Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes both ASU Theses and Dissertations, submitted by graduate students, and the Barrett, Honors College theses submitted by undergraduate students.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Design of Experiments
Description
No-confounding designs (NC) in 16 runs for 6, 7, and 8 factors are non-regular fractional factorial designs that have been suggested as attractive alternatives to the regular minimum aberration resolution IV designs because they do not completely confound any two-factor interactions with each other. These designs allow for potential estimation of main effects and a few two-factor interactions without the need for follow-up experimentation. Analysis methods for non-regular designs is an area of ongoing research, because standard variable selection techniques such as stepwise regression may not always be the best approach. The current work investigates the use of the Dantzig selector for analyzing no-confounding designs. Through a series of examples it shows that this technique is very effective for identifying the set of active factors in no-confounding designs when there are three of four active main effects and up to two active two-factor interactions.
To evaluate the performance of Dantzig selector, a simulation study was conducted and the results based on the percentage of type II errors are analyzed. Also, another alternative for 6 factor NC design, called the Alternate No-confounding design in six factors is introduced in this study. The performance of this Alternate NC design in 6 factors is then evaluated by using Dantzig selector as an analysis method. Lastly, a section is dedicated to comparing the performance of NC-6 and Alternate NC-6 designs.
To evaluate the performance of Dantzig selector, a simulation study was conducted and the results based on the percentage of type II errors are analyzed. Also, another alternative for 6 factor NC design, called the Alternate No-confounding design in six factors is introduced in this study. The performance of this Alternate NC design in 6 factors is then evaluated by using Dantzig selector as an analysis method. Lastly, a section is dedicated to comparing the performance of NC-6 and Alternate NC-6 designs.
ContributorsKrishnamoorthy, Archana (Author) / Montgomery, Douglas C. (Thesis advisor) / Borror, Connie (Thesis advisor) / Pan, Rong (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Optimal design theory provides a general framework for the construction of experimental designs for categorical responses. For a binary response, where the possible result is one of two outcomes, the logistic regression model is widely used to relate a set of experimental factors with the probability of a positive (or negative) outcome. This research investigates and proposes alternative designs to alleviate the problem of separation in small-sample D-optimal designs for the logistic regression model. Separation causes the non-existence of maximum likelihood parameter estimates and presents a serious problem for model fitting purposes.
First, it is shown that exact, multi-factor D-optimal designs for the logistic regression model can be susceptible to separation. Several logistic regression models are specified, and exact D-optimal designs of fixed sizes are constructed for each model. Sets of simulated response data are generated to estimate the probability of separation in each design. This study proves through simulation that small-sample D-optimal designs are prone to separation and that separation risk is dependent on the specified model. Additionally, it is demonstrated that exact designs of equal size constructed for the same models may have significantly different chances of encountering separation.
The second portion of this research establishes an effective strategy for augmentation, where additional design runs are judiciously added to eliminate separation that has occurred in an initial design. A simulation study is used to demonstrate that augmenting runs in regions of maximum prediction variance (MPV), where the predicted probability of either response category is 50%, most reliably eliminates separation. However, it is also shown that MPV augmentation tends to yield augmented designs with lower D-efficiencies.
The final portion of this research proposes a novel compound optimality criterion, DMP, that is used to construct locally optimal and robust compromise designs. A two-phase coordinate exchange algorithm is implemented to construct exact locally DMP-optimal designs. To address design dependence issues, a maximin strategy is proposed for designating a robust DMP-optimal design. A case study demonstrates that the maximin DMP-optimal design maintains comparable D-efficiencies to a corresponding Bayesian D-optimal design while offering significantly improved separation performance.
First, it is shown that exact, multi-factor D-optimal designs for the logistic regression model can be susceptible to separation. Several logistic regression models are specified, and exact D-optimal designs of fixed sizes are constructed for each model. Sets of simulated response data are generated to estimate the probability of separation in each design. This study proves through simulation that small-sample D-optimal designs are prone to separation and that separation risk is dependent on the specified model. Additionally, it is demonstrated that exact designs of equal size constructed for the same models may have significantly different chances of encountering separation.
The second portion of this research establishes an effective strategy for augmentation, where additional design runs are judiciously added to eliminate separation that has occurred in an initial design. A simulation study is used to demonstrate that augmenting runs in regions of maximum prediction variance (MPV), where the predicted probability of either response category is 50%, most reliably eliminates separation. However, it is also shown that MPV augmentation tends to yield augmented designs with lower D-efficiencies.
The final portion of this research proposes a novel compound optimality criterion, DMP, that is used to construct locally optimal and robust compromise designs. A two-phase coordinate exchange algorithm is implemented to construct exact locally DMP-optimal designs. To address design dependence issues, a maximin strategy is proposed for designating a robust DMP-optimal design. A case study demonstrates that the maximin DMP-optimal design maintains comparable D-efficiencies to a corresponding Bayesian D-optimal design while offering significantly improved separation performance.
ContributorsPark, Anson Robert (Author) / Montgomery, Douglas C. (Thesis advisor) / Mancenido, Michelle V (Thesis advisor) / Escobedo, Adolfo R. (Committee member) / Pan, Rong (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Nonregular designs are a preferable alternative to regular resolution four designs because they avoid confounding two-factor interactions. As a result nonregular designs can estimate and identify a few active two-factor interactions. However, due to the sometimes complex alias structure of nonregular designs, standard screening strategies can fail to identify all active effects. In this research, two-level nonregular screening designs with orthogonal main effects will be discussed. By utilizing knowledge of the alias structure, a design based model selection process for analyzing nonregular designs is proposed.
The Aliased Informed Model Selection (AIMS) strategy is a design specific approach that is compared to three generic model selection methods; stepwise regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and the Dantzig selector. The AIMS approach substantially increases the power to detect active main effects and two-factor interactions versus the aforementioned generic methodologies. This research identifies design specific model spaces; sets of models with strong heredity, all estimable, and exhibit no model confounding. These spaces are then used in the AIMS method along with design specific aliasing rules for model selection decisions. Model spaces and alias rules are identified for three designs; 16-run no-confounding 6, 7, and 8-factor designs. The designs are demonstrated with several examples as well as simulations to show the AIMS superiority in model selection.
A final piece of the research provides a method for augmenting no-confounding designs based on a model spaces and maximum average D-efficiency. Several augmented designs are provided for different situations. A final simulation with the augmented designs shows strong results for augmenting four additional runs if time and resources permit.
The Aliased Informed Model Selection (AIMS) strategy is a design specific approach that is compared to three generic model selection methods; stepwise regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and the Dantzig selector. The AIMS approach substantially increases the power to detect active main effects and two-factor interactions versus the aforementioned generic methodologies. This research identifies design specific model spaces; sets of models with strong heredity, all estimable, and exhibit no model confounding. These spaces are then used in the AIMS method along with design specific aliasing rules for model selection decisions. Model spaces and alias rules are identified for three designs; 16-run no-confounding 6, 7, and 8-factor designs. The designs are demonstrated with several examples as well as simulations to show the AIMS superiority in model selection.
A final piece of the research provides a method for augmenting no-confounding designs based on a model spaces and maximum average D-efficiency. Several augmented designs are provided for different situations. A final simulation with the augmented designs shows strong results for augmenting four additional runs if time and resources permit.
ContributorsMetcalfe, Carly E (Author) / Montgomery, Douglas C. (Thesis advisor) / Jones, Bradley (Committee member) / Pan, Rong (Committee member) / Pedrielli, Giulia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020