Abstract
In this paper, we address the problem of designing an experimental plan with both discrete and continuous factors under fairly general parametric statistical models. We propose a new algorithm, named ForLion, to search for locally optimal approximate designs under the D-criterion. The algorithm performs an exhaustive search in a design space with mixed factors while keeping high efficiency and reducing the number of distinct experimental settings. Its optimality is guaranteed by the general equivalence theorem. We present the relevant theoretical results for multinomial logit models (MLM) and generalized linear models (GLM), and demonstrate the superiority of our algorithm over state-of-the-art design algorithms using real-life experiments under MLM and GLM. Our simulation studies show that the ForLion algorithm could reduce the number of experimental settings by 25% or improve the relative efficiency of the designs by 17.5% on average. Our algorithm can help the experimenters reduce the time cost, the usage of experimental devices, and thus the total cost of their experiments while preserving high efficiencies of the designs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Atkinson, A.C., Donev, A.N., Tobias, R.D.: Optimum Experimental Designs, with SAS. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)
Ai, M., Ye, Z., Yu, J.: Locally D-optimal designs for hierarchical response experiments. Stat. Sin. 33, 381–399 (2023)
Byrd, R.H., Lu, P., Nocedal, J., Zhu, C.: A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 16, 1190–1208 (1995)
Bu, X., Majumdar, D., Yang, J.: D-optimal designs for multinomial logistic models. Ann. Stat. 48(2), 983–1000 (2020)
Broyden, C.G.: A class of methods for solving nonlinear simultaneous equations. Math. Comput. 19(92), 577–593 (1965)
Duarte, B.P.M., Atkinson, A.C., Granjo, J.F.O., Oliveira, N.M.C.: Optimal design of experiments for implicit models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 117(539), 1424–1437 (2022)
Duarte, B.P.M., Granjo, J.F.O., Wong, W.K.: Optimal exact designs of experiments via mixed integer nonlinear programming. Stat. Comput. 30(1), 93–112 (2020)
Dennis, J.E., Jr., Moré, J.J.: Quasi-newton methods, motivation and theory. SIAM Rev. 19(1), 46–89 (1977)
Duarte, B.P.M., Sagnol, G., Wong, W.K.: An algorithm based on semidefinite programming for finding minimax optimal designs. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 119, 99–117 (2018)
Duarte, B.P.M.: Exact optimal designs of experiments for factorial models via mixed-integer semidefinite programming. Mathematics 11(4), 854 (2023)
Duarte, B.P.M., Wong, W.K.: A semi-infinite programming based algorithm for finding minimax optimal designs for nonlinear models. Stat. Comput. 24(6), 1063–1080 (2014)
Duarte, B.P.M., Wong, W.K.: Finding Bayesian optimal designs for nonlinear models: a semidefinite programming-based approach. Int. Stat. Rev. 83(2), 239–262 (2015)
Duarte, B.P.M., Wong, W.K., Dette, H.: Adaptive grid semidefinite programming for finding optimal designs. Stat. Comput. 28(2), 441–460 (2018)
Fedorov, V.V.: Theory of Optimal Experiments. Academic Press, Cambridge (1972)
Fedorov, V.V., Hackl, P.: Model-Oriented Design of Experiments. Springer, New York (1997)
Fedorov, V.V., Leonov, S.L.: Optimal Design for Nonlinear Response Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Baton Rouge (2014)
Fletcher, R., Reeves, C.M.: Function minimization by conjugate gradients. Comput. J. 7(2), 149–154 (1964)
Givens, G.H., Hoeting, J.A.: Computational Statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New Jersey (2013)
Glonek, G.F.V., McCullagh, P.: Multivariate logistic models. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 57, 533–546 (1995)
Harman, R., Filová, L.: Computing efficient exact designs of experiments using integer quadratic programming. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 71, 1159–1167 (2014)
Harman, R., Filová, L., Richtárik, P.: A randomized exchange algorithm for computing optimal approximate designs of experiments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 115(529), 348–361 (2020)
Harman, R., Jurík, T.: Computing c-optimal experimental designs using the simplex method of linear programming. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53(2), 247–254 (2008)
Harman, R., Rosa, S.: On greedy heuristics for computing D-efficient saturated subsets. Oper. Res. Lett. 48(2), 122–129 (2020)
Hestenes, M.R., Stiefel, E.: Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 49(6), 409–436 (1952)
Huang, Y., Tong, L., Yang, J.: Constrained d-optimal design for paid research study. Stat. Sin. (2023). https://www3.stat.sinica.edu.tw/ss_newpaper/SS-2022-0414_na.pdf
Itepan, N.M.: Aumento do periodo de aceitabilidade de pupas de musca domestica l., 1758 (diptera: muscidae), irradiadas com raios gama, como hospedeira de parasitoides (hymenoptera: pteromalidae). Master’s thesis, Universidade de São Paulo (1995)
Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.: Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of ICNN’95-International Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 4, pp. 1942–1948 (1995). IEEE
