL/b)) XI'.
Foral Egui&1lenca gL a~usmn And EragenLtia Results First we demonstrate that posterior intervals for the scale parameter (b) have an exact frequency interpretation./b).I(exp (V. (sb) and  . The fact that for inference about quantiles and about the shape (or.  vpb P(xr S a) • 1 (1 .For a confidence bound on the pth quantile x. .u/b Z exp (y. Let b1 be 6uch that the postSince erior probability that b is greater than b1 is y. 2. A A P(b ? bl) . scale) paraeter the Bayesian approach is equivalent to the Lawless conditional approach will be demonstrated next.P(b/b s b/bl) we make the change of variable A z  b/b and substitute for the Yt in terms of the a i to get a a Y Jw(b ly) b1 db I exp (ly. r) w(b I) 0 db. in terms of the extreme value distribution./b) b' b /1(!exp (y 1 /b)j' db * I exp (Zaz)/[Iexp (az)]r z" ' 2 dz 0 292 .
A A The change of variable Z  b/b gives the desired result. t .(U  s)/b and note that Sxp (WI A  s/b (Z'exp A (YL/b))) A A exp (wP + tb/b . J1. p. 293 . MAi Lg GearojuLged Gama Diia.1 corresponds to the Voibull distribution. 1577) and (Lawless..Ib I r exp (Zaiz)/[Z*oxp (aLz)I z 2 ze' d b/bl  J h(z Ia) d. a.(&/r(k)) (xak'I/pak) exp ((x/p)). 1980). k) . Note that the case k . we make the sub. To ae stitution the equivalence of the results for a quantile. Details on inference for this family may be found in (Farewell and Prentice.u/b (!*exp (aLb/b + u/b))) *Xp (wp + b/b (Z*oxp A (a b/b))).bion The probability distribution of a goneralized gamma random variable T is FT(x.
@W where . k) k.log (T) can be written in the form p . a) denotes the log of the log generalized gamma likelihood. and 3 denote maximum likelihood estimates of p and a subject to the constraint Y O" + Wpa. 4.1). ) Y is said to have a log generalized gamma distribution. and if L(p. the KLE of the pth quantile is required to equal y. 0 ) is acceptable for moderate to large samples but that the approximation may be inadequate for small samples.'1/2 /r(k) exp (k '2 v .2) suggests that inference based on V(y. al. 1980). one obtains a family of locationscale deitributions ranging from the normal (k . ) A L(. then the asymptotic distribution of the sta tistic A V(yPO)  2[L(p. Law:lsss (1984. A A that is. o ..exp (v/kl/ 2 )).If T has a generalized gaa distribution. a)] is x with one degree of freedom. it is straightforward to adapt both the frequentist and the Bayesian approaches to arbitrary fixed k and even to certain regression situations (Jones et.1/(ok" 1 and V has the probability density 1 fwv.' If p and a denote the unconstrained MlX's.a) to the extreme value (k . Although we will restrict attention to the case k . 294 .log(p) + log(k)/a. then Y . A&rxiLa !nferZnce fr Xl Lqg Geneale Gaina Qistribuon Let . i.1. sec. By varying k.
12. I will not reproduce the details of the DiCiccio approximation here for The most important of these is that only the results are presented in (DiCiccio 1987) and to repeat these results without having studied their derivation would serve no purpose. tion as subroutine LAWAPX in the appendix. Halving the shape parameter (from 10 to 5) approximatly doubles the mean percentage error uniformly over sample sizes. p. were used to calculate 95 percent lower confidence limits on the tenth percentiles of the Weibull populations and the mean and standard deviation of the percent different between the Lawless result and the DiCiccio approximation were calculated for 100 replicates for each case. ested readers should refer to (DiCiccio 1987) and to the FORTRAN implementatwo reasons. the approximation error actually appears to be a function of the number of uncensored values rather 295 . The quality of the approximation is also seen to be a function of the shape parameter of the population. 37). MAn Accurac 21 ZbA ~A22omaio '3 The DiCiccio approximation can be shown to be accurate to 0p(n / ) (DiCiccio. the formulas are messy. so the approximation is actually of questionable use over the range of sample sizes for which it is Inaccurate. Both the Lawless and the DiCiccio methods Sampltr of sizes ranging from 10 to 30 were taken from Weibull populations with different shape parameters. A second reason is that Interalthough the approximation is inexpensive to compute.DiCieclo (1987) has applied general techniques of BarndorfNielson (1986) in order to develop a computationally inexpensive modification to the signed square root of V(y. so an extensive simulation study of accuracy is unnecessary. The results of a very small such study are presented in Table 1. and to reproduce them here is to invite typographical errors. The numerical integration required by the exact methods is only troublesome for moderate to large samples.0 ) which yields a likelihood ratio based approximation suitable even for quite small sample sizes. 1987. One would expect that the approximation error should be a rapidly decreasing function of n. Also. and this is observed to be the case.
The simple state ment that the tenth (first) percentile is greater than the Bbasis (Abasis) 286 . 11. which a material is 90 percent or 99 reliable. The work presented here has been motivated by a need for improved methodology for calculating basis values and for communicating lower tail quantile information to the engineer. The long run proportion of times a statistic calculated from successive samples of size n from a hypothetical population is greater than a certain quantile of that population is of little help to the statistically naive. advanced materials are generally expensive to manufacture and test. Typically. which have been used in the industry for decades. tism is particularly necessary for advanced composite materials. A 'Bbasis value' is defined to be a lower 95 percent confidence limit on the tenth percentile of the strength distribution of a material and an 'Abasis value' is a 95 percent lower confidence limit on The reason for these tolerance limits. and remarkably good for samples of 30 or more observed values. which typically have relatively high strength variability. resulting in small sample sizes. An Aolcaajn: Compoite Material Bais Val A criterion used both by aireraft designers when choosing a material for a specific application and by the Federal Aviation Adminiatration when certifying a new material for a structural aircraft application is the material basis value. In order to design a reliable structure. Overall. Also. This conclusion is based partly on the small simulation presented here and partly on experimenting with various cases of real and simulated data. the first percentile. the engineer who routinely calculates ard interprets these numbers has little appreciation for the rather convoluted frequency arguments behind tolerance limits. the DiCicolo result appears to be satisfactory for samples of 10 or more uncensored values. which is not surpriaing.than the uverall sample size. is that a designer is primarily interested in the lower tail of the strength distribution. he would like to estimate the stress level at A tolerance limit is an Such conserva attempt to estimate these quantiles in a conservative way.
etc. Ex amining the posterior rather than a summary statistic of the posterior leads to insight into the data that might not otherwise be Apparent. Figure 3 amd Figure 4 present corresponding results for another material: woven Kevlar fibers in an epoxy matrix. These For the case of inference on quantiles both procedures are equivalent. they also have virtually identical quantile posteriors.value with 95 percent probability is much more direct and intuitive. which is what should be the ultimate concern of the engineer anyway. Table 2 presents Bbasis value calculations for a graphite fiber/epoxy material made by four fabricators. emphasizing inference on Weibull quantiles. Several questions immediately come to mind: Why did the other two manufacturers produce substantially weaker material?. overlapping' posteriors of This paper reviews two results related to conditional inference in locationscale families. Figure 2 demonstrates that the Bbasis value can be retrieved graphically. and the Lawless calculations. centile posteriors. Table 3. the Bayesian approach presents all of the information in the data about the lower tail quantile of interest. Are other lower tail quantile posteriors for the two 'similar' fabricators as close together?. though the 297 . These data show much less fabricatoxtofabricator variability than do the graphite/epoxy data. The fact that the tolerance limit is only a convenient summary statistic of this distribution becomes clear when the user is presented with the entire posterior and shown how to determine arbitrary tolerance limits graphically. The fact that there is essentially no evidence in the data to suggest that the fabricators differ with respect to the tenth perceitiles of their strength distributions is made particularly clear by the this quantile. This can readily be seen from the tolerance limit calculations. Also. Note the agreement between the DiCiccio Figure 1 consists of the four tenth per Not only do two of the fabricators have nearly the same Bbasis value. methods are due to Lawless (1972) and Bogdanoff and Pierce (1973).
Staetlaccal Theory of RellabLlitcy and LIfe To#tInS. Billmann B. "Inference on full or partial parameters. "Tolerance bounds for log gamma regression models".27. Pierce (1973). 14. Stariutical Models In Applied Science. TechnometrIcs . has been demonstrated by means of an example from an eering application. "Approximate inference for the generalized gamma distribution ".. C. T. Barlow. A. 307322.. "A study of distributional shape in life testing". ELometrLka. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. R. Rafo~encls BarndorffNielsen 0. Proschan (1975). 659664. 6975.. Assoc. The advantages of the Bayesian Interpretation. 73. "BayesFiducial inference for the Weibull distribution". D. E. rchnowotrics. M. while the letter is derived from a Bayesian point of view. and D. (1987). and F. (1977). 68. R. J. Jones. (1986). Cssiander and C.former is motivated by frequency considerations. T. F. (1975). Antle and L. Scholtz. 109118. Technomecrics. Farewell V. 'Statistical inference from censored WeLbull samples". Bury. Scat. J. at least for inference on quantiles. based on standardized signej log likelihood ratio". 3340. E. 298 . New York: John Wiley and Sons. TechnomeotrLe. DiCiccio. accuracy. L. Bain (1972). enginThe recent work of biCiccio (1987) greately reduces the computational burden of both methods with little loss of U1. K. 19. Am. 831840. J. Shorack (1985). 29. Bogdanoff. and Prentice R.
Lawless, J. F. (1972). "Confidence Interval Estimation for the parameters of the Weibull distribution", UCllltas Hatheomtlcae, 2, 7187. Lawless, J. F. (1973). "Conditional inference for the parameters of the Veibull distribution", J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 69, 665668. Lawless, J. F. (1980). "Inference in the generalized gamma and log Samma distributions", TechnometrLcs, 22, 409419. LAvless, J. F. (1982). StatLt.lol Models and Methods for Llfetime Data, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lavless, J. F. and N. R. Mann (1976). "Tests for homogeneity for extreme value scale parameters", Comun. Stat., A5, 389405. Thoman, D. R., L. J. Bain and C. E. Antle (1969). "Inference on the parameters of the Weibull dsitribution", TechnometrIcs, 11, 805816, Thoman, D. R., L. J. Bain and C. E. Antis (1970), "Reliability and tolerance limits in the Weibull distribution", Technometric, 12, 363371.
299
ZILLI
Accuracy of the DiCioclo agaroximation
A simulation of 951 lover confidence bound# on the 10th percentile using the Weibull distribution vih 100 replicates per case vas performed. results are sum arlsed beZow: The
n 10 20
10 20 30
r 10 20
10 20 20
Shape 10 10
5 5 5
Scale 1 1
1 1 1
AtStan, 1.09 .380.
2.20 .761 .752
error of moan .029 .0086
.059 .017 .016
300
Carbon fiber / 1oxy sBecimen tensile strength data
95 LCB oan 10th argelnti1.
Fabricator
n
Estimates (KSI) Lawless DiCiccio 244.3 271,6 228.5 269.8
A B C D
48 36 33 25
244,1 271.4 228.2 269.5
Kavlar fabric / spoxy specimen tgnaile strength data
ILL LCB an 10th gercentild
Fabricator
n
Estimates Lawless
(KSI) DiCiccio
A B C D
23 18 30 10
77.8 76.36 77.18 78.45
77.64 76.50 77.23 78.64
301
Fisure1
Iwo_
_
_
____Ono
00
Now
tw
Is
4
302
Fisure 2
wu)w
0303
Fiture 3
~4
030
Figure 4
pow
%%O
CA
4w
0
305
The programs are provides as a guide to an individual wishing to implement the algorithins discussed in this paper. 306 . However.Appendix: FORTRAN Listings The following programs were developed on in Alliant TX/B and should run with little modification on any 32 bit machine. the software has not been tested to the point where it can be considered error free.
) 'ootPut unit number Peso (5. k read (iout*1.. an HPD reaiom for 9 c here is extreme value. Note that conditioninq on the incittaries gives the a noninformalivo c c implicit doubl orecision (aho 01) peraetler (ilan * 500) character*2 ftenme (limsa) dimersion c common Idat/ common /ca/ common /ebi common lctd data one I1. e. k t ocem (unituiOUt. ?I 1. n. be is tostou 00t ramn. s. wu. *) aummy. OaI. ?' drc scalp ?' act read read (5. *~*tulnr. end c c it This c fileutlenm. 6) then write (6.o7.ne. &0 tol suaa. c c c 10 else write (6. '(dc)') flenee Ocer (ur tilout$* 4 tmlien .1 gprocrai. C c finer los t. a) M. K) iis 6) 'seed e) shp. ) lout it (out . botch indicator not use for this nresra. 1) then write (6. w (1) continue ca I gL vrgm (k.eq. do 10 is1. ) ICat if (1Oat .Proofaer tawpgm C Mark VangeL. has 10. Data may he Type 11 censore 4 . * ) c Tro first recora of ima inout lilf. The family chosen equivalent of prior.05/ Citout unit nfumoer amo ftlenffe writ@ (6. *) 'Enter I for date frre ite write (6o a) I fo ranoeo oats. 0) m (6o 5) 'wumber uncensorco (5. K $ &t qe sit It car. a Ifi(e. . *) 'Filenamo ?I rea9 (5. f jotA.Notet the first fieLd on eoO roemain~o reccr.e and t0e M gir of uncemsortc VAL. C) k ?' Al 307 . .d/ C date coarse. * ) (6 to) (So isVed 1wei but k ViflC wr ite write read wr it . wsol *or riata i ro. *) O~i eriavar ?I real (S. ?.'Ca12)') llen' e x cnoro. $!2o/SI c 9 c Program to implement Lowless' procedure for conditional confidence intervals on uanttiles for a location/scale #amily. write (6. 4) 0SampLe site ?' (5. a.t t lu selOW ' ) read (iOut1.' read (5.ea'1 (6. aI..
1) them Urite tiouto *) '600.hee : t I n to A. 0) 'Sample silt write (lout. K 0) 'ibut 04ta 1' write (lOut.p Value am. s) 'Seed end it vril# Clout. C (lout. )'Aopromimations i I' atol.il wt~g oCicut.. 6eitut I)I (louto 0) 'Probatitity' t :: (louto 0) 'Confidence.?'. tscL ClOUt. esnr. s) '~eibulL MLE% I '. lflw) (AMP) iulo k) 1C formatl'~04 c N. *) writ* (iout.t call Lowles (in. ne ri eatot) OlCiecic's moppoximatiom (Technometricso lc'!?) catil lawbom (no MO ko Do gamo &tot ) c reculci (lout. t1.(e. slt drhWib (he Shpo 11) sail davr~n (no so A) 00 20 isle k a MI * set Ox MI continue end if  cat( vnrmte (Pshoo @scI. '. no ko no epso Item. 10)'LutRc Valu# location: 'p 0FAft Clout# ) 'Ltrepo Value scale I A. 0) if (toot mne.Got the Weljutt "LEI$ as. 100) sExtreme value location (Amu) amd seat# amu adiog (*eti) (lsg) *Stietatts .c c 10 Got the pseudoofand*m sample CALL mnsot (41600).uLt shaoto scalp procedure' t '. write (lout. * one /eshp Write out what we have so for.. toj(aq~I write write Write@ write Wri to la rile out tht toterenco limit A2 308 . ko. s) 'Lower con irlenco toum. s) #The Lawless gonm4ltiomaL Uritt flout.lows catcul4to the tober~mct limnit wsin'rk ho c c exact mothoo AMC O~cici's aoolalr write (6o 0 'Lower comliaonce oeund caLcwtjltinr' write (6P50'$uar'tiLe ?I reso Ci C) P 5 write (6o 0 'Coniluenct. Soto* sct end if write Write WrFit1e write Writ# Clout. write Hloule 0) 'Lawless tolerance liits t' #tot# to. 's Clout.' on d ousptilo' touto s) ' (rxt roe. coefficient ?' reso (So 0) qa" c c Lawless comdional rrocedurp (TocIhnoepetricto i. I# Yom~ write Clout. *) 4 Clout. *) 'Numtor uncensorea if (idol an@. 0) 'fitrte Yntut qua'tito I '. 1) them write Clout.
1) then Cott mots (notot *na) cdi) Catt ChePck (Qu#Mt.q) C l mot s a gait 0100c~ (Quanto dens) (rrli) Catl nmpta Call d5ptay (duent.e C write read it yot write read write read (*#*) a I (*. 9144 (*o*) (* ?I Gatt imitt (980) CaltL b i mit I Cott comset (1ae(Iamin) Cat( comaot (10aSeaC12) OMam) *no. omab. nvlotI Coll c. .olot (Quart (1*M*n. Catt mot$ (ma) Catl dBotay (Quanto cdf) npott2 Go 30 41# Cott cptot (Quart (l*nQ.ilwit amino .1.l)* crlf (IOnQ41)) Continue *ls# 41 (ityp.')P GPM% (i*9MQoI)) comnne 40 Ono i I Cott raovabs Coo loonl) Cal L Aneodt reed (a. 2.*) (Oo*) 11sed$.pdl ?I itypt one) mat for abscissa ?I amino amia I)9mi and mam for ordirtdtt COPA lop '. orim) Catt comset (ibaSey(l2). 'y') go to Cott finilt (of 760) C stop end A3 309 . oens) co 40 1. 2) them (nnLot *n.) and if C 41 (itype *#q.@a.*) go to2 eel C i1f write (*#*) *(uil ?I read ($00W)') on&s if (an$ *no.oem *x. sera) then if (aa Catt coaset (ibasty(11.
~ 'Posterior of l~CtL I54 roff.*a. read if (o ..1.so quaint Cio) o po cdI fido)) V. IoQmir.. moot read (lOic) idumok Civoint 10 C C coritinue (mPtot) 0i) Onobs )wamlite close (10) ipoint (notot+1)  a ipait CM000t Cacl tm tn osterior 4or a specilli' (Ooxl) r.*) write write Ci c2C (. miamoo ro .t IO. charatter*20 a. * 00*I'mbriel outputo 1'comr'tote owicut ?I write ** ibriel read continlue write (*** *FI(#namo ?I rear' ($09(420M' ftomme if (Itenwec . cdI (SO()o)dems(500O)o quarit ("~ * ipoint (100) data for** on.3. 1 ') go tn 2 mptot 0 nplot +1 Dom Cumitm1l. charactor*l @mt 'dimension m(1000). ')I') di (anc tImer yet ~. litfuftmnmo) read (1000) miampo 1chs do 10 1. c c c c Program to calculate and plot the posterior of a porgertiit for the Wtibult model* Ihis program catlls subroutines from the Tektronix Plot 10 Library. Alt 310 .q%. 1) then9 if (ibriol (ifix) 20 end if continue gto Nfow plot the results continue 'Plot& ? write (e. I to to opa% 1# r4 ioal S quint § (nplot 1)*rnc 41 0 (i1) 4(13 *offin call tawapx (a tipaimt(nnLot) 41)..tnsity calcu~ations not iitOIV'nent.s*) 2 reao 0i (OA'(Afl teo. one) 9 N a1" write Civot) 'k4ange of value% for vosterior read (*0*) U0mn OTAX F write (*.d0p 1.Program OprtpilMark VangeLo July 1QS9.dO/ ipoInt (1) S 0 mQ 0 100 a 0 "~plot c Loop over all fites.
continue end 4 call movebs (0r 1000) call encode read (00) go to 2 end it 4 ed4 (isnQ61)) dens (i*nq*)) C 'Guit It write (Ce0) read (W.0 for default) ?9 (*. *Oak) end 41 (etepe . reed itype write read write read 2mpd4 ?f (0os) 4type a I (**S) '4in and oma for abscissa ?I qe4in qae (s*) (o*) 'Win and msa lor ordinate DO. dens) do 40 410 nPlot1 ceLL cplot fquant (4o*nQ4).4 C write (S*) °lmcd.) eu4no osin geLL initt (960) Cell binitt Cell couset (ibeem(I1)o q4in) call comset . continue else 44 (itype seq 2) then (nolot *no) call npts sell check (aant* dens) Call not$ Crtq) cell dspLay (quant.eq.'(sl)') ens i (an$ one.(basoemt2)o 4ue) 4f 494a4 one. Sy') go to 2 caLl finitt 40o 700) A5 311 . tore) then ceLL ceoset (cibeys 110 sn) Cell $onset (ibasey(ll). cdf) call note (nq) call dsoLey equint cd4) do 30 imlo npLstI ceLL cotl (quant (i*nq*L). I) then aill notS (nplot *nq) ctll check (quant.
aL icitt wri te (lout. scato out.fl reap (S. s)  write C C  caL 5 Loop over tIe~& rmid (110PO) a C. 10/14/9& Program to test by simulastion an aeorou1imstiom of DiCictio (1987) to th~e Lawtoss comditiomot rocoadipe. M write@ (lout. open (unitsieut. *) write (lout. fine 11.*) 'Comfiiencp cool4iclermt I Ia wtite (lt 0*) 'heinult shar*e. VA) wrPi te (lout. common I60/ p. 0) 'The Lawtoss condilir'naI . write (lout. iupticit dowbie precision Parameter (40160nu 500) eciarswt cr12 41 mope dimension X~umax) (&who c o2) common /datl common /Cal snorfl. 4) 'e16pte silo 7' read C~ 50 ) m write (bo 0)'Ic~r uncensorte.)471 data coarse. 0)o k write (6o. m)o 7'1 c Write out what we have sm far.0) 'Wumter of reolicates ?' read (So ml) nli write too 0) Comfiatnct cov 4 licipmt ?I read (So s) qatr c wr ItI (60i I)Nwa.rccewrP write (lout. ' ~ s write (lout.UR~fr uneporf: 0 write (lout. littullening. w&~o t .0or 7' read (so 0) out if (lout eme. (lout. slatusue. *) sho scl write ((i. 0 common /cdI tot SUM&# no k AM. 4) '4uariti 10e wri4te f(lo ut. Icale read (S. 0) 'Samnler size .di 9 Output unit number sno 1iLonawe write (6.programtavl c Cc mark Yanget. 0) '?.dO * o' rarlicats at) 9 1810 nsie A6 312 . 6) thtem write (6o *) tPitoname 1' read (50"(41W)) Iten. '0 reap (. 0) *ed' I me'.0) 'Output unit nuwi. 0) liwirr of r.) end if c uGet limulation parameters write (6o *) ISeed ?I read (So * ) 1sevo write (to 0) 'Weitutt shape an.
. X.i %flI *b. of atr' ml ffo ftot)/. o~f offer /Ctt' . c write Cifit FOSutts the to~tC!IfIG ow~it 0~ ILAWIps% # Priccino. iviAtiC cp I i b A7 313 .O 1. I. s!mara t (L. (i§ulp ~t~~ C $I W ?Os Ia l Sion.!9lP1iIYAM CT1ch'pop~trcso 1 ricitcio' essufU dCIPC * CaOt BatoifillIion c  tfpf infOia~O % ~.a~ 1 l. orv.I IC~A .oI9BB  (KfOifC mo CJOe*~ Ks.11 (to 20 4010 a Ci) cO99tiIUf 20ciiaa k~ a cI* C~~Ct c L.colti drvwio (MO shwo 1) cott d~vPrfm (m. *f 1 WF (iouto 1:1 *ier1S A.
ciroctrlurt. gama. tot PAR# woo I external nte)MI.A Toteramce lim'it lacimr renot.1d~ dat& aReo ontot cL. to guess write (. Acorf data coarse.Subroutine tow~s% c C . Como IO(mt) SotMI qdm cam too I (es t /t e MI ) **t I 0.i7 1. ot o thm% iconl Irrturr.ra'ce Cott icenf (Ko no ko p. I.) I oL t cL st tt in atI ch *toL kiMI IIN '. logo lime /.4 1. for even Moderately 4arce Samsleso the !lCiccit aooroximation used in subroutine fteaw&W is very accurat* and coaputaionaLty Less troubtesome than the method ubtel rre.70'/ Put stul 4 in ce'off"o *no Uka k C C (et the Wtiolt I'LL" I call wnpmtt (tshr. A C 9 C c C * 4 n k P g @ltlt a* Data "a Total %sapot* site u1~ (Inowt. (M Mi) tocatiDP (NfrTj) anJ $Cale 110%0) 05iFAIII' IC * EareIA WAkhWq amuM t og (ict) 'sq a one /eiho A8 314 .. OICto no ko go 00%. n 1d~i.& Lower it'. Li R. ptt) park VangeLO may 1908 subroutine Itawtlls catcu~ateS *o Sided tower tolerance tiffits forethe Wtibutt codtt using the Laviess Conditional. This routine' Deptorms 'exact' catewtationst by numeirical 4"tegrAtion. et I .na a pa. no If Common lI4/ common ltl common /cd/l C p. k A (il a tog co ftIinue. suine.)'Lamlei IFirst C o..(tottml C 1J *Now go to tog scatft. TIis reap it sm practical coRfidemep coOfIic9S'' efloucaf or viflutyjL th t^tcrimca OictOR 'iCQon1 proviats a first a timits. iiero IMO. * 4 C N*ubtr of (uncensored) observations roostliitty associated wit quontiie go Confloectre level.)  C C C c . do 1(0is1. lor ico on art(nu 'Ekact' tower 1teranCe Limit (Inc~p) (TInmow* rtot c Itel i Lowtosso Technovottrlcs 1975 (&ho o&) imoticit double orecition dimensiont K 1 common /girl eshoo tocto mpup kso cnorm.
aot Ct a . titi " sit) 'Calculate tho! tolerance Itoi.c 20 c . Pakit) c C man i I it troPve in lop the in1ll. MI) IV continue end A9 315 .h I c ALsopr ret err.95ov.e error toLtrarct to save 14.1. a Inc Canu Jh Cins ) _. RVestore the doll do 30 ia). *RN th 1. 1olerarce Iiwit facie. k a Mi a arj 0.. charm~ one eoserr a ero rttrr to% call dadagi (anton1o stro* I# *sesrr# rettrro inko err) c * The normalizing constant cnorR 0 on# /xk wri te (60 0) write (6i 0) 'The mormatitina constant a it of cropw 4 * tt wo.( The %#Comoi . asier P#Lerr lt caLL stze acoarte coarse cibren (acomt. We need the ancitterits and their %up ou"a IN sero do 20 161gm k sum& 0 suma *(a 'il amu) /ag continue *Next c e c we obtain the constant of imttgration. use an acaptive qua'drsture routine to iitqrate XNTGNL an ('s. tr. ri. irom ( . inliiity). tog (to.P ir irlt ) tnu4it 144. &oserrp rtier. . c c C 'The first no%% has a Lmr'.r S~c that th* inltgraL of YIT~. tit.as% Ufa% the linal toterance.050C *8h atint rekerr caL I dibevn (eAont. (one p) xMW Oasg ouamtie tofr stanaarri eatremp value istri'out~on Fitifoolto~ 0th qwantitt lop dota *%fl 8P c c 9  frts A~lorithn to fim. 10 C .
