Abstract

Despite the vast amount of literature on supersaturated designs (SSDs), there is a scant record of their use in practice. We contend this imbalance is due to conflicting recommendations regarding SSD use in the literature as well as the designs’ inabilities to meet practitioners’ analysis expectations. To address these issues, we first summarize practitioner concerns and expectations of SSDs as determined via an informal questionnaire. Next, we discuss and compare two recent SSDs that pair a design construction method with a particular analysis method. The choice of a design/analysis pairing is shown to depend on the screening objective. Group orthogonal SSDs, when paired with our new, modified analysis, are demonstrated to have high power even with many active factors. Constrained positive Var(s)-optimal designs, when paired with the Dantzig selector, are recommended when effect directions can be credibly specified in advance; this strategy reasonably controls Type I error rates while still identifying a high proportion of active factors.

摘要

尽管有大量关于过饱和设计 (SSD) 的文献，但它们在实践中的使用记录却很少。我们认为这种不平衡是由于文献中关于 SSD 使用的建议相互矛盾以及设计无法满足从业者的分析期望。为了解决这些问题，我们首先总结了通过非正式问卷确定的从业者对 SSD 的关注和期望。接下来，我们将讨论和比较两种最新的 SSD，它们将设计构造方法与特定分析方法相结合。显示设计/分析配对的选择取决于筛选目标。组正交 SSD 与我们新的、修改后的分析配对时，被证明即使有许多活动因素也具有高功率。受约束的正 Var( s)-当与 Dantzig 选择器搭配使用时，建议在可以可靠地提前指定效果方向时使用最佳设计；这种策略合理地控制了 I 类错误率，同时仍然识别出高比例的主动因素。