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Jr., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)
Kiefer, J.: General equivalence theory for optimum designs (approximate theory). Ann. Stat. 2, 849–879 (1974)
Lukemire, J., Mandal, A., Wong, W.K.: d-QPSO: a quantum-behaved particle swarm technique for finding D-optimal designs with discrete and continuous factors and a binary response. Technometrics 61(1), 77–87 (2019)
Lukemire, J., Mandal, A., Wong, W.K.: Optimal experimental designs for ordinal models with mixed factors for industrial and healthcare applications. J. Qual. Technol. 54(2), 184–196 (2022)
McCullagh, P., Nelder, J.: Generalized Linear Models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Baton Rouge (1989)
Nelder, J.A., Mead, R.: A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7(4), 308–313 (1965)
Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2006)
Phadke, M.S.: Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1989)
Poli, R., Kennedy, J., Blackwell, T.: Particle swarm optimization: an overview. Swarm Intell. 1, 33–57 (2007)
Pukelsheim, F.: Optimal Design of Experiments. Wiley, New Jersey (1993)
Pukelsheim, F.: Optimal Design of Experiments. SIAM, Philadelphia (2006)
Sagnol, G.: Computing optimal designs of multiresponse experiments reduces to second-order cone programming. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 141(5), 1684–1708 (2011)
Seber, G.A.F.: A Matrix Handbook for Statisticians. Wiley, New Jersey (2008)
Sagnol, G., Harman, R.: Computing exact -optimal designs by mixed integer second-order cone programming. Ann. Stat. 43(5), 2198–2224 (2015)
Silvey, S.D., Titterington, D.M., Torsney, B.: An algorithm for optimal designs on a finite design space. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 14, 1379–1389 (1978)
Stufken, J., Yang, M.: Optimal designs for generalized linear models. In: Hinkelmann, K. (ed.) Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume 3: Special Designs and Applications, pp. 137–164. Wiley, New Jersey (2012). Chap. 4
Titterington, D.M.: Algorithms for computing d-optimal design on finite design spaces. In: Proc. of the 1976 Conf. on Information Science and Systems, vol. 3, pp. 213–216. John Hopkins University, Baltimore (1976)
Titterington, D.M.: Estimation of correlation coefficients by ellipsoidal trimming. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 27, 227–234 (1978)
Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D.: Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York (2002)
Vo-Thanh, N., Jans, R., Schoen, E.D., Goos, P.: Symmetry breaking in mixed integer linear programming formulations for blocking two-level orthogonal experimental designs. Comput. Oper. Res. 97, 96–110 (2018)
Whitman, C., Gilbert, T.M., Rahn, A.M., Antonell, J.A.: Determining factors affecting ESD failure voltage using DOE. Microelectron. Reliab. 46(8), 1228–1237 (2006)
Wu, F.-C.: Simultaneous optimization of robust design with quantitative and ordinal data. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory Appl. Pract. 5, 231–238 (2008)
Wong, W.K., Zhou, J.: Using CVX to construct optimal designs for biomedical studies with multiple objectives. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 32(2), 744–753 (2023)
Yang, M., Biedermann, S., Tang, E.: On optimal designs for nonlinear models: a general and efficient algorithm. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 108, 1411–1420 (2013)
Yang, J., Mandal, A.: D-optimal factorial designs under generalized linear models. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 44, 2264–2277 (2015)
Yang, J., Mandal, A., Majumdar, D.: Optimal designs for \(2^k\) factorial experiments with binary response. Stat. Sin. 26, 385–411 (2016)
Yang, J., Tong, L., Mandal, A.: D-optimal designs with ordered categorical data. Stat. Sin. 27, 1879–1902 (2017)
Yu, Y.: D-optimal designs via a cocktail algorithm. Stat. Comput. 21, 475–481 (2011)
Ye, J.J., Zhou, J.: Minimizing the condition number to construct design points for polynomial regression models. SIAM J. Optim. 23(1), 666–686 (2013)
Zocchi, S.S., Atkinson, A.C.: Optimum experimental designs for multinomial logistic models. Biometrics 55, 437–444 (1999)
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the authors of Ai et al. (2023), Lukemire et al. (2019) and Lukemire et al. (2022) for kindly sharing their source codes, which we used to implement and compare their methods with ours. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the U.S. NSF grants DMS-1924859 and DMS-2311186.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization and methodology, all authors; software, Y.H., K.L., and J.Y.; validation, Y.H., A.M., and J.Y.; formal analysis, Y.H. and K.L.; investigation, Y.H. and J.Y.; resources, all authors; data curation, Y.H.; writing-original draft preparation, all authors; writing-review and editing, all authors.; supervision, J.Y. and A.M.; project administration, J.Y. and A.M.; funding acquisition, J.Y. and A.M.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Computing \(u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}}\) in Fisher information \({\textbf{F}}_{{\textbf{x}}}\)
In this section, we provide more technical details for Sect. 3.1 and Theorem 2.
