Assignment 8

ISE 500

Submitted by: Ananth Ramesh (collaborated with Mazen)

Date: 10/15/2018

1 a)

Plate lengths
4 6 8 10 12 Anova: Single Factor
309.2 402.1 392.4 346.7 407.4
409.5 347.2 366.2 452.9 441.8 SUMMARY
311 361 351 461.4 419.9 Groups Count
326.5 404.5 357.1 433.1 410.7 4 7
316.8 331 409.9 410.6 473.4 6 7
349.8 348.9 367.3 384.2 441.2 8 7
309.7 381.7 382 362.6 465.8 10 7
12 7

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS
Between Groups 43992.55
Within Groups 31475.03
H0 will be rejected if F>= F crit (0.01,4,30)
From the ANOVA tables, Total 75467.58
F= 10.482726172
F crit= 4.0178768366
F crit>= F 10.48>4.01
Therefore, the Hypotheses H0 will be rejected.
There are differences in the data.
 Sum Average Variance
2332.5 333.2142857 1338.698
2576.4 368.0571429 816.3629
2625.9 375.1285714 433.799
2851.5 407.3571429 1981.123
3060.2 437.1714286 675.8557

df MS F P-value F crit
4 10998.13786 10.48273 1.96E-05 4.017877
30 1049.167714

34
1 b) a)
From the output, the largest deviation
is very slightly greater than twice the s
(s3=20.83). Hence it is plausible that th
are not identical.

b)
The relevant hypotheses are - all true a
equal v/s at least 2 true averages differ
10.48 and P= 0.0, we can reject H0 (all
averages are equal) and conclude that
difference.

c) From the list of means for each plate le

4,6,8,10,12 we can observe that-
4 6
333.21 368.06

There is not much difference between

4,6 and 8 but there is significant differe
between 4 and 10.

Similarly, there is not much difference

and 10 but there is significant differenc
and 12 and 8 and 12.

There is not much difference between

and 12 but 12 differs from all of 4,6 an
8.
 output, the largest deviation (s4= 44.51)
ghtly greater than twice the smallest
3). Hence it is plausible that the variances
dentical.

ant hypotheses are - all true averages are

at least 2 true averages differ. Since F=
d P= 0.0, we can reject H0 (all true
are equal) and conclude that there is a
e.

list of means for each plate length

12 we can observe that-
8 10 12
375.13 407.36 437.17

not much difference between the values of

but there is significant difference
4 and 10.

there is not much difference between 6,8

ut there is significant difference between 6
nd 8 and 12.

not much difference between 10

ut 12 differs from all of 4,6 and
1 c)

a)

b)

1 2 3 4
7.9 5.7 6.8 6.4 Anova: Single Factor
6.2 7.5 7.5 7.1
6.6 9.8 5 7.9 SUMMARY
8.6 6.1 7.4 4.5 Groups
8.9 8.4 5.3 5 1
10.1 6.1 4 2
9.6 3
4
sum 57.900 37.500 38.100 34.900
mean 8.271 7.500 6.350 5.817
variance 2.139 2.825 1.123 2.406 ANOVA
Source of Variation
Factor Levels 4 Between Groups
n 24 Within Groups

Total

Tukey-Kramer Procedure
Comparision
1 to 2
1 to 3
1 to 4
2 to 3
2 to 4
3 to 4

c)
 From the table, the P-value should be compared to alpha. Since P=0.02755 < alpha=0.05, we can
rejectt the hypotheses H0 that all true averages are equal.

Since the P-value is less than alpha we can reject the null hypothese, H0. Also, the F value,
F=3.7493 > F crit=3.098 which also supports the rejection of H0.

Count Sum Average Variance

7 57.9 8.2714285714 2.139048
5 37.5 7.5 2.825
6 38.1 6.35 1.123
6 34.9 5.8166666667 2.405667

SS df MS F P-value F crit
23.4957142857 3 7.8319047619 3.74933 0.027552 3.098391
41.7776190476 20 2.0888809524

65.2733333333 23

Num df 4 Den df 20
Q (0.05,3,20) 3.96 (From Appendix table A-10)
er Procedure
Absolute Difference Critical Range Results Critical range = Q*sqrt(poo
0.771 2.163 Not Significantly Different absolute difference = differ
1.921 2.163 Not Significantly Different
2.455 2.163 Significantly Different
Results= if absolute differen
1.150 2.560 Not Significantly Different range, then the groups are
else not significantly differe
 Results= if absolute differen
range, then the groups are
1.683 2.560 Not Significantly Different else not significantly differe
0.533 2.337 Not Significantly Different

From the Tukey-Kramer analysis, we can

identify that only the comparision of brand
1 and brand 4 shows a significant
difference.
Hence there is a significant difference
between brands 1 and 4.
Critical range = Q*sqrt(pooled variance/no. of values for each group)
absolute difference = difference between means

Results= if absolute difference is greater than critical

range, then the groups are significantly different,
else not significantly different
2 a)

1-3 1 2 3 4 4
X y y y x y
10 8.04 9.14 7.46 8 6.58 12
8 6.95 8.14 6.77 8 5.76
10
13 7.58 8.74 12.74 8 7.71 f(x) = 0.49
9 8.81 8.77 7.11 8 8.84 8 R² = 0.678

