2012
DOI: 10.1002/qre.1436
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Assessing the Performance of Sequential Procedures for Detecting a Change

Abstract: The literature on statistical process control has focused mostly on the average run length (ARL) to an alarm, as a performance criterion of sequential schemes. When the process is in control, this is the ARL to false alarm, generally denoted by ARL0, and represents the in‐control operating characteristic of the procedure. The ARL from the occurrence of a change to its detection represents an out‐of‐control operating characteristic and is typically embodied by ARL1, the ARL to detection assuming that the change… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In passive monitoring actions to affect the process are less immediate and effective and the monitoring statistic is not reset after a signal (see, e.g., in public health surveillance). For an elaborate discussion see Frisén (2003) or Kenett and Pollak (2012). Throughout this article, we focus on the time until the first false alarm under the assumption of a stable process.…”
Section: Performance Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In passive monitoring actions to affect the process are less immediate and effective and the monitoring statistic is not reset after a signal (see, e.g., in public health surveillance). For an elaborate discussion see Frisén (2003) or Kenett and Pollak (2012). Throughout this article, we focus on the time until the first false alarm under the assumption of a stable process.…”
Section: Performance Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zoom on Figure d: The predicted values (solid line) coincide with a function f of the form f ( t ) = ar t + bt + c (dotted lines) during the period…”
Section: Investigation Of Robust Monitoring For Trended Time Series Wmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…When truet^1, the A R L is an inadequate metric to assess detection speed since the performance of the monitoring statistic is likely to depend on when the fault started. Therefore, we have used the conditional expected delay ( C E D ) proposed by Frisén and Kenett and Pollak calculated as CEDfalse(1pttruet^1ptfalse)=E-2pt[]Tttruet^+10.1emfalse|0.1emTttruet^, where T t is the moment when the fault is detected. When there are no out‐of‐control observations, we use A R L 0 , and when truet^=1, the A R L and C E D are the same.…”
Section: Comparison Of Chart Performancementioning
confidence: 99%