Model-sensitive sequential optimal designs

Computational Statistics and Data Analysis

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 1089-1099

  Ruggoo, Arvind ^a   Vandebroek, Martina ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS   (Mauritius)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Bias; GD optimality; Lack of fit; Marginal posterior probabilities; Potential terms; Primary terms; Rearrangement; Two stage procedures

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

BIAS; GD-OPTIMALITY; LACK OF FIT; MARGINAL POSTERIOR PROBABILITIES; POTENTIAL TERMS; PRIMARY TERMS; REARRANGEMENT; TWO-STAGE PROCEDURES;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN;

EID: 33750292502     PISSN: 01679473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Andere-Rendon J., Montgomery D.C., and Rollier D.A. Design of mixture experiments using Bayesian D-optimality. J. Quality Tech. 29 (1997) 451-463
2. Atkinson A.C. Planning experiments to detect inadequate regression models. Biometrika 59 (1972) 275-293
3. Atkinson A.C., and Cox D.R. Planning experiments for discriminating between models. J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. B 36 (1974) 321-348
4. Atkinson A.C., and Donev A.N. Optimum Experimental Designs (1992), Clarendon Press, Oxford
5. Atkinson A.C., and Fedorov V.V. The design of experiments for discriminating between two rival models. Biometrika 62 (1975) 57-70
6. Atkinson A.C., and Fedorov V.V. Optimal design: experiments for discriminating between several models. Biometrika 62 (1975) 289-303
7. Biswas A., and Chaudhuri P. An efficient design for model discrimination and parameter estimation in linear models. Biometrika 89 3 (2002) 709-718
8. Borkowski J.J., and Valeroso E.S. Comparison of design optimality criteria of reduced models for response surface designs in the hypercube. Technometrics 43 (2001) 468-477
9. Box G.E.P., and Draper N.R. A basis for the selection of a response surface design. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 54 (1959) 622-653
10. Box G.E.P., and Meyer R.D. An analysis for unreplicated fractional factorials. Technometrics 28 1 (1986) 11-18
11. Box G.E.P., and Meyer R.D. Finding the active factors in fractionated screening experiments. J. Quality Tech. 25 (1993) 94-105
12. Chang Y.-J., and Notz W.I. Model robust designs. In: Ghosh S., and Rao C.R. (Eds). Handbook of Statistics vol. 13 (1996), Elsevier Science, New York 1055-1098
13. DeFeo P., and Myers R.H. A new look at experimental design robustness. Biometrika 79 (1992) 375-380
14. DuMouchel W., and Jones B. A simple Bayesian modification of D-optimal designs to reduce dependence on an assumed model. Technometrics 36 (1994) 37-47
15. Fang Z., and Wiens D.P. Integer-valued, minimax robust designs for estimation and extrapolation in heteroscedastic, approximately linear models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95 (2000) 807-818
16. Fang Z., and Wiens D.P. Robust regression designs for approximate polynomial models. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 17 (2003) 305-321
17. Federov V.V., Montepiedra G., and Nachtsheim C.J. Optimal design and model validity range. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 72 (1998) 215-227
18. Goos P., Kobilinsky A., O'Brien T.E., and Vandebroek M. Model-robust and model-sensitive designs. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 49 1 (2005) 201-216
19. Heredia-Langner A., Montgomery D.C., Carlyle W.M., and Borror C.M. Model-robust optimal designs: a genetic algorithm approach. J. Quality Tech. 36 3 (2004) 263-279
20. Jones E.R., and Mitchell T.J. Design criteria for detecting model inadequacy. Biometrika 65 3 (1978) 541-551
21. Lin H., Myers R.H., and Ye K. Bayesian two-stage optimal design for mixture models. J. Statist. Comput. Simulation 66 (2000) 209-231
22. Montepiedra G., and Federov V.V. Minimum bias designs with constraints. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 63 (1997) 97-111
23. Montepiedra G., and Yeh A.B. A two-stage strategy for the construction of D-optimal experimental designs. Comm. Statist. Simulation Comput. 27 2 (1998) 377-401
24. Montepiedra, G., Yeh, A.B., 2002. Two-stage designs for estimation and identification of polynomial models. Technical Report, Department of Applied Statistics and Operations Research, Bowling Green State University, USA.
25. Myers R.H., and Montgomery D.C. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Improvement with Designed Experiments (2002), Wiley, New York
26. Neff, A., 1996. Bayesian two-stage designs under model uncertainty. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Virginia.
27. Ruggoo A., and Vandebroek M. Bayesian sequential D-D optimal model-robust designs. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 47 4 (2004) 655-673
28. Steinberg D., and Hunter W. Experimental design: review and comment. Technometrics 26 (1984) 71-97
29. Studden W.J. Some robust-type D-optimal design in polynomial regression. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77 (1982) 916-921