Enumeration and Multicriteria Selection of Orthogonal Minimally Aliased Response Surface Designs

References

• Anderson-Cook, C. M., Borror, C. M., and Montgomery, D. C. (2009), “Response Surface Design Evaluation and Comparison,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 139, 629–641. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2008.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, A., Donev, A., and Tobias, R. (2007), Optimum Experimental Designs, With SAS (Vol. 34), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, R., and Chigbu, P. (1997), “Enumeration of Semi-Latin Squares,” Discrete Mathematics, 167, 73–84. DOI: 10.1016/S0012-365X(96)00217-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertacco, L., Fischetti, M., and Lodi, A. (2007), “A Feasibility Pump Heuristic for General Mixed-Integer Problems,” Discrete Optimization, 4, 63–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.disopt.2006.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertsimas, D., and Weismantel, R. (2005), Optimization Over Integers (Vol. 13), Belmont: Dynamic Ideas.
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, D. R., and Li, W. (2002), “A Class of Optimal Robust Parameter Designs,” Journal of Quality Technology, 34, 244–259. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2002.11980156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boland, N. L., Eberhard, A. C., Engineer, F. G., Fischetti, M., Savelsbergh, M. W., and Tsoukalas, A. (2014), “Boosting the Feasibility Pump,” Mathematical Programming Computation, 6, 255–279. DOI: 10.1007/s12532-014-0068-9.
   Google Scholar
• Boland, N. L., Eberhard, A. C., Engineer, F., and Tsoukalas, A. (2012), “A New Approach to the Feasibility Pump in Mixed Integer Programming,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, 22, 831–861. DOI: 10.1137/110823596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borkowski, J. J., and Valeroso, E. S. (2001), “Comparison of Design Optimality Criteria of Reduced Models for Response Surface Designs in the Hypercube,” Technometrics, 43, 468–477. DOI: 10.1198/00401700152672564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrotti, M., Sambo, F., Mylona, K., and Gilmour, S. (2017), “A Multi-Objective Coordinate-Exchange Two-Phase Local Search Algorithm for Multi-Stratum Experiments,” Statistics and Computing, 27, 469–481. DOI: 10.1007/s11222-016-9633-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P., and Behnken, D. W. (1960), “Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables,” Technometrics, 2, 455–475. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1960.10489912.
   Google Scholar
• Box, G. E., and Draper, N. R. (1975), “Robust Designs,” Biometrika, 62, 347–352. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/62.2.347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box, G. E. P., and Wilson, K. B. (1951), “On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 1–45. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00067.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulutoglu, D. A., and Margot, F. (2008), “Classification of Orthogonal Arrays by Integer Programming,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138, 654–666. DOI: 10.1016/j.jspi.2006.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, N. R., and Guttman, I. (1992), “Treating Bias as Variance for Experimental Design Purposes,” Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 44, 659–671. DOI: 10.1007/BF00053396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, N. R., and Lin, D. K. (1990), “Small Response-Surface Designs,” Technometrics, 32, 187–194. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1990.10484634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DuMouchel, W., and Jones, B. (1994), “A Simple Bayesian Modification of D-Optimal Designs to Reduce Dependence on an Assumed Model,” Technometrics, 36, 37–47. DOI: 10.2307/1269197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eendebak, P. T., and Schoen, E. D. (2017), “Two-Level Designs to Estimate All Main Effects and Two-Factor Interactions,” Technometrics, 59, 69–79. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.2016.1142903.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Errore, A., Jones, B., Li, W., and Nachtsheim, C. (2017), “Benefits and Fast Construction of Efficient Two-Level Foldover Designs,” Technometrics, 59, 48–57. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.2015.1124052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischetti, M., Glover, F., and Lodi, A. (2005), “The Feasibility Pump,” Mathematical Programming, 104, 91–104. DOI: 10.1007/s10107-004-0570-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, P., and Jones, B. (2011), Optimal Design of Experiments: A Case Study Approach, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Goos, P., Kobilinsky, A., O’Brien, T. E., and Vandebroek, M. (2005), “Model-Robust and Model-Sensitive Designs,” Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 49, 201–216. DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2004.05.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C. M., Hoffman, K. L., and Yarrow, L.-A. (1995), “Using Integer Programming Techniques for the Solution of an Experimental Design Problem,” Annals of Operations Research, 58, 243–260. DOI: 10.1007/BF02032134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, H. O. (1959), “Smallest Composite Designs for Quadratic Response Surfaces,” Biometrics, 15, 611–624. DOI: 10.2307/2527658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs, B. F., Chankong, V., and Hamadeh, W. (1992), “An Experiment in Water Resources Planning,” Water Resources Research, 28, 1767–1779. DOI: 10.1029/92WR00712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoke, A. T. (1974), “Economical Second-Order Designs Based on Irregular Fractions of the 3n Factorial,” Technometrics, 16, 375–384. DOI: 10.2307/1267667.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM CPLEX (2014), ILOG CPLEX 12.6 Optimization Studio, New York, NY: IBM.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B., and Nachtsheim, C. J. (2011a), “A Class of Three-Level Designs for Definitive Screening in the Presence of Second-Order Effects,” Journal of Quality Technology, 43, 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2011.11917841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B., and Nachtsheim, C. J. (2011b), “Efficient Designs With Minimal Aliasing,” Technometrics, 53, 62–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B., and Nachtsheim, C. J. (2016), “Blocking Schemes for Definitive Screening Designs,” Technometrics, 58, 74–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, W. B., and Draper, N. R. (1994), “Choosing a Design for Straight Line Fits to Two Correlated Responses,” Statistica Sinica, 4, 275–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koukouvinos, C., and Seberry, J. (1997), “Weighing Matrices and Their Applications,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 62, 91–101. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3758(96)00172-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linderoth, J., Margot, F., and Thain, G. (2009), “Improving Bounds on the Football Pool Problem by Integer Programming and High-Throughput Computing,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, 21, 445–457. DOI: 10.1287/ijoc.1090.0334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeppky, J. L., Sitter, R. R., and Tang, B. (2007), “Nonregular Designs With Desirable Projection Properties,” Technometrics, 49, 454–467. DOI: 10.1198/004017007000000100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., and Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2013), “Adapting the Hypervolume Quality Indicator to Quantify Trade-Offs and Search Efficiency for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Using Pareto Fronts,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 29, 1117–1133. DOI: 10.1002/qre.1464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., and Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2014), “Balancing Multiple Criteria Incorporating Cost Using Pareto Front Optimization for Split-Plot Designed Experiments,” Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 30, 37–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., and Robinson, T. J. (2011), “Optimization of Designed Experiments Based on Multiple Criteria Utilizing a Pareto Frontier,” Technometrics, 53, 353–365. DOI: 10.1198/TECH.2011.10087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Anderson-Cook, C. M., and Robinson, T. J. (2012), “A Case Study to Demonstrate a Pareto Frontier for Selecting a Best Response Surface Design While Simultaneously Optimizing Multiple Criteria,” Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 28, 206–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968), “Decision Making Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach,” Technical Report, DTIC Document.
   Google Scholar
• Margot, F. (2002), “Pruning by Isomorphism in Branch-and-Cut,” Mathematical Programming, 94, 71–90. DOI: 10.1007/s10107-002-0358-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marler, R., and Arora, J. (2004), “Survey of Multi-Objective Optimization Methods for Engineering,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 26, 369–395. DOI: 10.1007/s00158-003-0368-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. J., and Bayne, C. K. (1978), “D-Optimal Fractions of Three-Level Factorial Designs,” Technometrics, 20, 369–380. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1978.10489689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, R., Montgomery, D., and Anderson-Cook, C. (2016), Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (4th ed.), New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., Vining, G. G., Borror, C. M., and Kowalski, S. M. (2004), “Response Surface Methodology: A Retrospective and Literature Survey,” Journal of Quality Technology, 36, 53–77. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2004.11980252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemhauser, G., and Wolsey, L. (1988), Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Notz, W. (1982), “Minimal Point Second Order Designs,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 6, 47–58. DOI: 10.1016/0378-3758(82)90055-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Núñez Ares, J., and Goos, P. (2019), “An Integer Linear Programming Approach to Find Trend-Robust Run Orders of Experimental Designs,” Journal of Quality Technology, 51, 37–50. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2018.1545496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ockuly, R. A., Weese, M. L., Smucker, B. J., Edwards, D. J., and Chang, L. (2017), “Response Surface Experiments: A Meta-Analysis,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 164, 64–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2017.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rechtschaffner, R. L. (1967), “Saturated Fractions of 2n and 3n Factorial Designs,” Technometrics, 9, 569–575. DOI: 10.2307/1266195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, F., Van Beek, P., and Walsh, T. (2006), Handbook of Constraint Programming, New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Sambo, F., Borrotti, M., and Mylona, K. (2014), “A Coordinate-Exchange Two-Phase Local Search Algorithm for the D- and I-Optimal Designs of Split-Plot Experiments,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 71, 1193–1207. DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2013.03.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoen, E. D., Eendebak, P. T., and Nguyen, M. V. (2010), “Complete Enumeration of Pure-Level and Mixed-Level Orthogonal Arrays,” Journal of Combinatorial Designs, 18, 123–140. DOI: 10.1002/jcd.20236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrijver, A. (1998), Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Seppälä, J., Basson, L., and Norris, G. A. (2001), “Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5, 45–68. DOI: 10.1162/10881980160084033.
   Google Scholar
• Vining, G. G., and Myers, R. H. (1991), “A Graphical Approach for Evaluating Response Surface Designs in Terms of the Mean Squared Error of Prediction,” Technometrics, 33, 315–326. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1991.10484837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weistroffer, H. R., Smith, C. H., and Narula, S. C. (2005), “Multiple Criteria Decision Support Software,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, eds. J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Xiao, L., Lin, D. K., and Bai, F. (2012), “Constructing Definitive Screening Designs Using Conference Matrices,” Journal of Quality Technology, 44, 2–8. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2012.11917877.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahran, A., Anderson-Cook, C. M., and Myers, R. H. (2003), “Fraction of Design Space to Assess Prediction Capability of Response Surface Designs,” Journal of Quality Technology, 35, 377–386. DOI: 10.1080/00224065.2003.11980235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N., and Dublish, S. (1998), “Multi-Attribute Decision Making: A Simulation Comparison of Select Methods,” European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 507–529. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar