IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v115y2017icp224-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An algorithmic framework for generating optimal two-stratum experimental designs

Author

Listed:
  • Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel
  • Goos, Peter
  • Sörensen, Kenneth

Abstract

Two-stratum experiments are widely used in the event a complete randomization is not possible. In some experimental scenarios, there are constraints that limit the number of observations that can be made under homogeneous conditions. In other scenarios, there are factors whose levels are hard or expensive to change. In both of these scenarios, it is necessary to arrange the observations in different groups. Moreover, it is important that the analysis performed accounts for the variation in the response variable due to the differences between the groups. The most common strategy for the design of these kinds of experiments is to consider groups of equal size. The number of groups and the number of observations per group are usually defined by the constraints that limit the experimental scenario. It is argued, however, that these constraints do not define the design itself, but should be considered only as upper bounds. The number of groups and the number of observations per group should be chosen not only to satisfy the experimental constraints, but also to maximize the quality of the experiment. An algorithmic framework for generating optimal designs for two-stratum experiments, in which the number of groups and the number of observations per group are limited only by upper bounds, is proposed. Computational results show that this additional flexibility in the design generation process can significantly improve the quality of the experiments. Additionally, the results also show that the grouping configuration of an optimal design depends on the characteristics of the two-stratum experiment, namely, the type of experiment, the model to be estimated and the optimality criterion considered. This is a strong argument in favor of using algorithmic techniques that are able to identify not only the best factor-level configuration for each experimental run, but also the best grouping configuration.

Suggested Citation

  • Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel & Goos, Peter & Sörensen, Kenneth, 2017. "An algorithmic framework for generating optimal two-stratum experimental designs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 224-249.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:224-249
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2017.06.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947317301457
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2017.06.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jianxin Wang & Ye Yuan & Shengli Zhao, 2015. "Fractional Factorial Split-plot Designs with Two- and Four-level Factors Containing Clear Effects," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(4), pages 671-682, February.
    2. ARNOUTS, Heidi & GOOS, Peter, 2013. "Staggered-level designs for response surface modeling," Working Papers 2013027, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    3. Smucker, Byran J. & Castillo, Enrique del & Rosenberger, James L., 2012. "Model-robust designs for split-plot experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 4111-4121.
    4. L. A. Trinca & S. G. Gilmour, 1999. "Difference variance dispersion graphs for comparing response surface designs with applications in food technology," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 48(4), pages 441-455.
    5. D. R. Bingham & E. D. Schoen & R. R. Sitter, 2004. "Designing fractional factorial split‐plot experiments with few whole‐plot factors," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 53(2), pages 325-339, April.
    6. Sambo, Francesco & Borrotti, Matteo & Mylona, Kalliopi, 2014. "A coordinate-exchange two-phase local search algorithm for the D- and I-optimal designs of split-plot experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1193-1207.
    7. Bradley Jones & Peter Goos, 2007. "A candidate‐set‐free algorithm for generating D‐optimal split‐plot designs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 56(3), pages 347-364, May.
    8. Steven G. Gilmour & Peter Goos, 2009. "Analysis of data from non‐orthogonal multistratum designs in industrial experiments," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(4), pages 467-484, September.
    9. Shengli Zhao & Xiangfei Chen, 2012. "Mixed-level fractional factorial split-plot designs containing clear effects," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(7), pages 953-962, October.
    10. D. R. Bingham & E. D. Schoen & R. R. Sitter, 2005. "Corrigendum: Designing fractional factorial split‐plot experiments with few whole‐plot factors," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 54(5), pages 955-958, November.
    11. Trinca, Luzia A. & Gilmour, Steven G., 2000. "An algorithm for arranging response surface designs in small blocks," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 25-43, March.
    12. Bradley Jones & Peter Goos, 2009. "D-optimal design of split-split-plot experiments," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 67-82.
    13. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    14. Peter Goos, 2006. "Optimal versus orthogonal and equivalent‐estimation design of blocked and split‐plot experiments," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 60(3), pages 361-378, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smucker, Byran J. & Castillo, Enrique del & Rosenberger, James L., 2012. "Model-robust designs for split-plot experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 4111-4121.
    2. ARNOUTS, Heidi & GOOS, Peter, 2013. "Staggered-level designs for response surface modeling," Working Papers 2013027, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    3. Sambo, Francesco & Borrotti, Matteo & Mylona, Kalliopi, 2014. "A coordinate-exchange two-phase local search algorithm for the D- and I-optimal designs of split-plot experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1193-1207.
    4. Arnouts, Heidi & Goos, Peter, 2010. "Update formulas for split-plot and block designs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3381-3391, December.
    5. Kalliopi Mylona & Harrison Macharia & Peter Goos, 2013. "Three-level equivalent-estimation split-plot designs based on subset and supplementary difference set designs," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(11), pages 1153-1165.
    6. Murat Kulahci & John Tyssedal, 2017. "Split-plot designs for multistage experimentation," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 493-510, February.
    7. ARNOUTS, Heidi & GOOS, Peter, 2009. "Design and analysis of industrial strip-plot experiments," Working Papers 2009007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    8. Yang, Jianfeng & Zhang, Runchu & Liu, Minqian, 2007. "Construction of fractional factorial split-plot designs with weak minimum aberration," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(15), pages 1567-1573, September.
    9. Bradley Jones & Peter Goos, 2009. "D-optimal design of split-split-plot experiments," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 67-82.
    10. JONES, Bradley & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "I-optimal versus D-optimal split-plot response surface designs," Working Papers 2012002, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    11. Xiaodong Li & Xu He & Yuanzhen He & Hui Zhang & Zhong Zhang & Dennis K. J. Lin, 2017. "The Design and Analysis for the Icing Wind Tunnel Experiment of a New Deicing Coating," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(520), pages 1417-1429, October.
    12. SCHOEN, Eric D. & JONES, Bradley & GOOS, Peter, 2010. "Split-plot experiments with factor-dependent whole-plot sizes," Working Papers 2010001, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    13. Stefano Ciliberti & Simone Del Sarto & Angelo Frascarelli & Giulia Pastorelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Contracts to Govern the Transition towards Sustainable Production: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Analysis in the Durum Wheat Sector in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    14. GOOS, Peter & VERMEULEN, Bart & VANDEBROEK, Martina, 2008. "D-optimal conjoint choice designs with no-choice options for a nested logit model," Working Papers 2008020, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    15. Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Peter Goos & Bradley Jones & Utami Syafitri, 2016. "I-Optimal Design of Mixture Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(514), pages 899-911, April.
    17. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    18. K. Chatterjee & C. Koukouvinos, 2021. "Construction of mixed-level supersaturated split-plot designs," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 84(7), pages 949-967, October.
    19. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    20. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:224-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.