This article presents a comparison of criteria used to characterize two-level designs for screening purposes. To articulate the relationships among criteria, we focus on 7-factor designs with 16–32 runs and 11-factor designs with 20–48 runs. Screening based on selected designs for each of the run sizes considered is studied with simulation using a forward selection procedure and the Dantzig selector. This article compares Bayesian D-optimal designs, designs created algorithmically to optimize estimation capacity over various model spaces, and orthogonal designs by estimation-based criteria and simulation. In this way, we furnish both general insights regarding various design approaches, as well as a guide to make a choice among a few final candidate designs. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mee et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: