IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0110234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A MINE Alternative to D-Optimal Designs for the Linear Model

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda M Bouffier
  • Jonathan Arnold
  • H Bernd Schüttler

Abstract

Doing large-scale genomics experiments can be expensive, and so experimenters want to get the most information out of each experiment. To this end the Maximally Informative Next Experiment (MINE) criterion for experimental design was developed. Here we explore this idea in a simplified context, the linear model. Four variations of the MINE method for the linear model were created: MINE-like, MINE, MINE with random orthonormal basis, and MINE with random rotation. Each method varies in how it maximizes the MINE criterion. Theorem 1 establishes sufficient conditions for the maximization of the MINE criterion under the linear model. Theorem 2 establishes when the MINE criterion is equivalent to the classic design criterion of D-optimality. By simulation under the linear model, we establish that the MINE with random orthonormal basis and MINE with random rotation are faster to discover the true linear relation with regression coefficients and observations when . We also establish in simulations with , , and 1000 replicates that these two variations of MINE also display a lower false positive rate than the MINE-like method and additionally, for a majority of the experiments, for the MINE method.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda M Bouffier & Jonathan Arnold & H Bernd Schüttler, 2014. "A MINE Alternative to D-Optimal Designs for the Linear Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110234
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110234
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110234&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0110234?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0110234. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.