For MLM (1), Corollary 3.1 in Bu et al. (2020) provided an alternative form \({{\textbf{F}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}_i} = {\textbf{X}}_i^T {{\textbf{U}}}_i {{\textbf{X}}}_i\), which we use for computing the Fisher information \({{\textbf{F}}}_{{\textbf{x}}}\) at an arbitrary \({{\textbf{x}}} \in {{\mathcal {X}}}\). More specifically, first of all, the corresponding model matrix at \({{\textbf{x}}}\) is
where \({{\textbf{h}}}^T_j(\cdot ) = (h_{j1}(\cdot ), \ldots , h_{jp_j}(\cdot ))\) and \({{\textbf{h}}}^T_c(\cdot )\) \( = \) \((h_1(\cdot ), \ldots , h_{p_c}(\cdot ))\) are known predictor functions. We let \(\varvec{\beta }_j\) and \(\varvec{\zeta }\) denote the model parameters associated with \({{\textbf{h}}}^T_j({{\textbf{x}}})\) and \({{\textbf{h}}}^T_c({{\textbf{x}}})\), respectively, then the model parameter vector \(\varvec{\theta }=(\varvec{\beta }_{1},\varvec{\beta }_{2},\cdots ,\varvec{\beta }_{J-1},\varvec{\zeta })^T \in {\mathbb {R}}^p\), and the linear predictor \(\varvec{\eta }_{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{X}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} \varvec{\theta }= (\eta _1^{{\textbf{x}}}, \ldots , \eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}}, 0)^T \in {\mathbb {R}}^J\), where \(\eta _j^{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{h}}}_j^T({{\textbf{x}}}) \varvec{\beta }_j + {{\textbf{h}}}_c^T({{\textbf{x}}}) \varvec{\zeta }\), \(j=1, \ldots , J-1\).
According to Lemmas S.10, S.12 and S.13 in the Supplementary Material of Bu et al. (2020), the categorical probabilities \(\varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}} = (\pi _1^{{\textbf{x}}}, \ldots , \pi _J^{{\textbf{x}}})^T \in {\mathbb {R}}^J\) at \({{\textbf{x}}}\) for baseline-category, adjacent-categories and continuation-ratio logit models can be expressed as follows:
for \(j=1, \ldots , J-1\), where \(D_j = \exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \eta _1^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + \exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \eta _2^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + \cdots +\exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + 1\), and
where \(D_J = \exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \eta _1^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + \exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \eta _2^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + \cdots +\exp \{\eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}}\} + 1\). Note that we provide the expression of \(\pi _J^{{\textbf{x}}}\) for completeness while \(\pi _J^{{\textbf{x}}} = 1 - \pi _1^{{\textbf{x}}} - \cdots - \pi _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}}\) is an easier way for numerical calculations.
As for cumulative logit models, the candidate \({{\textbf{x}}}\) must satisfy \(-\infty< \eta _1^{{\textbf{x}}}< \eta _2^{{\textbf{x}}}< \cdots< \eta _{J-1}^{{\textbf{x}}} < \infty \). Otherwise, \(0< \pi _j^{\textbf{x}} < 1\) might be violated for some \(j=1, \ldots , J\). In other words, the feasible design region should be
which depends on the regression parameter \(\varvec{\theta }\) (see Section S.14 in the Supplementary Material of Bu et al. (2020) for such an example). For cumulative logit models, if \({{\textbf{x}}} \in {{\mathcal {X}}}_{\varvec{\theta }}\), then
according to Lemma S.11 of Bu et al. (2020).
