<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Do 3rd order effects help define curvature? in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Do-3rd-order-effects-help-define-curvature/m-p/729866#M91255</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have are making a design with a factor you are certain will have a quadratic relationship against a response but you have a wide range, can it be helpful to define a 3rd order model effect for that factor to better identify and model curvature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I work in purification and we often deal with a recovery vs. purity balance. This relationship is usually quadratic around the optimal, where at a low condition, we see 100% recovery and 0% purity, at an optimal condition, we may see a 90% recovery and 90% purity, and at a high condition, we may see 90% purity, and 0% recovery (Sometimes 0% recovery also leads to inaccurate purity data).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I understand a 2nd order effect should be able to effectively model a quadratic relationship, however if I am uncertain how far to extend a design space, I worry that I could effectively overshoot by extending too much (Where the centerpoint is far beyond the optimal so that recovery is ~0% and so is the high condition), or undershoot by constricting the space too much (where the centerpoint is far before the optimal and leads to 100% recovery and 0% enrichment). I've had a few situations now where DoEs performing very well when characterizing a design space we are already aware of but tend to be inaccurate when I try to extend them to new design spaces where we are uncertain of the appropriate ranges.&amp;nbsp;In the scheme of things, the expected total model curve would be a bell shape (With tails on each end) which I guess would be representative of a 4th order polynomial??? I am not really interested in characterizing that entire space as I just need a model that effectively predicts the range around the optimal, however with my current issue of not knowing where the optimal exists I am trying to determine a solution for future studies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;By increasing the order effect of this one factor, it creates more levels within the space so I assume it gives it a better opportunity to land on some intermediate conditions which flanks the optimal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this thought process correct? I tested this within a DoE and it did not add any additional experiments but I know typically if that's the case, you are giving something else up.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 04:21:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MetaLizard62080</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-03-05T04:21:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Do 3rd order effects help define curvature?</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Do-3rd-order-effects-help-define-curvature/m-p/729866#M91255</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have are making a design with a factor you are certain will have a quadratic relationship against a response but you have a wide range, can it be helpful to define a 3rd order model effect for that factor to better identify and model curvature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I work in purification and we often deal with a recovery vs. purity balance. This relationship is usually quadratic around the optimal, where at a low condition, we see 100% recovery and 0% purity, at an optimal condition, we may see a 90% recovery and 90% purity, and at a high condition, we may see 90% purity, and 0% recovery (Sometimes 0% recovery also leads to inaccurate purity data).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I understand a 2nd order effect should be able to effectively model a quadratic relationship, however if I am uncertain how far to extend a design space, I worry that I could effectively overshoot by extending too much (Where the centerpoint is far beyond the optimal so that recovery is ~0% and so is the high condition), or undershoot by constricting the space too much (where the centerpoint is far before the optimal and leads to 100% recovery and 0% enrichment). I've had a few situations now where DoEs performing very well when characterizing a design space we are already aware of but tend to be inaccurate when I try to extend them to new design spaces where we are uncertain of the appropriate ranges.&amp;nbsp;In the scheme of things, the expected total model curve would be a bell shape (With tails on each end) which I guess would be representative of a 4th order polynomial??? I am not really interested in characterizing that entire space as I just need a model that effectively predicts the range around the optimal, however with my current issue of not knowing where the optimal exists I am trying to determine a solution for future studies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;By increasing the order effect of this one factor, it creates more levels within the space so I assume it gives it a better opportunity to land on some intermediate conditions which flanks the optimal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this thought process correct? I tested this within a DoE and it did not add any additional experiments but I know typically if that's the case, you are giving something else up.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 04:21:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Do-3rd-order-effects-help-define-curvature/m-p/729866#M91255</guid>
      <dc:creator>MetaLizard62080</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-05T04:21:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

