Sequentially weighted uniform designs

References

• Fang K-T. Uniform design: application of number-theoretic methods in experimental design (in chinese). Acta Math Appl Sin. 1980;3(4):363–372.
   Google Scholar
• Fang K-T, Li R, Sudjianto A. Design and modeling for computer experiments. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Fang K-T, Liu M-Q, Qin H, et al. Theory and application of uniform experimental designs. Vol. New York: Springer; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hickernell FJ. A generalized discrepancy and quadrature error bound. Math Comput. 1998;67(221):299–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickernell FJ. Lattice rules: how well do they measure up?. In: Random and quasi-random point sets, Springer; 1998. p. 109–166.
   Google Scholar
• Hickernell FJ, Liu M-Q. Uniform designs limit aliasing. Biometrika. 2002;89(4):893–904.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Y-D, Ning J, Song X. Lee discrepancy and its applications in experimental designs. Stat Probab Lett. 2008;78(13):1933–1942.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee K, Qin H. Generalized discrete discrepancy and its applications in experimental designs. J Stat Plan Inference. 2011;141(2):951–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Y-D, Fang K-T, Ning J. Mixture discrepancy for quasi-random point sets. J Complex. 2013;29(3-4):283–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He L, Qin H, Ning J. Weighted symmetrized centered discrepancy for uniform design. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2022;51(8):4509–4519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong X, Ai M, Tsui KL. Design for sequential follow-up experiments in computer emulations. Technometrics. 2018;60(1):61–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li W, Lin DKJ. Optimal foldover plans for two-level fractional factorial designs. Technometrics. 2003;45(2):142–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou XJ, Lin DKJ, Hu XL, et al. Sequential latin hypercube design with both space-filling and projective properties. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2019;35(6):1941–1951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian PZG. Nested latin hypercube designs. Biometrika. 2009;96(4):957–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian PZG. Sliced latin hypercube designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 2012;107(497):393–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph VR, Dasgupta T, Tuo R, et al. Sequential exploration of complex surfaces using minimum energy designs. Technometrics. 2015;57(1):64–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeppky JL, Moore LM, Williams BJ. Batch sequential designs for computer experiments. J Stat Plan Inference. 2010;140(6):1452–1464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao Y, Ning J, Xiong Z, et al. Batch sequential adaptive designs for global optimization. J Korean Stat Soc. 2022;51(3):780–802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X-R, Liu M-Q, Zhou Y-D. Orthogonal uniform composite designs. J Stat Plan Inference. 2020;206:100–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Y-D, Xu H. Composite designs based on orthogonal arrays and definitive screening designs. J Am Stat Assoc. 2017;112(520):1675–1683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang K-T, Lin DKJ, Qin H. A note on optimal foldover design. Stat Probab Lett. 2003;62(3):245–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei Y, Ou Z, Qin H, et al. A note on lower bound of centered L2-discrepancy on combined designs. Acta Math Sin Engl Ser. 2012;28(4):793–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsawah AM, Qin H. A new look on optimal foldover plans in terms of uniformity criteria. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2017;46(4):1621–1635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin H, Chatterjee K, Ou Z. A lower bound for the centred L2-discrepancy on combined designs under the asymmetric factorials. Statistics. 2013;47(5):992–1002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou Z, Qin H, Cai X. A lower bound for the wrap-around L2-discrepancy on combined designs of mixed two-and three-level factorials. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2014;43(10-12):2274–2285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou Z, Qin H, Cai X. Optimal foldover plans of three-level designs with minimum wrap-around L2-discrepancy. Sci China Math. 2015;58(7):1537–1548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin H, Gou T, Chatterjee K. A new class of two-level optimal extended designs. J Korean Stat Soc. 2016;45(2):168–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou T, Qin H, Chatterjee K. A new extension strategy on three-level factorials under wrap-around L2-discrepancy. Commun Stat -Theory Methods. 2017;46(18):9063–9074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gou T, Qin H, Chatterjee K. Efficient asymmetrical extended designs under wrap-around L2-discrepancy. J Syst Sci Complex. 2018;31(5):1391–1404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang F, Zhou Y-D, Zhang X-R. Augmented uniform designs. J Stat Plan Inference. 2017;182:61–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang F, Zhou Y-D, Zhang A. Mixed-level column augmented uniform designs. J Complex. 2019;53:23–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Ou Z, Li H. Uniform row augmented designs with multi-level. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2021;50(15):3491–3504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao Y-P, Yi S-Y, Zhou Y-D. Level-augmented uniform designs. Stat Pap. 2022;63(2):441–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Zhang A. Hyperparameter optimization via sequential uniform designs. J Mach Learn Res. 2021;22(149):1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Ba S, Myers WR, Wang D. A sequential maximum projection design framework for computer experiments with inert factors. Stat Sin. 2018;28(2):879–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsawah AM, Tang Y, Fang K-T. Constructing optimal projection designs. Statistics. 2019;53(6):1357–1385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He X. Interleaved lattice-based maximin distance designs. Biometrika. 2019;106(2):453–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph VR, Gul E, Ba S. Maximum projection designs for computer experiments. Biometrika. 2015;102(2):371–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao Y, Ning J, Lin DKJ, et al. Bayesian variable selection via hierarchical gaussian process model in computer experiments. manuscript. 2022;1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Hickernell FJ. Quadrature error bounds with applications to lattice rules. SIAM J Numer Anal. 1996;33(5):1995–2016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan IH, Wozniakowski H. When are quasi-monte carlo algorithms efficient for high dimensional integrals?. J Complex. 1998;14(1):1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin R, Chen W, Sudjianto A. An efficient algorithm for constructing optimal design of computer experiments. J Stat Plan Inference. 2005;134(1):268–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, et al. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci. 1989;4(4):409–423.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester A, Sobester Aás, Keane A. Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Linkletter C, Bingham D, Hengartner N, et al. Variable selection for gaussian process models in computer experiments. Technometrics. 2006;48(4):478–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch WJ, Buck RJ, Sacks J, et al. Screening, predicting and computer experiments. Technometrics. 1992;34(1):15–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Ari EN, Steinberg DM. Modeling data from computer experiments: an empirical comparison of Kriging with MARS and projection pursuit regression. Qual Eng. 2007;19(4):327–338.
   Google Scholar
• Worley BA. Deterministic uncertainty analysis. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA), 1987. (Technical report).
   Google Scholar