2d0 . eps /1. atla) c C Mark Vengel. one /O. The second pass the final tolerance. Set the MLK's of the Weibull paramotows call wnmlo (Ushp. Wair. maxit 1 100 li esh id A10 316 . tollmt) al *ci Otailet ah ch *tollet write (e) 1 Lawapx t First guess io t toilet  €: 1 a Suses Dgmt9 a algorithm to find tolerance limit factor at the desired confidence loyal.  tolerance limits of Lawless (1975). dh /. Technometrics 1I? a C implicit double precision (ah.909 1.dO."00. tt a 0 100 * sees a coarse relr. uWil. July M966 An emcellent approximation to the onesided Witbull c ~ o C conditional w 9 nmamp mobs p I etol Ref I . nobs$ spt. l. malit) c C Tolerance limit factor range.. ite. Tachnometrics 1975 Dicicio. 'iconf' provides a first approwtmati*M to the tolerance limit.dsi data coarse. maxit) reierr a coarse call dlbren (aconflo abse'. nmobs eVternal acoMf l data maxit /1001. mmu. Iqovee in for the kill.OfdO p  Put stuff in common • pa lam nibs neamp * one jama mobsa oaempa .  nuamp. xeg common /aonf/ p Iam neamp.subroutine lawapm 4xt nhamps. fine /i.P. Rio ah. This range is broad enough for virtually any practical confidence co4fficient. .ta Total sample site NumbWe of (uncensored) observations Probability associated with quanttle up Confidnce lovel for lab on up Approbimato lowen tolerance limit (Input) (Input) (Input) (Input) (Input) (Output) S a a 2 a a a Lawless.dO/ data ci. The first pass has a large error tolerance to sav time.dah l. nsaimp mobs$ p.d7/ data zro. call icn4 (m. 1. . maxit abser. nobs&# pat lama. a%) dimension m (1) common /par/ ushp. chi dl. ufs1c.
return end All 317 . absor. sh. &&wit) call debron taconfi. Il.relar~r a fine s #in* tol nh a h *sah reoa.
c c C alcutate the Ierivasivet of 0e (04 tikotinlvo.050 WI'/ data sero.) 02? CIII A12 318 . rpswtl as 'LawsopN out with a toss accurate appoimation. I' 'a tije di st r i . c c c C C c neamp c noos p tatlet *. The routine is written for two Paramtor Wtioltjt analysisp but extension to the *eneratisted too gamma faoi Ly is straightlorward.o Teennometrics 1967 p. the wLF. nsamo. d2I * s'*ot' a1 *%(I) 3*5(1) 4SM~ dO0a nobs 3s)*() d40C nb d31 *('nots osa~)) ('.ti on. T. Rol 1 Diciccic. to the posterior of a QUamtito undef a tl Prior). This routine returns the estimated cornlidenco Limit for a providem oroobbility Level And confidence (honce tie 'it ' for inverse .subroutine iCont (a. I t provi de % tho sam.in the routine name). Tnis rout ime it approtimatety inverse to *¢'. C cati w mrmke (usho. thhaill 1vhatf c C. mobs# c ro go tolLMt) Marb Vang#(P October 19PS A nonilerative first approuimation to the Lawless Cmrdifirrat c c c c c c c C c Procedure (or* aternativety.(i) a(0a w) u10) /usld *e*I) dC(a mt continue o(j) a imU) continue 020 a mobjs all a I I) WO (no~*a +(nsamp robs) 'iC))) cic ant. ran%form to0 ex t re WuLoc 0 tog (Wict) uscL a ore /uspin  G~el the WeipuLL OLII t. tog0 (top (one P)) it so do C~jl a(j) do 4C.aL zero no')S 4 2 t 4 3U~ C (Lo.33 a Data . TotaL %samote size Numoor 01 (unconsorvd) observations Conticence Level tor It on to Probabitity associated with ouamtite xf upper toLerance limit (Innul (Innut ) mrl (JnnUT) (Tnout) (upt imoticit doubte preciuion (ah. P0) dimtnsion P(I)# & (4. usct.*nobs *5#%(1) *S?) (?*stl) #*ss(?J 410~)) 004 a note (Teac?) 0*5asC) *SU. erg.J.) data orso Watl 11. nobs. (. one. itpr. nsamli. hat.
toiLtt s top (totiet) c c retwrn en(1 A13 319 . (Vi1 CSthhati C(d3o 'ad~isdlldO #001*sdl? *(dll l/2 *4 003 *(dll/d02) 003)) 10~ 0 wl *(? d*C *i?*d?1*dlleo1 *3 I S c (6*dl~aO3aailme? #*dla3Cal 1**? S *(iCcllCOO3CilC~3 40&Cdi2*A4) 3Cdlles4 *d03**i /W0 5)) /24 aa 2*c a rt (one +*(b +*d *a&W Ig dOCel d +1 P4(d 1~201) *0?) 1a'?v~h /drnm*a.c c c c The aporoximatt mean anac Varian.e. vll dO? M(20 $dO2 all 4#113)  a b S 6 c 6 d *(Vii S(Vii **half *CdiP/dO? 4011*a03 IdO?*102 ) 12 *(d2?ldO? +(d21*dC3 *2k*dl3*dli *dl2**?) Wd2**) (4*dl2sd1l*tO3 *d06edl2552) Wa2003 *2*(dll*d03 IdO2*02) *02)) /4. t 0(L Let 0 YO 4uscI *(sJft (V13) *Cfrq *C*aCC ** (lvhAtf CC *Ili~ +M) Crj s*3)) S Go to wtibio. dnorirn (9) rg smu +xSg NlQ utoc *usct *wrm Y. @1 ro the sionec square root al 2 times~ tihetihoca ratio. is cakcutatel ir terms al the Oij. umu uso c *li*cCC2) c OiCigtiov equation b.'t state.
o A6l Ocmor". (su. k) I a dcrhLf (M k 41) C)#*U) Ilsd . O~nce lenorm' is knowm. The normatling constant* lcmormli dep. WLYGOVL becofros a 4 C C pdl and is used ~V YNTrGND durinq the orimary rwui'epca. kA~. integration to got the toterance tiflit.100 1.double Precision function antgfld (r) C 9 c e Proportional.ends on the Oat& And must be obtainto bY A orv(imiMary nuslerical integration. common Idatl x common /cc/ &I cmorpo suIma. s t*eC( *rwr *0 Wr ontgno a (I /dutr Mk) sdvk) Mntgnd a Antari *OR. ot) dimqengion XM1 fsll is used by YNTON~o hence thf cormn t tocc.10/ c o c pwr t * one /ftoat ( .14 can be assiqpnoo tte vatue 0 ict Makes ~''a impkicit doubt* Drec 4 sian (ati.1) K *one do 10 laXl if (i aaa 13 continue Il feQ. amtyroa UAfltofl ao)) return end A14 320 . to the odf ol a certain piuctaL auamliiy. C C c c C Niote : lcmorm' must be initiaLited (to 1) Uploro the protimimary intogration. Fotlowing that# tenor' r. no Icommon lea/ #scl# imuo Nse common lparl eshn data Afro# one /A.
'. write (. oceagi Cyntgntf. r*Ltrr 0 zero cat. aCOnI a Mi gem c aRePO lo aOlrro riderr xiu err) c c Ihis is just some tteminaL ouirwl to app~ee the user w~tl ~a iti' W~' nW10r rpsIu kts . a t ' rT  obuerr 0 tot.) 7Lrn lwcnr: COrM000mce I to to Mi rituwr n end  A15 32.1 Ierat P5~ i1 Y (Do infinity) #Quit& 'maw.1 . imoticit doubt# ortcision (aho ocommon dCbt Do gaffi Wpo common dp tot tttrnat yntqn'i data Ilroo ane /O.dup 1.dQ/ c e c * t i6 to be found In that t 4.cloute Precision function Nconl (to) c C c C C Subroutine to dttenino tho crobatiLtity of the pIM Quaritito blinq test them ?TO)o where 7 is I'6 toterance Limit factor.
c C double precisionfl unction~ ymtgnd (1) Funcin to calculate the integrl 10! Otterminin9 the confidenctimplicit doubt# precilicn CS'ho 081) common la#b/ 00 gamp we# t cno!C' Swma. cUommo It a gommen ICc am*1dOo 1.) Q yntgrd M yntjfld OQ end A16 322 . M. m* s*d#No a om# dgamlf (float Mo) upkis.dO/ data streoe pwr * on* l~t~1 C C P. ThN fir$% lactor to get cnmowim' yntgna a antgnd (s) a The Secora lactor iS t~t funct4On Wh4ith WAS in~cOrbt' c is the vamms edi OvatuatC t&IaCM in xTi'J onl which depends (wp to a OuantitY eatcuLtta pw' *t *a utLir.
) imoLicit doubtLe Drecisio dimension $(I) common Idatl S po gemp nsamo mOkjS common icon/ C iL scomi (x# neamop mobs# to P.doubte precisi 9 n function coMn 4 1 (t) (fh* o. Prot) aSonil a prob *g&w ret urnr end A17 323 .
. us~l C C * tog (cscLw) amon /Ushp~w Cal. cad.0 islo mat s l(11 4. Call CwnrftL (00 as C ShMO.Cutatv thr. MC CtoC)/csC1l W ul oc )/utc *ctoc)/csct1I *rts Oto: (cct) oto.(wW:) Utoc)#Uscl) 01's ?~continve cl a ct Crisamp U1.(no 8( a) (I Mout (Inoid) (Input) (InrLut) (Cut rul1 imokict Ooubte Orteesiom (ah. 01) dimensinam N M# 5 (4) common /part ushowo usctwo mmuevo xsoev data to$# macit 11.?" 0. SquAPP foot o1 a f the tikelihool ratio 2 tifts It~e CscC10one /C I ho I co 20 islo not% It a Log Ca(I) ct a cl 4(t *Cloc2/C1Cl Ul MlUt top t *UtOH /usc I vot. Rol I ficieceo.ra so. 'transfer" cloc to extreme value districutiom. 117. Qo to coml) Mark vanigeto JULY 19bo An spvrooimation to the Lawless conditionat orocedure (or# atternatively.J.11 ) * 10c) /uscI 1 *top (8) ((8a "60) 0 aj) 't i S) i C MIU Inhe I.dSo 100/ tn~atf data serov oneo hatl C C C  t the Constrainedi tI'so wilere Q is coristroine1 Ic' be the Oth quantike.1 C C coo 30 Jolt 1. The routine is written for two paragirer Weibutt anaetylss rtt extemSion to the generatiza tog gama tsamilt is otraiqhtlortari. v U Insaff'o a~~*rc 64n a logia) tnoa) nous) amk *ea *USCt (t (0I 6ih1) utoc WP sun a abs (52M) /SnM r 0 $on start (abs C (NIP)) the. I I 0. *( ) is desi re. Probabitity ossociottew with ouanli~Lp op F. a Alarp nobs Date 9 C 9 C C C C C c C C C C C Q P coni  Totak samole site Number of (uncensored) observatiank value for which F (Mr.subroutine acotf (a. T. liketihc eo! .F 1 tfqP deIV at I V#S a1 p0 Iectt A1B UZ4 . SiM. nar otera It's0 1 .0 Techrioqetrics 3937 P. C C nisappo nobs. to the Posterior of a quanititt under a fkat erif~r). G(j) a Rero 00 41.
4e S rW * **j ) /0 ( 411A.2?*U11Aorj 0IU3 C11 1( 1/ I Iv W*.42 (4*o. 1u~I*P4 316J7 I *p *?~ Maai1) /A '"I Ifo~a I'' *II& U II j'A RR.4U 10 continue 1Wj a i~j) #(nsami)gr~* continue d2O a nb dcl2 a (mobs 46(p)) d30 a mobs d~ a ?*mob~s 41(l) *u anobs 43*6(2) *W() ant a (3'onomi *sm) n ( 4 *ot #vs !) *t 5)) g() C dl? a 3WsI) #%(?) d4O d3l di? dI3 c c  m *(?*(i)*'j(P) os(. I~ ~~~~~~ . U a( '1 ConI a dmormf (r) A19 325 .)) U(2)*'*(I I4 8 ML TM AFrrokifftf MOAQM AMC vaiamico it ii t1h 0j. ai aad*cd /(020 g~idjP 0!1 moll) terms % * I v2 **eh *(dl? I dD? *d I I *I411* I 1 id2t:.*7 7111.
IF% r ESTImATE Uc Thr r. vLL ) $TAI. (1) 1' SCALr 11 (1) CII'~JL (I. 1*PI pArAI4ETV.7 00(jENI CV w W~T (NntS *S! S o~) /f 1 IF (CV *GE. bo w'SAmoo N05S Ar AEPSp ITRp lI M~ARV VANGFLP MAY 19tb ES71P'ATE WfIlULL PARAMFT!TRS FY MOXI94UN LTKELtNf(W S'WAML PAfRA14FTFR (PETPUJft) . CV1!SL (000L) TP"EA A m SPIBTL ('01L) A20 326A ..1tl ..01170# .14837o *337B6 6 nB?7* .52271#~ a36345# .L .jT.) IF (X (1) .WIMuLL A IC1ULL SCALE PARAMFIER (REI'US9hin p NSAMP SAMPLr SIZE (NFSRn UCPCRr NUMUER OFlQOSrVATTN NOPS (NSAMPNOiRS) VALUiES APE TYPF 11 CENS'Y1E' DATA VALUFS X (tN00) COk'VlklEwICr TQLERAOC *AlSOLUTF AEPS EU.FFICIEN S OF VAPIATI011 FOD 100141 EST INA10 OF SHAPE PAPAMETEP /211 DATA tNIbL o .0M'?' 5  I ~ ~ DATA SHPTbL 0?' n?41?7.10944# .61694* .C. CLNT2?NLC to~t Do ic !Il . ZE40 EPS v I"L"I' ifF $ 'I' cc '&E 1w~ 24) c C C CALCULATE 594 Si. .16002o .1. *02R2co .23054p .10122* .Lt.?2905o DATA CVTE6L /it .w rlF L^U'# A' 51 a ZC E *ZEN.E.O ss a ZEO lelfl N%)LS n~u Ll (v (1)) S2 * 2 () x (I 5 S  IQ C C C CONTINUE 51a 51 1 XAA"p MET.?1!D / C  VCALE IHE CATA (1 ) SCALL * y (1. (AwH# IZ) DIMENSION X Wo~ CVIL (IS)# SNP~bL (25) c C CCP. CV73L (1)) 1' tl A w SHPIBL 41)  ELSE IF ((V ..19377.E.SUSAcuTINE wWAMLF C C C C c C c C C C C C C (AP.E r NUPSEN OF ITEPATIrNS So'nut4fi ITEN (hP011) AXIPUl SUPPE OF ITEPATI 4 . Lusr TmE CCEFF2CIIlT 'IFvi 10'm. . MAXIT IMOLICIT ELCUPLE PRECISIOk.03150#.(J IbAMP~ a ioL PASAwP n ChPL I ASA&'P IF Fp * Acp U~.
1 ~ r COI I Sa C OS4 isi 'owCl ("'A SCALi hATA Ct A221 327 .' (A M)l T~ CL~' CtA* ( !.ELSE IF (CVTb.01 TV t %I L CALCULATE SrALE PAtA£irlrgr.L '' 71 L'~ I A 74* 4 $2 D~aA *Ti*2 C IF S (h 7* 6)1 6 c  *T0* (11. 6o toi I I A 6j 72 TI7 * 13 T2 * S2 S?~ * 54 54 CU I INHEI S2 a 5? 4 T! $3 a $3 0*T LCM (x (I) LL. c  CALCULATE rQM~S FIPST No (I1) $14 71 1' Dr..Lt 1l1) CYVL MT) aC Ya so COtdl i.r'. ~ . CY) 'rsfrb A a SHIO~L (11) # (SHOTOL (1) SHPIOL (1f))t (CV CVTPL (I)I MCT.Lr.L (1) .6T  I so c LVCP VI TILL (fPVG'f h1Ek s (I c* lyriOATC" LIwIT XC.
SUBROUTINt CWNP&4L C C C C MAR9 VANGFLo (9oAXPp Apdo SA4PV~OT'5 go ArPl.10 lqU'1'Ef F (UkS!RVATIC2E ."v rT I T 1 r. P VP  A N6'' NO' S Y r~ 10Y I ~ P!RDtAqILITVY LEVEL Or #NATILE PTH bU1ANTILr 5S4AvE pAA~ryr4 *WEM~LL !IMLL $CALE PAPIRWTF **SAP PLr SIZL 1.J~~kAEl'CF TO0Ltr& (VP T) IMPLICIT LflUPLC PR!CISICIN (At. I!~~~~~~~ ~.C C CCE (i') 1 CP VA i10 1cl I Ir I PTC ShAFF PAtA4ETCE" ro W.'CL) wPUL I 'I's1.4r NE0 F IIE0T TIq VAXI 1110 N'PlS C~. IT EDwAyl' JULY 198t C C C C C C C C C C ~A1t!' L11!L I C.Y CI 1A 10 /CL SCAP m C r 1 IF (tx! Ar *L) o scA (N P1r (1)~zrTs~ ~SCA SC* 1 1a 9 zu1)I$oL 20 CCJT1NUl' E PS A A2 2 p p Ago . r ( L' C c C AEPS ITEA ('NSAMPNW'.CVTkL (25)o SlJPT'.%s.) DATA VALUES  VALUIES AFL IYPF ii cr. '4 I'3L 'C EST I AT E WEI IULL PARA M TE RY 04A CUjNSIPA1NI THAT TIml ESTImATEI PTN OUAtNT1LE AT Tmr 'Lr IS EGUAL 1TO %P.TA rA I DL~7.'V A945001!T NJ0LQ MFI' TENA!1!'NS p~tUI. (). n17) flMtI~.
r~r (Al *A) li~r i)j ~.C C *'USE 114F CUFFFICIrNT MF VARIA Ie'S 10 011T METHOL orP PC~wENIS ESYIPiATE Of TH sHAPr rpA'jmiC CYAo SORT (NOe0S *SS S *S) /f If (CV *GE. V. 1 1 w ITfrm + I a Al GU) 1( I C C 9v CALCUL47E SCALE pp Lorjr. (1) 0~P) 13 17~ L(.:1 (A (1) iNw) c2~ 112 S3 C  T 1'* s(t. *(V (1) A '' A 1?0 1 LL'M (1.L (. L11117 r~~c CONTINUL CALCULATE SU"S FIP$7 S4 ZEV * c. CV) TWNt A a 5IMO1L cc TO so W~i IF ICY CVT .L (1 *LF..k7 UP A2 3 329 .1)) (11) 4 (tAMPflL (1) *S5010L Ifl I(CCVVL (111 CC~ (1)) 40CC'tT INUF END IF c 1 C LOOCP UhTILL C! VEOG!rCt Ul' MW~AIC. 4 U1 IF 05SS ITVr A 0~4s CIV0.SAIIF '. oLE. CVT3L (1)) THN~'' A a SI4PTL (1) ELSE IF (CY ELSE C40 S 1@2.4Ar'L C'11'110 A 41 C  ~.j 3 S7 CALC4LATj 0'Eo t. CLNI I UE 1 it AP IC **(Tir /A) ##)ALI Frfh.LL.! C ej FON1 I UE 0. StAp WAA0Tr C r  00 U01CALF UAlk sO A s A 5Ik 1.1 V 51 I 52) 1 (0. CVI kL 4'T'LI) 1I'C" A a SHPISL (thlbL) NTRL IF (CVTr.41 .
Reporting both the pvalue and relevant qvalues enables managers to base decisions on both types of risks. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE The FisherIrwin Exact Method is a quick and straightforward technique of comparing two samples of dichotomous items. Thrasher Engineering Branch Reliability. U. or the error of concern for the advocates of maintaining the status quo.S. Availabi ity. Computer programming methods are discussed. Research Triangle Park. This paper develops the necessary algorithm by extending the pvalue calculation based on the binomial rather than the hypergeometric distribution. The pvalue is the probability of being wrong in marginally rejecting a null hypothesis that the two samples are from one population. 4300 South Miami Boulevard. In practice. see four papers by Thrasher in the Proceedings of the Thirtieth through ThirtyThird Conferences on the Design of Experiments in the Army Research. Qvalues are normally calculated using the same algorithm used to find pretest Type II errors. The qvalue calculation inputs are normally (1) the pvalue instead of the pretest Type I risk. Examples are provided for sample sizes both (1) small enough that a handheld calculator can be used and (2) large enough to require a digital computer. Since the FisherIrwin Exact Method doesn't historically have a design stage. They provide information which complements the Type I risk provided by the pvalue. The reluctance to use this method may well be due to unbalanced reporting of information.MAKING FISHER'S EXACT TEST RELEVANT Paul H. there is no pretest algorithm available for modification. The pvalue is used to report the TypeI error. This error is sometimes called the producer's error. North Carolina 277092214. Traditionally the 331 . and Testing.. and (3) the same relevant values of the parameter considered in the pretest Type II risk calculation. the contractor's error. For references on qvalues. Army Research Office. Numerical results are interpreted from the viewpoint of a manager that must balance nonzero Type I and Type II risks. New Mexico 880025175 ABSTRACT The FisherIrwin Exact Method is made relevant by including qvalues in the analysis. This method of analysis has not gained universal acceptance. Development. and Maintainability Division Army Materiel Test and Evaluation Directorate White Sands Missile Range. The qvalue equations are developed and their mathematical properties are examined. (2) the sample size actually used instead of the samnle size planned. managers conclude that the two samples are from different populations if they believe the pvalue is sufficiently low. Qvalues are posttest Type II risks. The normally reported statistic from this test is the pvalue.
the government's error. They reach this conclusion if they believe a relevant qvalue is sufficiently high. 1968. Qvalues are the probabilities of being wrong in marginally failing to reject the null hypothesis when the two samples are from different populations. there are four possible ways the data can be arranqed. They and their sums are normally arranged in a square array. This paper also discusses a digital computer program. This additional information results from calculating and reporting qvalues. often called Fisher's Exact Test. DistributionFree Statistical Tests.tegories 1 and 2 are both arbitrary. The ambiguity has been removed from the above table by naming the samples and categories to make (1) n>(Nn) and (2) r/n>(Rr)/(Nn). 1r(. This program has been written to (1) handle the necessary voluminous calculations for large sample sizes.esided analysis. consists of four numbers. for a relevant pair of unequal populations. be called consumer's error. (2) retain the analyst's identification of the two measurement samples and the two mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. there is a qvalue for each pair of separate populations.This error may method has not reported information about the Typeli error. This onetailed analysis is used to reject a single population in favor of two populations that differ in the direction indicated by the data. There are two methods of calculating the pvalue. Both are described and illustrated in paos 195203 of Bradley. PVALUE CALCULATION The data for the FisherIrwin Exact Method. Inc.. 332 . At the cost of redundancy. James. The FisherIrwin Exact Method may be implemented in different ways. The second uses the binomial distribution. Since the two populations may differ in different ways. This paper provides equations for and examples of calculating (1) the pvalue and (2) qvalues for the FisherIrwin Exact Method using a o. V. and (3) provide an report from which a manager can decide if future actions should be based on one or two populations. this paper uses more than one approach to illustrate different viewpoints. The following array has double entries to illustrate both the general situation and a specific example: Sample I = Development: Sample II = Production: Total: Category 1 = Success: raig Rr=12 R=31 Category 2 = Failure: nr=2 (Nn)(Rr)3 NR=5 Sum: n21 Nn=15 N=36 Since the choices of Samples I and II and of G(. Managers can use a qvalue.. as evidence for concluding that the two samples are from those different populations. or the error of concern for the advocates of change.iLHall. The FisherIrwin Exact Method can provide relevant information about the TypeII error. The best known uses the hypergeometric distribution.
+ ..j J (i.) The pvalue is the probability of obtaining the data or more extreme partitions of the NR items of Category 2.R items will be as unbalanced as the data in the direction that the data suggests.253 + . 51 10! 36! 5! 311 = . Considering the possible distribution of the NR items of Category 2 yields one of the two following equations: 333 . hypothesis is that the difference between the R and NR items of the two categories did not influence the sample selection. the pvalue is pvalue paue+ 21C2 1 5 C3 2 1 CI 1 5 C4 2 1 C0 15 C5 .076 + 51 31! . Thus nCr N~nCRr Data] a P[Obtaining the NCR Both iC where jCj is the number of ways of choosing j items from I items.) For the specific example. The probability of obtaining the data is the ratio of (1) the number of ways items from one category can be chosen for the two samples to (2) the number of ways items of this category can be chosen from the total population.. 36C5 36C5 21! = 21 191 "+ 36C5 1S! 31 121 211 361 15! 211 361 15! 11 20! 41 111 36+I"1 01 21! . (More explicitly. the pvalue for the onesided or onetailed test is the probability that the partition of the N.Hypergeometric Approach: The hypergeometric approach is based on a population of N items which is split into two samples of sizes n and Nn. The null.008 = .j are found from the following relation of factorials: i i il iCj iCi .34 5! 311 A formal expression for the hypergeometric approach may be written in two ways. and iCi.
n. r is the minimum pvalue . r I Binomial Approach: The binomial approach is based on an infinite population from which two independent samples are taken. this parameter will cancel from the equations regardless of its value.p in Sample III . possible number of items in Sample I from Category 1.p in Sample I] * nCr Pr ( 1 . Although the binomial parameter of the distribution of Category 1 items may be estimated by R/N. pvalue •Ir nCi N. pvalue " nr nCi N'nCNR'i / NCN'R' By considering the distribution of the R items of Category 1 instead of the NR items of Category 2.NnCRr PRr (1_)(Nn)(Rr).nCRi / NCR. 334 . this formal expression is written using two other equations: if (1) r is less than expected because rn[R/N] and (2) rol. Fortunately for the pvalue calculation.R.Nn. Denoting this binomial parameter by p allows the probabilities of obtaining the two samples to be written as Ptr.I I NnCRi / NCR.if (1) nr is less than expected because nr~n[(NR)/N] and (2) mi 2 is 1 the minimum possible number of items in Sample I from Category 2. im 12 if (1) nr is more than expected because nr>n[(NR)/N] and (2) MI2 is the maximum possible number of items in Sample I from Category 2. if (1) r is more than expected because r>n[R/N] and (2) Mil is the maximum possible number of items in Sample I from Category 1. pvalue nr iE nCi N.nCNRi / NCN. it is raelly unknown.p)nr and P[Rr.
.r . Finally. NCR pR(1p)NR This is the same equation as was obtained using the hypergeometric approach and the rest of the calculation of the pvalue proceeds identically. NCR P[Obtaining the Data] nCr NnCRr PR (I.861 in Sample II] P[Obtaining both Samples] * 1 5 C12 (.(..861)15 "12 a . The binomial equations in the above paragraph may be illustrated and clarified by using (1) the data from this discussion's specific example and (2) the point estimate of p given by R/N31/36=.N.p in Combined Sample] .861)19 (1.(1.With the restriction that these two samples are independent. 2 1 C1 9 1 5C1 2 (.861)21 "19 * .236. the probability of obtaining both samples is the product of the two above equations.21..203).861)12 (1. ..nCr NnCR.0479 . The result is P[19.NCR PR (1 .15.861..861)3631 . the conditional probability of obtaining the two samples given that the combined sample has been obtained is Samples] N)] P[Both P(r In n) and (Rr in Nn) I (R in P[Combined Sample]' This equation is expressed in terms of the data by division of the two previous equations. The result is nCr NnCR.861)31 (1.p)NR C .r PR (l.203. P[12.p)NR. this reduces to P[Obtaining both Samples] .p)NR..861 in Sample I] 2 1 C1 9 * (. The probability of obtaining one big sample size of N with R ptype observations is P[R. 335 .236)(..
This is done by using the facts that i1)Sample I and Sample I were obtained independently and (2) the 31 items in Category 1 could have been distributed between the two samples in different ways.861] P[r'.36.0981 . .36.15. The calculation is summarized in the following table.106 . and by dividing equations P[(19 in 21) and (12 in 15) 1 (31 in 36)] .0479 . any value of p yields ..175 .0700 . Before calculating qvalues.0450 .861)3631 .P[31. The value of .. The value of . Using these two facts yields pvalue * P[Rejecting I Rejection Should Not Occur] U  .0479 in the table correspond to probabilities of obtaining more unlikely partitions than the data.00151 .253.0144 ..BB1]P[Rr'.257 .861 in Combined Sample] without the assumption that all 36 ito'.236 . Note first that the .253. The starred row of this table corresponds to the data and three intermediate results from in the preceeding paragraph.0479 in the last column of the starred row corresponding to the data agrees with P[Obtaining both Samples] from the short binomial calculation of two paragraphs ago.189.0433 .147 ..203 .21. It is illustrative and useful to obtain P[31.861] P[Rr'.15. In fact.21..253 is obviously the same intermediate result as was obtained in the hypergeometric approach.. A modified version of the longer calculation of this paragraph will be needed in the calculation of qvalues. Note second that the entries above .0479 .290 .189 + .242 . it is illustrative and useful to obtain the pvalue from the table of the preceeding paragraph..861)31 (1.189 336 .189 a .34.189 obviously agrees with the shorter calculation In the preceeding paragraph. R r' Rr' P[r'.8 . + .189 .B61] 31 31 31 31 31 31 21 20 19 18 17 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 .0479/. The sum of this column is the probability of having 31 items from Category 1 in the two samples.0144 ..034.00151 .0102 * The last column contains the probabilities of the different ways that the 31 items can be distributed.0961 .i were selected from one population.861 in Combined Sample] a 36 C31 (.
This last method of calculating the pvalue emphasizes that the data are viewed marginally.905/. there are two the form of a three dimensional power surface.800. and R.This result of . All qvalues are conditional probabilities with the condition being that two different populations provided the two samples. the fol owing qvalue calculation will address the error of concluding that poplIPT when actually p1r/n19/21. and kp1 /Pu . Any specific point on this surface does not exhibit as much information as the entire surface. consider the data to be just sufficiently unbalanced to warrent rejection of the singlepopulation hypothesis. 337 .8001. If desired.O5.34 does not depend on the number used for p. The data are viewed as unbalanced Just enough to warrant rejection of the singlepopulation hypothesis. parameters so the representation must take Irwin Exact Method.9. for the populations of the two samples. n. This addresses the intuitive concern of "making the mistae of ignoring what the data's trying to tell us. This may be seen by (1) calculating another table using any p other than 31/36. and discusses some general mathematical properties. from entries in a table of probabilities for al possible values of r consistent with N. and PII. p. Thus qvalues must be calculated by using the binomial approach with different binomial parameters. That is. qvalues are the probabilities of more balanced results. To be specific in the following calculation however.861 and (2) summing the probabilities of obtaining partitions as extreme as the data. piia(Rr)/(Nn)12/15. shows that the two results are equivalent." Since a qvalue for any specific p1 and PIT is the probability of falsely retaining the assumption that one p describes all items.13. The remainder of this section considers two approaches to the qvalue equation. pl and PIl will be taken as the point estimates from the data. qvalues cannot be calculated by using the hypergeometric approach. While the pvalue is the probability of getting results at least as unbalanced as the data. For Fisher's Exact Test. a qvalue is one minus the probability of rejecting the assumption of a single population when This can be calculated there are two populations described by pi and PTI. these two parameters may be replaced with p and k where kupi/p 1ll 1 Most qvalue calculations are functions of only one parameter and lend For the Fisherthemselves to a two dimensional power curve representation. like the pvalue. QVALUE CALCULATION Qvalues.
103 .0438 31 17 14 15 .191 on the lower right represents the probability of obtaining a total of 31 items from Category 1 from the two samples.132 .21.0119 .P[Rejecting . This probability can be divided into entries in the right hand column to find the conditional probabilities of obtaining possible numbers of items from Category 1 in Samples I and II.284 .30.0126 . .Category 1 Approach: For the specific example in this discussion.190 .905]P[Rr'.00113   ..0711 *  I Rejection Should Occur) .0507 .270 .0898 .qvalue .231 .191 . the qvalue can be found from less extreme divisions of the R items from Category I to be q. Using a more conventional approach.15. Taking the data and more extreme divisions of the R items from category I as evidence of rejection.value .0126 .122 .905] P[Rr'.191 + .191 .0438 * .15..00113 The sum of .21.191 .0119 + + . P[Failing to RejectlRejection Should Occur] .0352 .70..0321 . the qvalue is found from 1 ..191  * . ..0711 .250 .191 338 .800] 31 21 20 19 18 16 10 11 12 13 .0507 . one table used to calculate a qvalue for pl19/21 and paIml2/15 is R 31 31 31 31 r' Rr' P[r'.800] P[r'.188 .
.Nnpl ] 339 .R) Decreasing of r' is limited by the requirement that two measurements must be nonnegative. The final form of the Category 1 equation is thus r1 rm) qvalue rmax(n+RN) min(n..p I ] P [ R..p 1 I ] . That is. and nr'4NR..This procedure may be stated formally with the following equation: r1 ri qvalue.n+RN) P[r' 1 )]P[Rr'.. Increasing of r' is limited by the total size of both Sample I and Category 1..n. Rr'4Nn. Thus the lower limit of the above sum is min(r') m max(O. nr'(n.n.r ' . r' must simultaneously satisfy r'4n and.p rlmax(.n... r4'R. Considering the other two possible measurements leads to four other conditions: Rr'4R. and R.NnpII] ] r'n P 3 R r .. Possible measurements of Category 1 items in Sample I and Category 2 items in Sample II lead to r'lO and (Nn)(Rr') O >. Thus the upper limit on the above sum is max(r') • min(n..np]P[Rr'.r')n+RN. max(r') r'm n(r') P[r'.Nn p where mln(r') and max(r') are the m'inimun and maximum values of r' allowed by the constraints imposed by fixeo values of N.n+RN).N . n.. These four conditions are equivalent to the first two.R) P[r'.
.Nnlpii] nrn n r+1 qvalue . .0321 P[(Nn)(Rr').30.0507 .191 .15.0126 ..70 or P[ nr'.00113 The numbers in the right three columns are the same as in the previous table used in the Category 1 approach.0119 .191 .0952]P[(Nn)(Rr').O 19 .2/21] . .0952]P[ (Nn)(Rr' ).lpl]P [ (Nn)(Rr').nlp1 ]P[(Nn)(Rr')..P[nr . .0119 + . 21.0438 +....270 .200] ue qvallu qv .190 .0362 P[Both] .21.. . 1 .15.15.191 This procedure may be stated formally with the following equation: max(nr') P[nr'. .191 nr'=3 a .Category 2 Approach: Using Category 2 instead of Category I leads to the following table: NR 5 5 5 5 5 5 nr' (Nn)(Rr') 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 P[nr'.231 .191 . .122 .Nn.15.21.250 .200] 1.132 .188 .qvalue I n.21.191 .n. The calculation proceeds as before but the indicus in the summation appear differently: j P[nr'.nr I min(nr') P[nr'.0438 .103 .r'O ..0898 .200] P[nr'.3/15] .0711 . .0711 .284 .0507 + .0126 + ..p I] 340 .00113 ..15.0952]P[ (Nn)(Rr' ).200] nr'.0952]P[(Nn)(Rr' )..21.
The use and interpretation of this result conjunction with n.NR) and nr)O and Rr')O . max(O....M)max(k+mk+M).P(Nn) and r/n)(Rr)/(Nn).1p].where min(nr') and max(nr') are the minimum and maximum possible measurements of Category 2 items in Sample I.m.n. .p]=P[mi. Equivalency of Methods: Although the equations from the Category I and Category 2 approaches appear quite different they are equivalent.m. By arguments similar to those used in the Category 1 approach.k+M) to yield max(O.Nn.NR) IP[r'. 341 .n P]P[Rr ' Nn PI1] ' 1 al qe P~r' n 'Pl]PER' NnjPl I] 1' must of course be done in Interpretation must recognlze format may or may not select and/or Sample I as the first qval ue .p 1 I] I r'min (n.M)min(k+m. nr'4n and nr'eNR imply that max(nr') • min(n.p 1]P[Rr' .NnPii] nr'max(O. By using the binomial probability relation P~i. nr'l)nR imply that min(nr') = max(O. that the arrangement of the data in a standard Category 1 as the category of primary interest sample drawn and/or tested. .nR).NR) nr n. this equation becomes the Category 1 result.r+l qvalue mn(n. k+max(m.n+RN) P[r '. the Category 2 equation may be rewritten as min(n.R) By reversing the sumnation limits to correspond to the normal practice of summing from low to high indices. and k+min(m.n+RN) P[r'.nR) The limits on the summations may be rewritten by using min(mM)max(m.npl]P[Rr'.M).
One set contains possible measurements as unlikely or more unlikely than r...n. This is verified for the Category I equation by splitting the sum in the denominator into two sus which first sum from r'min(r')max(O. Since this ratio can be 0 by choosing p and pll equal to 0 or 1.n. This occurs because the possible values of r' are divided into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive sets.R.Nn .n+RN) to r'r1 and then summing from r'r to r'max(r')min(n. This may be seen by applying the binomial equation P[i. The pvalue summation uses the unlikely set with both p. qvalue ) 0.r.n ..Range.R. r'max(O. That is. . The qvalue summation uses the likel5 set with any values of PT and P1t..njp1 jP[Rr'. symmetry is expressed by qvalue(N..1.. .. equals p11 . min(n. The mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness of the two sets equire that pvalue + qvalue m 1 when PI=PITFor the FisherIrwin Exact Method.max(.m. versus p11 .n.) . Dividing both numerator and denominator by the sum in the3 numerator then yields 1 qvalue a .p).qvalue(N. is bounded by zero and one.value. .n+RN) P[r' . the qvalue is one minus the p. .n+RN) P Since this equation's ratio of the two sums is never negative but it will be infinite if the data yields rmax(On+RN).p)mi qvalue = r'max(.R).Pii] mi~ .1pi 1 .PIll' 1+ r1 r1rI r'. These two sets identify conditional probabilities that are summed to find the pvalue and qvalue.pl ]P[Rr'.ppPIi) . and Sametry: The qvalue. Sum with PValue. and PTI equated to any common probability. the qvalue is syrmetr1c about the off diagonal in a plot of p.r. .PI]P[Rr'. The other contains values of r' more likely than r.. qvalue 4 1. 1 When p.Nn'pII] .n+RN) 342 .R) r P[r'. like any other probability.Nn.p] to the Category 1 equation in a series of three equations: r1 1 mCi p ( 1 ..
but they are interchangeable mathematically. The qvalue foe the FisherIrwin Exact Method also issymimetric inn and R.rlmakx(O.n+RN) r'l (nrl)I (Rr')1 (NnR+rl)i 1(1pi) p1j ] )' 1 (nrn')l 11 LI p rl rlmJ~nRN ell(nl~l(Rrl)! (NnR+r'll Substitution of n for R and R for n yields the same equation. N nR r min(n. This equation reflects the mathematical arbitrariness in Identifying samples and categories. This constant has been 11 factored from each term of the suni over r .n+RN) (No r' Factor) rz 1Crl NnCRr I 1 where the (No rl Factor) is(L~p1)n p R (1 p1 )NnR.l CR r .After canceling this factor from the equation. is expressed by qvalue(NjnOR~r~pjp 11 ) 1pjpl Thus symmnetry a qvalue(NORjn~rjp1.r qval ue .pjI). P . 343 .P )NnR+r' n+~ 1 1 11 C r j p~ . Applyi Cj w ii/j1(ij)I to the above equation and canceling ni and (Nn) yileld r PI (1pui. The samples and categories normally are distinguished physically.r 1aK ) n~ri PIr' ( PI)nir' NnCRr' PIIRr' ( . the symiimetry isevident because substituting 1p for p and 11 1 Ipi or phj yields the sameequation.R) r'UmaX(O.
the two risks of . future action is based on the existence of two populations with with p and Pl estimated by . Factors other than the data may suggest specific populations. an alternate approach is to compare the pvalue and a qvalue.8.30 is a qvalue for the two populations suggested by the data. If the existence of these two populations is considered as positive. and pII. . Management can set a threshold ratio of Type II to Type I risks and compare a ratio of qvalue/pvalue to this threshold. On the other hand. and PIT for any relevantly different populations. Two populations are then indicated if a ratio of qvalue/pvalue is too high.30 are believed sufficiently high and Iow. future action is based on a single population. If the pvalue is lower than the risk allowed for the proponent of a single population. For the primary example in this discussion.value is higher than the risk that the proponent of two populations is willing to take. If the analyst is not provided with the p. In a subjective decisionmaking process considering many factors. The extremity of the lowness or highness of the pvalue and a qvalue provides the subjective weight for these two factors. If a relevant q. Management should determine which two populations are relevant.RECAPITULATION AND INTERPRETATION The pvalue and a relevant qvalue can provide influencing factors for management. the extremity of a qvalue/pvalue ratio provides the subjective weight of the Fisher's Exact Test factor. Similarly.34 and .9 and . I. .30 are believed sufficiently low and high for probabilities of false positives and negatives respectively.these two populations with pIw. 344 .34 and . A subjective decisionmaking process will naturally be used to consider all factors. considering the existence of only one population as negative implies that .8 are relevantly different. a high pvalue or low relevant qvalue inclines mdnagement toward the decision that there is one population. Management will quite often be influenced by factors other than the pvalue and a relevant qvalue.34 is the pvalue and . If management cannot determine threshold risks to indicate two populations when the pvalue is below and a qvalue is above these thresholds. management is inclined toward the decision that two populations exist. If .9 and pii=. management is also inclined toward the decision that two relevant populations exist. the report to management should include a table of qvalues for a wide range of p. Management should consider a qvalue for each and every pair of relevant populations.30 provide the basis for action. If 1 .34 and .34 is the probability of making a false positive decision.30 is the probability of making a false negative decision.
the results would be ....Pl) exp[ In(TERMS)] I 345 . Additional testing should provide more definitive information by yielding either a low pvalue and a high qvalue or a high pvalue and a low qvalue.R) (1p 1 l r'1 r'max(O. and PiT. the immediate future action is to do additional testing. 8 . .30/.r'max( . qva .n.r'..18 for the pvalue. This possible decrease in the pvalue.9 is the ratio of risks of making false negative and false positive decisions. future action is based a single population if 1/1.g is believed sufficiently high..N) 'r'{ (nrl)l"('R"rl)l (NnR+'r1)1 ue u . ( P l r r'!.35/. .34=1/1.9 is a ratio of qvalue/pvalue... C min(n. each term must be considered as C r 'i (nr )! (Rr )l (NnR+r ){ [p .8. The computer program can assign C with a value which hinders the summed terms from exceeding the computer's working range. COMPUTING METHODS AND RESULTS A digital computer program has been written in Pascal/3000 to facilitate the pvalue and qvalue analysis of the FisherIrwin Exact Method.9 and Pi. L ( .35 for a qvalue..9 is believed sufficiently low.1m...n+RN) (nr') (Rr')l (NnR+r')l (Ipl) Pll where C is any constant.. but if additional testing actually doubled all the data in this paper's example. Subject to the relevancy of pT. Future action is based on two populations if i/.. Two related manipulations are useful in extending the range of data which yields qvalues without computer overflows or underflows. and increase in a ratio of qvalue/pvalue would increase the tendency to base future actions on two populitions. To make this assignment without overflowing or underflowing the computer.1m. Naturally increasing the sample sizes may not yield a proportional increase in all the data.1. Similarly. The equation for the qvalue can be rewritten as r1 qval ue C r P1 (1P~~r' L(Ipi l)il i FPl . 1/1.182 for a qvalue/pvalue ratio corresponding to pi.1. If the pvalue and a qvalue provide conflicting or indeterminate indications that are unresolvable.For this example.. increase in a qvalue.. and .n+R.
y. and r. Figures 3a and 3b contain the output R. 8.. Figure k provides an exampie of the terminal screen after the output has been dirccted to a printer and tqe user has chosen to enter N. this selertion can then be used to force C exi(in(TERMS)) into the computer's operating range (e. For any value of r'.. and N according to the following table: If R<(NR) Factor v w x y z If R<n r R I Ri R If R)n r n i I. Correspondingly. the user selects either the terminal scrben or a printer for the program output.ln[(nr')I] . and z are dependent on r. nr.6(10)78 to 1.ln(pii)] 1 . R.g. 176 to 176). w. The information in Figure I then appears on the screen..ln[(Rr')!] .g.R).i R If RW(NR) ' (NR)Nn) )f 'Nn)(kr) NR N. x. Rr. .ln[r'l] . 346 . Finally Figure 6 shows an example with both input and output on the terminal screen. For this example. The range of computer calculations for the pvalue ca be extended by using logarithms.Ri i NR If (NR)o(Nn) (Nn)(Rr) Nn NRi i NR The computer program operates from a terminal .. Figures 4 and 5 show input and output kien the user has entered r. Naturally this pr'ogramming technique is successful only if r' doesn't change too much in the summation between max(O. One useful form of the pvalue equatiun is pval~ge'a W . iuv exp[ln(nCx) + ln(NfnCy)  ln(NCz)] where the factors v.nere the expression ln(TERMS) in the exponential is ln(TERMS) .ln[(NnRr')].ln[C] + r'[ln(p ) + ln(1pii) . for this input. The constant C can be selected to keep ln(TERMS) within the computer's range for x in exp(x).n+RN) and min(n. and (Nn)(Rr).15 (10)77). (e. the input produces a standard table in a different order than the data.ln(1pI) . At the start of the prcgram. This provides the user with a brief sumimary of the analysis and asks the user which four independent variables will be entered.
the qvalue of . Even higher qvalues are obtained when e.337 .857 . Although every manager is free to determine how high a qvalue needs to be for a two population decision.861 r 16 17 18 19 value I .8 for r21). (0 and € are the binomial probabilities that describe the two popUlations.791 (or .682 . Instead.644 .791 ..902 .8 and 0.9 and €.241 .941) is quite high. to very high qvalues.85 and 0.292 .318 .Soeni results from the outputs in these figures (and similar computer executions) are compiled in the following table. This reflects the fact different.407 . Management must realize that no amount of testing can prove that anything is either completely perfect or worthless. An r measurement of 18 indicates one popul3tion unless management is concerned about very extreme alternate populations. and R31 are included.87 .9 68.85 &.381 . nu2l.766 .987 0.249 .87 and *.297 . Finally an r measurement of 19 indicates two populations if management is careful about what those two populations are.9 and O.098 .274 .762 .690 . that it's easier to say two things are different if they don't have to be very 347 .000 qvalue eo. considering e.924 .988 . are not those suggested by the pointestimates of B and *.962 .008 This table emphasizes that management needs to determine relevantly different populations instead of Just considering the pointestimates suggested by the data.941 .810 .593 .941 e.933 .884 .000 .8 for r16 or e'.. This reflects the compound fact that (1) obtaining data biased in opposite direction from two existing populations is extremely unlikely so (2) the existence of such data strongly implies more than one population. Considering possible populations for which e and * are on opposite sides of the commonpopulation pointestimate of 31/36.) The qvalues for those pointestimates are identically zero.726 .8 .861.9 for r21) lead.084 21 .905 .861 from the pointestimates (e.87 are considered for r16 (or e. . they replace the commonpopulation pointestimate of 31/36.663 .867 . Less extreme but similar results are obtained for r measurements of 17 and 20. The tabulated qvalues are referenced to e and * instead of pT and PII' This is necessary because the computer places the data in a standardly ordered table sometimes making PIe and P rn and sometimes resulting in Pjs and pine. 8 .85 for r21).0 .925 . are 9 considered for ru16 (or e. As expected.999 for e.667 point estimates.000 . The two populations indicated however. If e.995 .800 .87 & . more reasonable values of e and * must be considered. 11 pointestimates to replace .993 .733 .952 1. All possible measurements of r fur N36.g. the extreme r measurements of 16 and 21 lead to low pvalues indicating two populations. these are low by any standard.000 A 1.306 .8 and .054 .
This corresponds to universal measurement implying exact results..90 .9 and (179)/10. Thus increasing the sample size.127.221 .N2 N3 .76..059.209o.5999.447.201. and r given by {N1 .232.R4 .76.118. A short series of tests on the shortfin version yields 11 hits and 3 misses.752 "'1 . and em.94 & O..R . This enables the user to enter and analyze management's relevantly different populations. A set of shorter missile fins in proposed to make the fieldassembly faster.084. consider the hypothetical case analyzed in Figures 7a and 7b.331. and {rl.8 respectively.90 & o.86 & on.r.3659.444.. Enough tests have been made on the initial design to obtain 107 hits and 14 misses.80.80 .8.316.192 The corresponding set of pvalues Is 1. e. is somewhat low but the advocates of fast assembly with short fins might claim that .3%.. The shortfin test is prominent in the mind of the missile designer. 11.397 .86 & u. For example.595.. 9.249 is not close Pnough to zero to warrant the conclusion that short fins have degraded the missile's accuracy. The second.. .. the short fins should not be used if they significantly degrade the missile's performance. n.633 . . 348 .90 & u. R.303. The interior of the following table contains sets of qvalues from four executions of the computer program. Note also (B) that the pvalue has a more pronounced change than the qvalues.472i..n . third an3 fourth measurements are just multiples of the first. } a 10.N4 {20..500..94 2791.5261 .111. Note (A) that increasing the sample size decreases the pvalue and increases the qvalue for 6=.72).n . and q.86 .80}.) The program is designed so the user can keep track of a sample of prominence and a category of interest. {R R2 ..060}.86 & o=.169.94 & 0%.{:19.40.84 1352.The dependence of both the pval ue and qval ue on the number of measurements is illustrated by the following example. increases the justification for deciding that two population yielded the two samples.20.174.. Note finally (C) that increasing the sample size when e.1361. Suppose that a fieldfired missile is being developed. if the data remains proportionate..9 and Oa. (This largemeasurement effect does not occur for ew.94 & o. The pvalue. Four measurements are assumed to yield values of N.84 eventually leads to a decrease in the qvalue...rl }... All four of these hypothetical measurements provide point estimates of e and * of 9/10..356.249.40. A unusually high qvalu thus has at least as much significance as an unusually low pvalue. e. {nl.237.721 1.84 because they are on the opposite side of the point estimate from the extreme identified by the alternate hypothesis. e.(17.84.34.082.074 .80.180.76.76 .:525..80.. The first entry into the computer.027 . identifies the shortfin test as the sample of prominence and hits as the category of interest.68.160}. Thus the prvalue is more sensitive than the qvalues.217. Figures 7a and 7b contain the input and terminalscreen output of an analysis using the FisherIrwin Exact Method. Each set has the qvalue for the smallest sample size first and the largest last..421.r 2 .
706.900 and 0. The qvalue for PIPIi has been shown to equal one minus the pvalue. the qvalue increases to . If management sets the desired requirement at e=. If management leaves the desired requirement at . 786 and a=07/121=. SUMMARY The pvalue and qvalue analysis of the FisherIrwin Exact Method has been developed. This information should be in a form that can be understood and used by the decisionmaker. the last table on Figure 7b provides a basis for decision. This makes Fisher's Exact Test relevant.850 is an unacceptable accuracy rate. The argument for rejecting the short fins is thus quite strong if . Computer generated reports have been provided for communication between analysts and managers. this was predestined for the FisherIrwin Exact Method because it is a general property of the pvalue and qvalues. 349 . The pvalue and qvalues provide the decisionmaker with estimates of the risks of making wrong decisions. Analysts can perform voluminous calculations without approximations. Reporting the pvalue and relevant qvalues satisfies both of these conditions. The development of the pvalue and qvalue analysis of the FisherIrwin Exact Method has reached the stage of Imolementation. higher than the pvalue but it might not be large enough justify not using the short fins. Managers can iecide if the two samples are from one population or from two populations differing either (1) from the combined point estimate of the population or (2) according to (A) a desired population or standard and (B) an unacceptable population. This makes the analysis practical.884 is . management has a fairly strong basis for not using the short fins.890.900 and decrees that o.900 and raises the unacceptable level to . The pvalue equation has been derived using two techniques: hypergeometric and binomial. This qvalue equation has been shown to possess mathematical symmetry. Managers can consider the relative sizes and importance of the pvalue and relevant qvalues.That is slightly The qvalue for 0=11/14. The binomial technique has been extended to yield a qvalue equation. The qvalue for e.525. A computer program has been written. Since this is twice the pvalue.850 is .890 is really an unacceptable accuracy rate. This equation has been derived from two sources: possible category one measurements and possible category two measurements. CONCLUS ION The analyst has a responsibility to report all information influencing the decision.375.
The reliabilityengineer uses "r. This computerized analysis does a one sided test in the direction indicated by the data. n. The qvalue is the probability of falsely deciding that two populations exist. P.(Nn)Rr)".Greetings! Welcome to a computerized FisherIrwin Exact Test Analysis.g. Terminal screen at program initiation. It requires four numerical inputs determining nine numbers: Sample One: Sample Two: Total : Category One (e. nr. This assumption is rejected and the two samples are considered to represent two statistically different populations if management reaches two conclusions: 1) The pvalue is deemed sufficiently low and 2) A qvalue for relevantly different populations is deemed sufficiently high. Success): r Rr R Category Two (e. Two independent samples are initially assumed to be from a single population.g. ENTER RELIABILITYENGINEER/THEORETICALSTATIS'riCIAN APPROACH "R/S" Figure 1. & r". A qvalue for two relevantly different populations is the probability of falsely deciding that those two populations are one population. The theoreticalstatistician approach uses "N. Failure): nr (Nn)(Rr) NR Sum: n Nn N Data may be entered in two ways. 350 . R. Rr.
12 / 15 .E. REPLACE * * 12 / 15 .12 / 15 a 0. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER '" ENTER "" 1 .ENTER RELIABILITYENGINEER/THEORETICALSTATISTICIAN APPROACH "R/S" ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER SIZE SIZE # OF # OF s OF POPULATION "N" 36 OF SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE "n" 21 ITEMS FROM CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN POPULATION "R" 31 ITEMS FROM CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE "r" 19 t ENTER "T" FOR TABLE OF QVALUES.E.905) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP skip END OF PROGRAM Figure 2.87 . REPLACE e w 19 / 21 .E.0. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP C ENTER I"M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I. REPLACE * . REPLACE e a 19 / 21 .0.19 / 21 .85 ENTER I"M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I. REPLACE " 12 / 15 .8 ENTER "M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I. 1 ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER "e" ENTER 1101. .0.800). REPLACE e . 351 . Sample of theoreticalstatistician input.0.7 ENTER I"M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I.E.905) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I.E.905) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I. REPLACE * .800).905) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I. REPLACE e a 19 / 21 a 0.800).E.E.0.9 .800).0. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP TABLE ENTER "a' FOR CLOSE LOOK AT QVALUE TABLE IN DATA SUGGESTED REGION. m "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP ENTER le"1 ENTER " " .E.
804 0.098 0.362 0.992 0.e.840 0.000 0.003 1.761 0.000 1.000 0.009 0.720 0.250 0.905 and a 12 / 15 a 0.000 0.000 0.866 0.985 Figure 3a.251 0.963 0.409 0.015 0.820 0.002 0.003 0.183 0.350 0.000 0.001 0.083 0.600 0.285 0158 0.905 0.027 0.860 0.827 0.023 0.990 0.173 0. the posttest risk of a Type I error is pvalue .105 0.663 0.211 0.450 0.827 0.543 0.020 1.058 1.580 0.809 0.461 0.043 0.019 0.050 0.553 0.869 0.992 0.978 0.990 0.001 0.956 0.000 0. q.530 0.002 0.r) a 3 N.885 0.106 0. the posttest risk For other binomial parameters of the category of interest.663 0.917 0.006 0.460 0.318 0.113 0.850 0. Sample I: Sample II: Category rR .950 0.251 0.456 0.946 0.132 0.304 0.120 0.075 0.333 0.700 0.(R .050 0.997 0.r w Ra 1: 19 12 31 Category 2: n.058 0.650 0.085 0.833 0.446 0.644 0.663 0.805 0.240 0.210 0.ANALYSIS OF FISHER'S EXACT TEST In the following standardly ordered table.304 0.956 0.641 0.958 0.491 0.589 0.n a 15 N.963 0.038 0.208 0.456 0.030 0.900 0.663 0.965 0. 352 .917 0.000 0.648 0.569 0.493 0.21 N .000 1.004 0.450 0.Q19 0.986 0.663 0.182 0.280 0.504 0.750 0.389 0.809 0.000 0.187 0.418 0.r a 2 (N n) .550 0.483 0.285 0.440 0.064 0.052 0.646 0.479 0.314 0.36 For this data.384 0.000 0.190 0.150 0.845 0.000 1.407 0.866 0.476 0.724 0.999 0.896 0.997 0.999 0.314 0.986 0.152 0.006 0.550 0.702 0.007 0.302 0.5 n.999 0.174 0.361 0.158 0.365 0.389 0.660 0.350 0.R .710 0.816 0.438 0.049 0.156 0.348 0.880 0.013 0.663 0.382 0.780 0.753 0.997 0.950 For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by the data.182 1.215 0.978 0.925 0.0. of a Type II error is qvalue a 0.996 0.210 0.800).019 0.760 0.945 0.000 1.903 0.003 0.500 0.800 0.705 0.402 0.740 0.289 0.663 0.663 0.850 0.245 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: a\ * 0.772 0. e m 19 / 21 .650 0.825 0.595 0.048 0.337.750 0.253 0.297 0.903 0. First half of printer output from Figure 2 input.005 0.075 0.144 0.018 0.048 0.852 0.997 0.079 0.217 0.020 0.518 0.028 0.007 0.100 0.429 0.999 0.386 0. the sample of prominence and category of interest are identified by the user as Sample I and Category 1. For this data's two suggested binomial parameters of the category of interest (i.716 0.000 1.064 0.250 0.946 0.663 0.297.342 0.122 0.663 0.865 0.000 0.551 0.786 0.532 0.649 0.150 0.803 0.483 0.044 0.153 0.007 1.001 0.values may be estimated from the following table: e\ * 0.0.