11 8.33 9.26 7.81 8 8.47

6

Y1
14 9.96 8.1 8.84 8 7.04
6 7.24 6.13 6.08 8 5.25 4
4 4.26 3.1 5.39 19 12.5 2
12 10.48 9.13 8.15 8 5.56
7 4.82 7.26 6.42 8 7.91 0
2 4
5 5.68 4.74 5.73 8 6.89

For the first data set - Simple L

Observed Y2
1-2 9.14
10 8.14
f(x) = 0.5x + 3.0009090909
9 R² = 0.6662420337 8.74
8 8.77
7 9.26
6
8.1
6.13
5
4
3
2
 8
7
6
5
3.1
4
9.13
3
7.26
2
4.74
1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Second data set - quadratic model

Observed Y3
1-3 7.46
14 6.77
12.74
12
7.11
10 7.81
f(x) = 0.4997272727x + 3.0024545455
R² = 0.6663240411 8.84
8
6.08
6 5.39
8.15
4
6.42
2 5.73

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Almost perfect linear regression except for one outlier.

If the outlier is removed then it will be a perfect linear model.

Observed Y4
4-4 6.58
14 5.76
7.71
12 f(x) = 0.4999090909x + 3.0017272727 8.84
R² = 0.6667072569
10 8.47
7.04
8
5.25
6 12.5
5.56
4
7.91
2 6.89

0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
4

0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Outlier has major influence on the plot,

since it is displaced far away from the
cluster of points at the center.
 1-1 Observed Y1 Predicted Y1
12 8.04 7.96
6.95 6.98
10
f(x) = 0.4902727273x + 3.0557272727 7.58 9.43
8 R² = 0.6781963157 8.81 7.47
8.33 8.45
6
Y1

9.96 9.92
4 7.24 6.00
2
4.26 5.02
10.48 8.94
0 4.82 6.49
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
5.68 5.51
X1

r the first data set - Simple Linear Regression Model

Predicted Y2 Residual
8.00 1.14 1-2
7.00 1.14 1.50
9.50 -0.76
1.00
7.50 1.27
8.50 0.76 0.50
10.00 -1.90 0.00
6.00 0.13 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.50

-1.00

-1.50
 0.50

0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-0.50
5.00 -1.90
9.00 0.13 -1.00
6.50 0.76
-1.50
5.50 -0.76
-2.00

-2.50

The Residual Plot shows a parabolic

curve which confirms the quadratic
model.

Predicted Y3 Residual
8.00 -0.54 1-3
7.00 -0.23 3.50
9.50 3.24 3.00
7.50 -0.39 2.50
8.50 -0.69
2.00
10.00 -1.16
1.50
6.00 0.08
1.00
5.00 0.39
9.00 -0.85 0.50

6.50 -0.08 0.00

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
5.50 0.23 -0.50
-1.00
-1.50

Residual plot confirms outlier does not fit with the pattern.

Predicted Y4 Residual
8.00 -1.42 4-4
7.00 -1.24 10.00
9.50 -1.79
8.00
7.50 1.34
8.50 -0.03 6.00
10.00 -2.96
6.00 -0.75 4.00
5.00 7.50
2.00
9.00 -3.44
6.50 1.41 0.00
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
5.50 1.39
-2.00

-4.00
0.00
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-2.00

-4.00
 Residual 1-1
0.08 2.00
-0.03 1.50
-1.85
1.00
1.34
0.50
-0.12
0.04 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
1.24 -0.50
-0.76
-1.00
1.54
-1.50
-1.67
0.17 -2.00

-2.50

Residual Plot does not show any pattern and is

randomly scattered (confirming regression)

14 16
14 16

14 16

18 20
18 20
2 b) Observation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Regression Plot
0.02
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
f(x) = - 4.93443763169048E-08x + 0.0099064608
R² = 0.1296522385
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000
 Cycfail Strampl SUMMARY OUTPUT
1326 0.01495
1593 0.0147 Regression Statistics
4414 0.011 Multiple R 0.3600725461
5673 0.0119 R Square 0.1296522385
29516 0.00873 Adjusted R Square 0.0784553113
26 0.01819 Standard Error 0.0035086549
843 0.0081 Observations 19
1016 0.00801
3410 0.006 ANOVA
7101 0.00575 df SS MS
7356 0.00576 Regression 1 3.11757883E-05 3.117579E-05
7904 0.0058 Residual 17 0.0002092812 1.231066E-05
79 0.01212 Total 18 0.000240457
4175 0.00782
34676 0.00596 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat
114789 0.006 Intercept 0.0099064608 0.0009132402 10.847596581
2672 0.0088 Cycfail -4.934438E-08 0.000000031 -1.591358624
7532 0.00883
30220 0.00676
Mean (Cycfail) = 13911.631579
St Dev (Cycfail) = 26670.724004

Regression Equation: Strampl.hat=-4.93444E-08*Cycfail+0.0099

Prediction Level 95%

Alpha 0.05

Prediction Point St. Error Margin of Lower Upper

at Cycfail Prediction t value of Prediction Error Bound Bound
5000 0.00966 2.110 0.0036104 0.0076172661 0.0020 0.0173

R-square is only at 12.97%, but the t-stat and p-value (at

0.001) proves that the regression model is useful.

By fitting a linear regression model, the quality of the fit is

not good due to a low R-squared but the model is useful in
predicting values due to the t-stat and p values.

Point Prediction at Cycfail = 5000 is 0.00966

 F Significance F
2.53242227 0.1299516985

P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

4.63864E-09 0.0079796925 0.011833229
0.129951699 -1.1476491E-07 1.607616E-08

Interval
Width
0.0152