Rotation designs for experiments in high-bias situations

Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference

Volumn 97, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 399-414

  Bursztyn, Dizza ^a   Steinberg, David M ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

62K15; Computer experiments; Factorial designs; Foldover pairs; Orthogonal designs; Projectivity; Response surface designs; Symmetric designs

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010550849     PISSN: 03783758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3758(00)00244-5     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Atkinson A.C. Planning experiments to detect inadequate regression models. Biometrika. 59:1972;275-293.
2. Bates, R.A., Buck, R.J., Riccomagno, E., Wynn, H.P., 1996. Experimental design and observation for large systems. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 58, 77-94, Discussion 95-111.
3. Beattie, S.D., Lin, D.K.J., 1997. Rotated factorial design for computer experiments. Proceedings of SPES, American Statistical Association.
4. Bellman R.E. Introduction to Matrix Analysis. 2nd Edition. 1970;McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. Box G.E.P., Behnken D.W. Simplex-sum designs: a class of second order rotatable designs derivable from those of first order. Ann. Math. Statist. 31:1960;839-864.
6. Box G.E.P., Behnken D.W. Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics. 2:1960;455-475.
7. Box G.E.P., Draper N.R. A basis for the selection of a response surface design. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 54:1959;622-654.
8. Box G.E.P., Draper N.R. The choice of a second order rotatable design. Biometrika. 50:1963;335-352.
9. Box G.E.P., Hunter J.S. Multi-factor experimental designs for exploring response surfaces. Ann. Math. Statist. 28:1957;195-241.
10. Box G.E.P., Wilson K.B. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Series B. 13:1951;1-34.
11. Box G.E.P., Tyssedal J. Projective properties of the sixteen run two-level orthogonal arrays. Biometrika. 83:1996;950-955.
12. Bursztyn, D., 1998. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
13. Bursztyn, D., Steinberg, D.M., 1999. Comparison of designs for computer experiments, draft manuscript.
14. Crosier, R.B., 1993. Method for design rotation. Technical Report ERDEC-TR-099, Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
15. DeFeo P., Myers R.H. A new look at experimental design robustness. Biometrika. 79:1992;375-380.
16. Draper N.R., Guttman I. Treating bias as variance for experimental design purposes. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 44:1992;659-671.
17. Fang K., Wang Y., Bentler P.M. Some applications of number-theoretic methods in statistics. Statist. Sci. 9:1994;416-428.
18. Jones E.R., Mitchell T.J. Design criteria for detecting model inadequacy. Biometrika. 65:1978;541-551.
19. Lin D.K.J., Draper N.R. Projection properties of Plackett and Burman designs. Technometrics. 34:1992;423-428.
20. McKay M.D., Beckman R.J., Conover W.J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics. 21:1979;239-245.
21. Owen A.B. Orthogonal arrays for computer experiments, integration and visualization. Statist. Sinica. 2:1992;439-452.
22. Plackett R.L., Burman J.P. The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. Biometrika. 33:1946;305-325.
23. Rao C.R. Factorial experiments derivable from combinatorial arrangement of arrays. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. (Suppl). 9:1947;128-139.
24. Tang B. Orthogonal array-based latin hypercubes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88:1993;1392-1397.