181 0.229 0.426 0.717 0.274 0.680 0.436 0.820 0.767 0.715 0.000 0.083 0.006 0.834 0.199 0.860 0.030 0.318 0.548 0.016 0.028 0.753 0.870 0.321 0.735 0.800 0.064 0.458 0.365 0.853 0.790 0.770 0.852 0.199 0.501 0.950 0.000 0.553 0.870 0.328 0.114 0.914 0.820 0.960 0.000 0.402 0.351 0.112 0.094 0.252 0.764 0.900 0.469 0.797 0.960 0.003 0.318 0.271 0.020 0.370 0.569 0.025 0.375 0.290 0.460 0.204 0.800 0.784 0.564 0.876 0.617 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.002 0.000 0.746 0.559 0.160 0.960 0. 353 .473 0.760 0.000 0.0760.000 0.663 0. Second half of printer output from Figure 2 input.399 0.601 0.663 0.039 0.351 0.948 0.900 0.950 0.840 0.445 0.830 0.051 0.001 0.720 0.213 0.780 0.090 0.593 0.010 0.391 0.487 0.713 0.259 0.000 0.053 0.023 0.542 0.000 0.415 0.001 0.031 0.495 0.025 0.413 0.301 0.663 0.513 0.826 0.615 0.518 0.726.740 0.740 0.031 0.877 0.663 0.141 0.640 0.720 0.810 0.0.000 0.909 0.663 0.807 0.890 0.976 0.970 0.760 0.790 0.920 0.334 0.808 0.000 0.229 0.115 0.911 0.000 0.035 0.557 0.071 0.010 0.730 0.098 0.062 0.000 0.663 0.076 0.295 0.831 0.723 0.611 0.850 0.613 0.449 0.055 0.663 0.233 0.583 0.937 0.141 0.790 0.000 0.536 0.568 0.003 0.780 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.124 0.920 0.880 0.600 0.076 0.660 0.910 0.940 0.137 0.042 0.434 For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.233 0.956 0.980 1.051 0.867 0.058 0.318 0.378 0.987 0.547 0.248 0.791 0.189 0.486 0.094 0.192 0.663 0.969 0.018 0.004 0.168 0.842 0.750 0.819 0.078 1.424 0.182 0.663 0.008 0.108 0.886 0.945 0.251 0.013 0.272 0.006 0.800 0.040 0.759 0.812 0.880 0.007 0.267 0.763 0.079 0.32 0.004 0.510 0.023 0.839 0.389 0.217 0.902 0.288 0.013 0.469 0.025 0.000 For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.302 0.368 0.859 0.968 0.850 0.072 0.663 0.170 0.620 0.050 0.112 0.357 0.431 0.561 0.507 0.064 0.272 0.064 0.175 0.860 0.810 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: e\ * 0.708 0.2.062 0.115 0.134 0.770 0.663 0.019 0.982 0.900 0.830 0.798 0.196 0.980 0.416 0.431 0.160 0.879 0.145 0.297 0.663 0.445 0.007 0.909 0.740 0.142 0.893 0.046 0.233 0.000 0.597 0.010 0.511 0.499 0.932 0.000 0.930 0.003 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.090 0.060 0.777 0.000 Figure 3b.609 0.000 0.606 0.306 0.393 0.192 0.020 0.711 0.529 0.520 0.700 0.145 0.453 0.479 0.910 0.336 0.105 0.113 0.338 0.840 0.018 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: e\ 0 0.930 0.663 0.093 0.002 0.170 0.865 0.589 0.134 0.255 0.035 0.387 0.007 0.930 0.772 0.052 0.138 0.663 0.720 0.577 0.700 0.663 0.940 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: e\ * 0.040 0.143 0.For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.201 0.013 0.890 0.663 0.604 0.
"ANYTHING ELSE TO SKIP skip END OF PROGRAM Figure 4.ENTER RELIABILITYENGINEER/THEORETICALSTATISTICIAN APPROACH "R/S" ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER "TEST "TEST "TEST "TEST ONE ONE TWO TWO NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER OF OF OF OF SUCCESSES" 20 FAILURES" 1 SUCCESSES" 11 FAILURES" 4 r ENTER "T" FOR TABLE OF QVALUES.733). REPLACE e m 20 / 21 w 0. REPLACE * = 11 / 15 .9 . REPLACE * =11 / 15 a 0.VALUE TABLE IN DATA SUGGESTED REGION. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER "le" 1 ENTER "" .0.733).952) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER "e" ENTER 11 " . "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP TABLE skip ENTER "01 FOR CLOSE LOOK AT Q.E.E.0.952) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I.0.7 ENTER "I FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE " THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I.952) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I.733).E.E. 354 .E.8 ENTER "M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I. Sample of reliabilityengineer input. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP skip ENTER "N" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I. REPLACE 11 / 15 . REPLACE e a 20 / 21 . REPLACE e 0 20 / 21 m 0.E.
337 0.403 0. Test Two.660 0.840 0.960 0.592 0.721 0.853 0.628 0.820 0.229 0.037 0.860 0.496 0.333 0.916 0.411 0.090 0.374 0.000 0. Successes.000 0.000 0.211 0.860 0.372 0.199 0.263 0.099 0.452 0.597 0.865 0.679 0.143 0.553 0. the posttest risk of (i.302 0.980 1.637 0.700 0.339 0.372 0.237 0.349 0.000 0.543 0.720 0.806 0.471 0.780 0.740 0.975 0. the most natural description of a test result Is considered to be Success instead of Failure). In the following standardly ordered table.761 0.937 0.229 0.000 0.869 0.267 0.744 0.241.084.174 0.800 0.070 0.726 0.024 0.596 0. To utilize these identities. the test with 20 Successes and 1 Failure) is taken as the sample of prominence (i e.000 0.733).000 0.920 0.592 0. [A] Test One (i.804 0.785 0.411 0.265 0.277 0. the sample of prominence and category of interest are identified by the user as Sample I and Category 1. it Is considered physically more important than Test Two) and [B] Successes define the category of interest (i.892 0.000 0.889 0.876 0.000 0.641 0.760 0.916 0.0. For this data's two suggested binomial parameters of the category of interest * a 11 / 15 a 0.945 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: 9\ € 0.700 0.840 0.760 0.940 0.083 0.844 0.916 0.956 0.099 0.n a 15 Na 36 * For this data.860 0.333 0.756 0.000 0.000 0.225 0.818 0.740 0.959 0.643 0.000 0.250 0.971 0.900 0.916 0.832 0.000 0.ANALYSIS OF FISHER'S EXACT TEST Although Test One. 355 .812 0.265 0.886 0.518 0. the pusttest risk of a Type I error is pvalue 0.043 0.050 0.000 0.e.302 0.r • Rn 1: 20 11 31 Category 2: n .297 0.511 0.597 0.700 0.667 0.645 0.936 0.720 0.070 0.152 0.979 0.466 0.553 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: o\ 0 0.795 0.188 0.117 0.543 0.939 0.511 0.174 0.000 Figure 5.000 0.000 0.050 0.680 0. e i 20 / 21 * 0.307 0.199 0.964 0.r) * 4 NR a 5 n a 21 N .079 0.763 0.867 0.900 0.980 1.102 0.118 0.916 0.452 0.983 0.800 0.690 0.577 0.083 0.149 0.916 0.780 0.539 0.e.433 0.988 0.000 0. Printer output from Figure 4 input.880 0.837 0.709 0.059 0.880 0.000 0.416 0.900 0.600 0.263 0.968 0.133 0. For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.168 0.804 0.643 0.780 0.690 0.953 0. and Failures may be interchanged several ways mathematically.302 0.297 0.027 0.920 0.416 0.000 0.741 0.815 0.118 0.465 0.471 0.496 0.363 0.820 0.r a I (N n) . they have physical identities.843 0. Sample I: Sample IT: Category r a R.000 0.032 0.556 0.690 0.(R .059 0.952 and a Type II error is qvalue .800 0.000 0.000 0.829 0.623 0.940 0.882 0.152 0.174 0.397 0.374 0.705 0.785 0.942 0.640 0.332 0.774 0.737 0.214 0.620 0.000 For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.782 0.465 0.960 0.e.
009 0.088 0.800 0.078 0.9 For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management.149 0.411 0.423 0. Sample I: Sample II: Category 1: ra 3 R .005 0.188 0.003 0.337 0.071 0.000 0.139 0.141 0.007 0.042 0.720 0.0.216 0.250 0.019 O.31 n .291 0.050 0.155 0.019 0.337 0. Input and screen output in case that alters order in table.880 0.003 0.(R .011 0.682 0.184 0.8 .569 0.079 0.041 0.820 0. ENTER "T" FOR TABLE OF QVALUES.867).098 0.001 0.337 0.012 0.900 0.480 0.000 0.006 0.009 0.270 0.000 O.166 0. the posttest risk of a Type I error Is pvalue n 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: e\ * 0. For this data's two suggested binomial parameters of the category of interest (i.857 and € .001 0.337 0.860 0.114 0.073 0.124 0.000 0.337 0.000 0.001 0.396 0.032 0.700 0.283 0.260 0.21 N .202 0.2 R n 5 Category 2: n .016 0.136 0.740 0.277 0.960 0.215 0.004 0. REPLACE o a 18 / 21 a 0.108 0.076 0.246 0.E.032 0.760 0.860 0.ooq 0.014 0.015 0.13 N R .000 0.18 (N n) .800 0.780 0.E. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP TABLE skip ENTER "C" FOR CLOSE LOOK AT QVALUE TABLE IN DATA SUGGESTED REGION9 "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP skip ENTER "If' MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE FOR THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I.980 1.000 Figure 6.176 0.033 0.920 0. e a 18 / 21 a 0. the sample of prominence and category of interest are identified by the user as Sample I and Category 2.048 0.228 0.000 0.077 0.198 0.103 0. the posttest risk of a Type II error is qvalue .182 0.127 0.521 0.000 0.002 0.880 0.207 0.r) .e.174 0.630 0. 356 .237 0.000 0.051 0.306.047 0.452 0.244 0.154 0.403 0.940 0.13 / 15 .337 0.061 0.001 0.464 0.000 0.128 0.158 0.391 0.030 0.063 0.000 0.057 0.117 0.840 0.36 For this data.000 0.n a 15 N .062 0.024 0.098 0.093 0.ENTER RELIABILITYENGINEER/THEORETICALSTATISTICIAN APPROACH "R/S" ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER SIZE SIZE # OF # OF S OF POPULATION "N" 36 OF SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE "n" 21 ITEMS FROM CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN POPULATION "R" 31 ITEMS FROM CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE "r" 18 ANALYSIS OF FISHER'S EXACT TEST In the following standardly ordered table.857) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I.r .867).840 0.598 0.022 0. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER "e" ENTER "" . REPLACE * = 13 / 15 = 0.158 0.106 0.004 0.r .900 0.542 0.663.037 0.0.024 0.501 0.820 0.287 0.
992 0.516 0.650 0.751 0. Test Two. ENTER "T" FOR TABLE OF QVALUES.000 0.124 0.000 1. the posttest risk of t a Type II error is qvalue a 0.e.150 0.035 0.751 0.850 0.884 0.999 0. the test with 11 Successes and is taken as the sample of prominince (i.750 0.035 0.450 0.985 0.982 0.880 0.000 0.000 1.064 0.000 0.r • 11 R 118 Category 2: n .289 0.003 1.150 0.002 0.999 0. and Failures may be interchanged several ways mathematically they have physical identities.000 0.897 0.996 0.429 0.000 0.786 and e .751 0.050 0.000 1.951 0. For this data's two suggested binomial parameters of the category of interest (i.976 0.999 0.n N 121 14 135 For this data.000 0.999 0.981 0.650 0.329 0.124 0.850 0.0.r) a 3 N . it is considered physically more important than Test Two) and [B] Successes define the category of interest (i.429 0.550 0.951 0.003 0.559 0.190 0.249.000 1.000 0.154 1.016 0.751 0. First half of reliabilityengineer input and screen output for hypothetical missile modification analysis. 357 .950 0.e.976 0.992 0.926 0.000 1.751 0.950 0.959 0.022 1.000 0.926 0.0.516 0.e.e. the most natural description of a test result is considered to be Success instead of Failure). Successes.r .550 0.000 0.897 0.000 0.981 0.751 0. In the following standardly ordered table.995 0.144 0.289 0. qvalues may be estimated from the following table: e\ € 0.350 0.751 0.450 0.000 0.884 0.107 / 121 0.549 0. To utilize these 3 Failures) identities. ' 11 / 14 .14 (N n) .000 1.000 0.016 0.050 0.000 1. the posttest risk of a Type I error Is pvalue .35U 0.997 0.005 0. the sample of prominence and category of interest are identified by the user as Sample II and Category 1.064 0.ENTER RELIABILITYENGINEER/THEORETICALSTATISTICIAN APPROACH ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER "TEST "TEST "TEST "TEST ONE ONE TWO TWO NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER OF OF OF OF SUCCESSES" 11 FAILURES" 3 SUCCESSES" 107 FAILURES" 14 "R/S" r ANALYSIS OF FISHER'S EXACT TEST Although Test One.884).000 0.000 1.329 0.751 0.997 0. Sample I: Sample II: Category 1: r * 107 R .999 0.000 0.250 0.995 0.751 Figure 7a.190 0.(R .000 1.985 0.154 0.000 0.000 1.375.959 0.000 0.250 0.996 0. "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP TABLE For other binomial parameters of the category of interest.000 1.002 0.549 0.000 0.751 0.750 0.R w 17 n* N .022 0. [A] Test One (i.