Once \(\varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}} \in {\mathbb {R}}^J\) is obtained, we can calculate \(u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}} = u_{st}({\varvec{\pi }}_{\textbf{x}})\) based on Theorem A.2 in Bu et al. (2020) as follows:
-
(i)
\(u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}} = u_{ts}^{{\textbf{x}}}\), \(s,t=1, \ldots , J\);
-
(ii)
\(u_{sJ}^{{\textbf{x}}} = 0\) for \(s=1, \ldots , J-1\) and \(u_{JJ}^{{\textbf{x}}} = 1\);
-
(iii)
For \(s=1, \ldots , J-1\), \(u_{ss}^{{\textbf{x}}}\) is
$$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} (1-\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}}) &{} \text{ for } \text{ baseline-category },\\ (\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}})^2(1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}})^2((\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}})^{-1} + (\pi _{s+1}^{{\textbf{x}}})^{-1}) &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative },\\ \gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}(1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}) &{} \text{ for } \text{ adjacent-categories },\\ \pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}}(1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}})(1-\gamma _{s-1}^{\textbf{x}})^{-1} &{} \text{ for } \text{ continuation-ratio }; \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ -
(iv)
For \(1\le s < t \le J-1\), \(u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}}\) is
$$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} \pi _t^{{\textbf{x}}} &{} \text{ for } \text{ baseline-category },\\ -\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}}(1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}})(1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}})(\pi _t^{{\textbf{x}}})^{-1} &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative }, t-s=1,\\ 0 &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative }, t-s>1,\\ \gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}(1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}}) &{} \text{ for } \text{ adjacent-categories },\\ 0 &{} \text{ for } \text{ continuation-ratio }; \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$
where \(\gamma _j^{{\textbf{x}}} = \pi _1^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \pi _j^{{\textbf{x}}}\), \(j=1, \ldots , J-1\); \(\gamma _0^{{\textbf{x}}}\equiv 0\) and \(\gamma _J^{{\textbf{x}}}\equiv 1\).
Example that \({{\textbf{F}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}} = {{\textbf{F}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}\) with \({{\textbf{x}}} \ne {{\textbf{x}}}'\)
Consider a special MLM (1) with proportional odds (po) (see Section S.7 in the Supplementary Material of Bu et al. (2020) for more technical details). Suppose \(d=2\) and a feasible design point \({{\textbf{x}}} = (x_1, x_2)^T \in [a, b]\times [-c, c] = \mathcal{X}\), \(c > 0\), \(J\ge 2\), \({{\textbf{h}}}_c({{\textbf{x}}}) = (x_1, x_2^2)^T\). Then the model matrix at \({{\textbf{x}}} = (x_1, x_2)^T\) is
Then \(p=J+1\). Let \(\varvec{\theta }= (\beta _1, \ldots , \beta _{J-1}, \zeta _1, \zeta _2)^T \in {\mathbb {R}}^{J+1}\) be the model parameters (since \(\varvec{\theta }\) is fixed, we may assume that \(\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{X}_{\varvec{\theta }}\) if the model is a cumulative logit model). Let \({{\textbf{x}}}' = (x_1, -x_2)^T\). Then \({{\textbf{X}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{X}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}\) and thus \(\varvec{\eta }_{{\textbf{x}}} = \varvec{\eta }_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}\). According to (A2) (or (A4)), we obtain \(\varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}} = \varvec{\pi }_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}\) and then \({{\textbf{U}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{U}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}\) . The Fisher information matrix at \({{\textbf{x}}}\) is \({\textbf{F}}_{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{X}}}_{{\textbf{x}}}^T {{\textbf{U}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{X}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} = {{\textbf{X}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'}^T {\textbf{U}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'} {{\textbf{X}}}_{{{\textbf{x}}}'} = {{\textbf{F}}}_{{\textbf{x}}'}\). Note that \({{\textbf{x}}} \ne {{\textbf{x}}}'\) if \(x_2 \ne 0\).
First-order derivative of sensitivity function
As mentioned in Sect. 3.1, to apply Algorithm 1 for MLM, we need to calculate the first-order derivative of the sensitivity function \(d({\textbf{x}}, \varvec{\xi })\).
