Paper detail

Minimum Contamination and $β$-Aberration Criteria for Screening Quantitative Factors

Tang and Xu [Biometrika 101 (2014) 333-350] applied the minimum $β$-aberration criterion to selecting optimal designs for screening quantitative factors. They provided a statistical justification showing that minimum $β$-aberration criterion minimizes contamination of nonnegligible $k$th-order effects on the estimation of linear effects for $k=2,\cdots,r$, where $r$ is the strength of a design. Unfortunately, this result does not hold for $k>r$. In this paper, we provide a complete mathematical connection between $β$-wordlength patterns and contaminations (on the estimation of linear effects) and reveal that the minimum $β$-aberration criterion is not necessarily equivalent to the minimum contamination criterion for ranking designs. We prove that they are equivalent only when the number of factors of a design equals the strength plus one. We emphasize that the minimum $β$-aberration criterion, in fact, sequentially minimizes the contamination of nonnegligible $k$th-order effects on the estimation of the general mean, not on the estimation of linear effects. Therefore, the minimum contamination criterion should be more appropriate than the minimum $β$-aberration criterion for selecting optimal designs for screening quantitative factors.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.