ENTER "C" FOR CLOSE LOOK AT QVALUETABLE IN DATA SUGGESTED REGION, c "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by the data, qvalues may be estimated from the following table:
*\
0
0.686 0.706 0.726 0.746 0.766 0.786 0.806 0.826 0.846 0.866 0.886 0.499 0.430 0.358 0.283 0.208 0.138 0.079 0.035 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.550 0.483 0.409 0.331 0.251 0.173 0.103 0.048 0.014 0.002 0.000 0.603 0.537 0.464 0.384 0.299 0.213 0.132 0.065 0.021 0.003 0.000 0.655 0.593 0.521 0.441 0.353 0.260 0.168 0.088 0.031 0.005 0.000 0.706 0.648 0.580 0.501 0.412 0.314 0.212 0.118 0.045 0.007 0.000 0.755 0.702 0.639 0.564 0.476 0.375 0.265 0.156 0.065 0.01,2 0.000 0.801 0.755 0.698 0.628 0.544 0.443 0.327 0.205 0.093 0.020 0.000 0.844 0.805 0.755 0.693 0.614 0.517 0.399 0.265 0.131 0.033 0.001 0.882 0.850 0.809 0.756 0.686 0.595 0.480 0.339 0.184 0.053 0.002 0.916 0.891 0.859 0.815 0.756 0.676 0.569 0.427 0.255 0.087 0.003 0.943 0.926 0.902 0.869 0.823 0.757 0.663 0.530 0.349 0.140 0.008
0.784 0.804 0.824 0.844 0.864 0.884 0.904 0.924 0.944 0.964 0.984
ENTER "M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE  11 / 14 a 0.786) AND THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I.E. REPLACE SAMPLE OF NONPROMINENCE (I.E. REPLACE e , 107 / 121  0.884), "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP m ENTER "*" ENTER "8 .85 .9
For binomial parameters of the category of interest near those indicated by management, q.values may be estimated from the following table: o\ 0 0.800 0.820 0.840 0.860 0.880 0.900 0.920 0.940 0.960 0.980 1.000 0.750 0.770 0.790 0,810 0.830 0.850 0.870 0.890 0.910 0.930 0.950 0.618 0.550 0.471 0.384 0.291 0.197 0.110 0.044 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.673 0.608 0.532 0.445 0.348 0.245 0.145 0.063 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.726 0.666 0.595 0.510 0.411 0.302 0.189 0.088 0.022 0.001 0.000 0.776 0.724 0.658 0.578 0.481 0.368 0.243 0.123 0.034 0.002 0.000 0.824 0.778 0.721 0.648 0.556 0.442 0.310 0.170 0.054 0.003 0.000 0.867 0.830 0.781 0.717 0.634 0.525 0.389 0.232 0.084 0.006 0.000 0.905 0.876 0.837 0.785 0.712 0.614 0.482 0.313 0.131 0.013 0.000 0.937 0.916 0.887 0.847 0.789 0.706 0.585 0.415 0.201 0.026 0.000 0.962 0.948 0.929 0.901 0.860 0.796 0.696 0.539 0.306 0.056 0.000 0.980 0.973 0.962 0.945 0.919 0.877 0.805 0.679 0.454 0.122 0.000 0.992 0.989 0.984 0.976 0.964 0.942 0.902 0.822 0.646 0.265 0.000
ENTER "M" FOR MANAGEMENT INDICATED BINOMIAL PARAMETERS TO REPLACE THE DATA INDICATED PARAMETERS OF THE CATEGORY OF INTEREST IN THE SAMPLE OF PROMINENCE (I.E. REPLACE • a 11 / 14  0.786) AND THE SAMPLE OF NONPROMENENCE (I.E. REPLACE e  107 / 121  0.884), "ANYTHING ELSE" TO SKIP skip END OF PROGRAM Figure lb. Second half of hypothetical missile modification analysis.
358
THIRTY FOURM(CM
A.IEDA LIST FOR THE TUTORIAL S flN NEAR RM nI 1718 OCIOW 1988 AND =H
ICZ
M
CN MEZ DESIGN CP
IN A)D M
RIEA , DEVP T AND TEST=NG 1921 OMDUR 1988 UI=R.1L (T) OOFREC (C)
C
LANUR
=rsnt
Rat L. e
versity of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 C WAlHZR ,Paul H.
Of Statistics
(803) 7777800
Reliability Division
TERE
White Sands Missile Range
New MixicL T,C 88002 (505) 6786177
WMF'P Weston C.
Flight Safety
NRCF
White Sands Missile Rang.
New Mexio 88002 (505) 6782205
T,C
BLICO, Abel J. Atmosphric SciwON Lab SLCSAEE
White Sands Missile Range
Now Mexico T,C N tL, IZvi 88002 J. (505) 6783924
Div. 6415 Sandie National Lobs
PO Box 5800
A C,
pinrque, Now Mexioo
87185
(505) 8444208
TE, DeorIis STPMrTAA Ywmm Proving Ground €MUM, W.J. College of Bus. Acmin Texas Tech University
lak*oc' TX l2";59 79409
(AV) 8993251
C
(806) 7421546
C
DAVID,
H.A.
Ia State University Departent of Statistics ISU, Armes, IA 50011 T,C DOYLE, Mary USA TFOSC Product Assurance 4300 Gcodfello St. Louis, MD 631201798 HOCK=G. Ron
(515) 2947749
(314) 2639468
C
Texas A&M
Dparwnt of Statistics College Stati, TX 77843
(409) 8453151
C
ZACS, S.
Binghwvon Center Departibnt of Math Sciences Suny, Binghwxton NY 13901
(607) 7772619
T,C
BRAND=t, Dernis L. U.S. Anty Corps of xiners aterways Bperimnt Station P.O. Bcx 631 ViCkburg, MS 391800631 STRATXN, Willard F. USAW Materiel Riadiness suport Activity Lexington, K" 405115101 IAiNDmA, Jagdish
(601) 6342807
T,C
(606) 2934174
C
U.S. Amy Reearch Office Mathematicml Sciences Division
P.O. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park NC 27709 (919) 5490641
C
ESSV*AMEU,
Research Directorate
De Oskar M.
U.S. Amy Missile Ccmmrd A'IV: AMOUPDREAP Redstone Arsenal, AL 358985248
(AV)
8764872
360
T,C
ABRAHIM, YMhd Mathematical Department New Mexico State University BANDAS, Sadin Mathematical Depaxnunt New Mexico State University HVICK, Chris Mathematical EDepartment
T,C
T
New Mexico State University
T DALE, Richard H. Data Sciences Division STEWSNRAM White Sands Missile Range,
N 88002
T
GADNEY, George Data Sciences Division STMNRAD White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 MICAUJLIN, Dale R. Data Sciences Division STESMRAM White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 0UNCIL, Konrad K. Data Sciences Division STESMRAM White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 ZEBR, Ronald AMXCMCWWS White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002 CHAMBS, Charles E. Data Sciences Division STEWSNRMA White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002
TC
T,C
T
T,C
361
TC
SUTGE, J. Fbbezt waiter Reed Anny Institute of Research
washirqton, DC 20307
TC
MM I Douglas
(202) 5763151
walter Ped
Anny Institute of Research Washingtionp DC 203075100
TC GPWM0P Gavin t7TEF Math Deparbmnt UT'P I El Paso, IX
(202) 5767212
(915) 7475761
TIC
AV3APA, Elton P.
AMNTh:
U.*S. Amny Atmspheric
sciences Laboratory
SLChSAEE (AVAPA)
white Sands Missile Range N.M 880025501 C
(505) 6781570
WOOS, Anthony K. USATWM1, System Analysis Of fice Mo~deling &Techniques Div. 4300 Goodfellow Blvd. (314) 2632926 St. louis MO 631201798 MOSS, Linda L.C. Ballistics Research Laboratcry U.S. Amny Ballistic Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Grun
D 210055066
TC
(301) 2786832
TIC
~THaICS Jerry
Ballistics Research Laboratory
(301) 2786728
Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 210055066
TC
BODT,
Barry A.
Aberdeen Proving Ground M'D 210055066
(301) 2786646
TIC
tMMOTZ, Robert L. U.S. Anny Ballistic Research Lab SECBEP Akvrdeen Proving Ground I'D 210055066 362
(301) 2786832
T,C
WEBB, David W. Ballistic Research Laboratozy ATTNt SLMSEP Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 210055066 WR, uMalca S.
(301) 2986646
T,C
Ballistic Reuearch Lboratory ATIN: SLCMSEP Abudeen Proving Ground
MD 210055066 T QUINZI, Tony TRAC White Sands Missile Range NM 88002 JSSL, Om
ATIN:
(301) 2986646
(505) 6784356
T,C
Carl T.
CSTE<h
5600 Columbia Pike Falls Church, VA 220415115 C HALL, Oarles E. Jr.
(AV) 2892305
U.S. Azmy Missile Ccgrgrmn
ATTN, AMSMIRDREOP/C.E. Hall Pedstone Arsenal AL 358985248 C
(205) 8763934
LEIG, Siegfried H. U.S. Auy Missile CauwuAn ATT~s AS1MRDREOP/S. H. Lehnigh RestomO Arsenal, AL 358985248 (205) 8763526 GM, Rbet E. STESIDP
T,C
tite Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico 88002 (505) 6782291
TIC
WTvOIT, Gem
U.S. Ami Infantry School (404) 5453165
T,C
GRIMES, Dr. Fred M. TEXO Cmtind Arms Test DirecWratm Ft Hood, TX 765445065
(AV) 7389614
363
T,C
Sw= I Donald X. New Maxico Research Institute Box 160 Las CMWes, NK 88004
BATES, Carl B.
(505) 5225197
C
U.S. Am Concepts Arnaysi Agency
8120 Wbodmont Ave 208142797 Bethesda, M (AV) 2950163
C
Donald L. Mm(, Stanford University Departunt of Operations Resiarch
Stanford, CA 943054022 (415) 7230850
T,C
Vernon V. VismA, US AtoVy Combat SystaMM Activity Abedeen Proving Ground MD 210055059 SOWOKY, P. Counsellor, Defenie R&D, Canadian Embassy 2450 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20008 DRESSEL, Francis U.S. Awy Research Office PO Bcx 12211 Research Triangle Park North Carolina 277092211 B.YSCM, Dr.' Meion R.' TEXCt4 Experien.ation Center Ford Ord, CA 939417000 TfNlEy, Henry B. University of Delaare Dept Math Sciences Newark DE 19716 BISSMER, Batney Penn State University Hershey Foods 281 W. Main St Middletown, PA 17057 364
(301) 2787503
C
(202) 4835505
T,C
(919) 5490641
C
(408) 2424414
T,C
(302) 4518034
TC
(717) 9440649
Texas C CNG. Texas 77843 COW r Herb U. Texas ROJO. Bill Mathematical Department University of Texas . Emanuel Department of Statistics Texas A&M University College Station. MD 210055066 T. Texas LIU. Charles RAM Division White Sand&1 Missile Range. Texas C POLLA . Eugene Mathmatical Department University of Texas El Paso El Paso. NM 88001 C SHUSTEI. Cherq Matheatical Departmnt University of TewUa El Paso El Paso.S. Texas C PARZEN.. Javier Mathematical Department University of Texas .C =tzALZ I RaMiro TRAC White Sands Missile Range. New Mexico 88002 KAIQH. Yan Mathematical Department University of Texas .C 365 . Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity Aberdeen Proving Ground.El Paso C El Paso.El Paso C El Paso.El Paso C El Paso.
C PAGE. Janet White Sands Missile Range. NM 88002 T CATRSON. Clay D. Ay Airborne Board Fort Bragg. Gideon Las Cruces.C DAL=. NM4 88001 T ACKER. Data Sciences Division STEWSNRAM WhiteSids Missile Range. Woodrow 1125 Larry Drive Las Cruces. Gerald Math Department New Mexico State University CoX. Data Sciences Division STESNRAM White Sands Missile Range. Paul 2930 Huntington Drive Las Cruces. Herb AMSA Aberdeen Proving Ground MD 21005 WANG.S. New Mexico 88001 C ANDERSEN. NM 88002 T. NC TC CASTILLO. NM T.C C 88001 TC CULPEPM . New Mexico T. NM 88002 TC COHEN. Joe 28307 (AV)2365115 U. GERALD 366 . Oren N. Cesar Data Sciences Division STEWSNRAM White Sands Missile Range. NM 88002 ROGERS. Phillip TRAC White Sands Missile Range.C HAMM.
T C C 367 . Bernard University of Wisconsi.S.C VANE. Mark U. A ' Materials Technology Lab Watertown Arsenal HARRIS. Larry TErN Headquarters Aberdeen Proving Ground. Edward George Mason University C. MD 210055066 W3W4AN. Madison WMST.
20. Develoment and Testing. OFFICE SYMBOL 5490641. 9I 13a. State.O. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 27709 8 b.j distribiution unlimited. FIELD COSATI CODES GROUP SUBGROUP I18. State. TILE (include S cu t y Proceedings of the ThirtyFourth Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER _____________________ (ADA) Sc. this Teetinq. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION IForrm 0Bpo07040 ?88 Apo'e UN.ASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 5F fHISPAG REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE la. DATE OF REPORT (YearW011th.. OFFICE SYMBOL (if applicable) I______ ORGANIZATION of ASO AMSC on behalf 9.AC SI N N . SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 2b. TYPE OF REPORT Technical 16.Day) 1i5.UNa. NC Be. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) lb. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Dr.MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) AM Report 892 Ga. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse it necessary and identify by block number) '19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION 114. It contains nust of the papers presented at These articles treat various Army statistical andJ design problemns. 6bOFISMOL r (if applicable) SICRAW 7a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION ArM Research Office 8c. PAGE COUNT 367I7 1989 July 17. Dressel DO FORM 1473. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE . Francis G. Classification)EL 11. S. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 4. Q OTIC USERS 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION T22b TELEPHONE (include 22a.fRA TO. State. All other editions are obsolete. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release.. and ZIP Ccode) P. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS PROGM O PROJECT IN . ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) This is a technical report of the ThirtyFourth Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research. DeveloSTent and Testing 12.N ITASK WQKUNITNO . DISTRIBUTION IAVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 0 UNCLASSIFIE D/UNLI MITE D 0 SAME AS RPT.ASIFID 2a.DRESS (City. 124 UNCLASIFID SLCRMJ\ 83 APR edition may be usd until exhausted. and ZIP Cod@) 7b. M N NO PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) 13b TIME COVERED FROM fL. and ZIP Code) 10. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION ADDRESS (City..84 MAR I(919) Area Code) 22c. ADDRESS (City. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park. RESTRICTIVE MVARKINO ' 3.. AD. Ext.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.