Recall that the first k (\(1\le k\le d\)) factors are continuous. Given \({{\textbf{x}}} = (x_1, \ldots , x_d)^T \in \mathcal{X}\), for each \(i=1, \ldots , k\), according to Formulae 17.1(a), 17.2(a) and 17.7 in Seber (2008),
where
\(\frac{\partial {{\textbf{U}}}_{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial x_i} = \left( \frac{\partial u^{{\textbf{x}}}_{st}}{\partial x_i}\right) _{s,t=1, \ldots , J}\) with
\({{\textbf{C}}}\) and \({{\textbf{L}}}\) defined as in (1), and \({{\textbf{D}}}_{{\textbf{x}}} = \textrm{diag}({{\textbf{L}}} \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}})\). Explicit formula of \(({{\textbf{C}}}^T {{\textbf{D}}}_{{\textbf{x}}}^{-1} {{\textbf{L}}})^{-1}\) can be found in Section S.3 in the Supplementary Material of Bu et al. (2020) with \({{\textbf{x}}}_i\) replaced by \( {{\textbf{x}}}\). As for \(\frac{\partial u^{{\textbf{x}}}_{st}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}^T}\), we have the following explicit formulae
-
(i)
\(\frac{\partial u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}} = \frac{\partial u_{ts}^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}}\), \(s,t=1, \ldots , J\);
-
(ii)
\(\frac{\partial u_{sJ}^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}} = {{\textbf{0}}} \in {\mathbb {R}}^J\) for \(s=1, \ldots , J\);
-
(iii)
For \(s=1, \ldots , J-1\), \(\frac{\partial u_{ss}^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}}\) is
$$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \left( \pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_{s-1}^T, 1-\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}}, \pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-s}^T\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ baseline-category }\\ u_{ss}^{{\textbf{x}}} \left[ \left( \frac{2}{\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_s^T, \frac{2}{1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-s}^T\right) ^T\right. &{} \\ \left. - \frac{\pi _{s+1}^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{e}}}_s}{\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} (\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} + \pi _{s+1}^{{\textbf{x}}})} - \frac{\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{e}}}_{s+1}}{\pi _{s+1}^{{\textbf{x}}} (\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}} + \pi _{s+1}^{{\textbf{x}}})}\right] &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative }\\ \left( (1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}) {{\textbf{1}}}_s^T, \gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-s}^T\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ adjacent-categories }\\ \left( {{\textbf{0}}}_{s-1}^T, \frac{(1-\gamma _s^{\textbf{x}})^2}{(1-\gamma _{s-1}^{{\textbf{x}}})^2}, \frac{(\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}})^2 {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-s}^T}{(1-\gamma _{s-1}^{{\textbf{x}}})^2}\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ continuation-ratio } \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$where \({{\textbf{e}}}_s\) is the \(J\times 1\) vector with the sth coordinate 1 and all others 0, \({{\textbf{1}}}_s\) is the \(s\times 1\) vector of all 1, and \({{\textbf{0}}}_s\) is the \(s\times 1\) vector of all 0.
-
(iv)
For \(1\le s < t \le J-1\), \(\frac{\partial u_{st}^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial \varvec{\pi }_{{\textbf{x}}}}\) is
$$\begin{aligned} \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \left( {{\textbf{0}}}_{s-1}^T, -\pi _t^{{\textbf{x}}}, {{\textbf{0}}}_{t-s-1}^T, -\pi _s^{{\textbf{x}}}, {{\textbf{0}}}_{J-t}^T\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ baseline-category }\\ \left( -(1-\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}})(1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}})\left( 1 + \frac{2\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}}}{\pi _t^{{\textbf{x}}}}\right) {{\textbf{1}}}_s^T, \right. &{} \\ -\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}} (1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}}) \left[ 1 - \frac{\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}} (1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}})}{(\pi _t^{{\textbf{x}}})^2}\right] , &{} \\ \left. -\gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}} \gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}} \left[ 1 + \frac{2(1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}})}{\pi _t}\right] {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-s-1}^T\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative }, t-s=1\\ {{\textbf{0}}}_J &{} \text{ for } \text{ cumulative }, t-s>1\\ \left( (1-\gamma _t^{{\textbf{x}}}) {{\textbf{1}}}_s^T, {{\textbf{0}}}_{t-s}^T, \gamma _s^{{\textbf{x}}} {{\textbf{1}}}_{J-t}^T\right) ^T &{} \text{ for } \text{ adjacent-categories }\\ {{\textbf{0}}}_J &{} \text{ for } \text{ continuation-ratio } \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$
where \(\gamma _j^{{\textbf{x}}} = \pi _1^{{\textbf{x}}} + \cdots + \pi _j^{{\textbf{x}}}\), \(j=1, \ldots , J-1\); \(\gamma _0^{{\textbf{x}}}\equiv 0\) and \(\gamma _J^{{\textbf{x}}}\equiv 1\).
Thus the explicit formulae for \(\frac{\partial d({{\textbf{x}}}, \varvec{\xi })}{\partial x_i}\), \(i=1, \ldots , k\) can be obtained via (C5). Only \(\frac{\partial {\textbf{X}}_{{\textbf{x}}}}{\partial x_i}\) is related to i, which may speed up the computations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, Y., Li, K., Mandal, A. et al. ForLion: a new algorithm for D-optimal designs under general parametric statistical models with mixed factors. Stat Comput 34, 157 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-024-10465-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-024-10465-x