Mosaic Plots are Useful for Visualizing Low-Order Projections of Factorial Designs

REFERENCES

• Addelman, S. (1962), “Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments,” Technometrics, 4, 21–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhole, N.S., Naik, G.R., and Prabhawalkar, M.S. (2012), “Optimization of Milling Process Parameters of EN33 Using Taguchi Parameter Design Approach,” Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, 3, 70–74.
   Google Scholar
• Eendebak, P., and Schoen, E. (2013), “Complete Series of Non-Isomorphic Orthogonal Arrays,” Available at http://pietereendebak.nl/oapage/, accessed 24 May 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Evangelaras, H., Koukouvinos, C., and Lappas, E. (2007), “18-Run Nonisomorphic Three Level Orthogonal Arrays,” Metrika, 66, 31–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friendly, M. (1994), “Mosaic Displays for Multi-Way Contingency Tables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 190–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (1995), “Conceptual and Visual Models for Categorical Data,” The American Statistician, 49, 153–160.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2000), Visualizing Categorical Data, Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2002), “A Brief History of the Mosaic Display,” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 11, 89–107.
   Google Scholar
• Gallant, R. (1997), “Tight Orthogonal Main Effects Plans,” PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Grömping, U. (2011), “Relative Projection Frequency Tables for Orthogonal Arrays,” Report 1/2011, Reports in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, . Department II, Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2013a), “DoE.base: Full Factorials, Orthogonal Arrays and Base Utilities for DoE Packages,” . R package version 0.25-2. In: R Core Team (2013).
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2013b), “Frequency Tables for the Coding Invariant Ranking of Orthogonal Arrays,” Report 2/2013, Reports in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, Department II, Beuth University of Applied Sciences, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, V.K., Nigam, A. K., and Dey, A. (1982), “A Class of Asymmetric Main Effects Plans,” Technometrics, 24, 135–137.
   Google Scholar
• Hartigan, J.A., and Kleiner, B. (1981), “Mosaics for Contingency Tables,” in Computer Science and Statistics: Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on the Interface, ed. W.F. Eddy, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 268–273.
   Google Scholar
• Hartigan, J.A., and Kleiner, B. (1984), “A Mosaic of Television Ratings,” The American Statistician, 38, 32–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedayat, A.S., Sloane, N.J. A., and Stufken, J. (1999), Orthogonal Arrays: Theory and Applications, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann, H. (2003), “Constructing and Reading Mosaicplots,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 43, 565–580.
   Google Scholar
• Jacroux, M. (1992), “A Note on the Determination and Construction of Minimal Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans,” Technometrics, 34, 92–96.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H.R., and Lee, K.Y. (2009), “Application of Taguchi Method to Determine Hybrid Welding Conditions of Aluminium Alloy,” Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 68, 296–300.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld, W.F., and Tobias, R.D. (2005), “Large Factorial Designs for Product Engineering and Marketing Research Applications,” Technometrics, 47, 132–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, D.K. J., and Draper, N.R. (1992), “Projection Properties of Plackett and Burman Designs,” Technometrics, 34, 423–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., and Hornik, K. (2006), “The Strucplot Framework: Visualizing Multi-Way Contingency Tables With vcd,” Journal of Statistical Software, 17, 1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukerjee, R., and Wu, C.F. J. (1995), “On the Existence of Saturated and Nearly Saturated Asymmetrical Orthogonal Arrays,” The Annals of Statistics, 23, 2102–2115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIST/SEMATECH (2012), e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, . Available at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, accessed 18 June 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Plackett, R.L., and Burman, J.P. (1946), “The Design of Optimal Multifactorial Experiments,” Biometrika, 33, 305–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2013), “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing,” R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. . 3-900051-07-0, available at http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Schoen, E. (2009), “All OAs With 18 Runs,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 25, 467–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoen, E., and Mee, R. (2012), “Two-Level Designs of Strength 3 and up to 48 Runs,” Applied Statistics, 61, 163–174.
   Google Scholar
• Snee, R.D. (1974), “Graphical Display of Two-Way Contingency Tables,” The American Statistician, 28, 9–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suen, C., and Kuhfeld, W.F. (2005), “On the Construction of Mixed Orthogonal Arrays of Strength Two,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 133, 555–560.
   Google Scholar
• Theus, M., and Urbanek, S. (2008), Interactive Graphics for Data Analysis: Principles and Examples, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H., and Hofmann, H. (2011). “Product Plots,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computational Graphics, 17, 2223–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, C.F. J., and Hamada, M. (2009), Experiments: Planning, Analysis and Optimization (),2nd ed.New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, H., Cheng, S.W., and Wu, C.F. J. (2004), “Optimal Projective Three-Level Designs for Factor Screening and Interaction Detection,” Technometrics, 46, 280–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, H., and Wu, C.F. J. (2001), “Generalized Minimum Aberration for Asymmetrical Fractional Factorial Designs,” The Annals of Statistics, 29, 1066–1077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar