Scaled Prediction Variances of Equiradial Design under Changing Design Sizes, Axial Distances and Center Runs

Main Article Content

Bartholomew, Desmond Chekwube
Obite, Chukwudi Paul
Ismaila-Cosmos Joan


The aim of every design choice is to minimize the prediction error, especially at every location of the design space, thus, it is important to measure the error at all locations in the design space ranging from the design center (origin) to the perimeter (distance from the origin). The measure of the errors varies from one design type to another and considerably the distance from the design center. Since this measure is affected by design sizes, it is ideal to scale the variance for the purpose of model comparison. Therefore, we have employed the Scaled Prediction Variance and D – optimality criterion to check the behavior of equiradial designs and compare them under varying axial distances, design sizes and center points. The following similarities were observed: (i) increasing the design radius (axial distance) of an equiradial design changes the maximum determinant of the information matrix by five percent of the new axial distance (5% of 1.414 = 0.07) see Table 3. (ii) increasing the nc center runs  pushes the maximum  SPV(x) to the furthest distance from the design center (0  0) (iii) changing the design radius changes the location in the design region with maximum SPV(x) by a multiple of the change and (iv) changing the design radius also does not change the maximum  SPV(x) at different radial points and center runs . Based on the findings of this research, we therefore recommend consideration of equiradial designs with only two center runs in order to maximize the determinant of the information matrix and minimize the scaled prediction variances.

Axial distance, center point, equiradial design, error, scaled prediction variance

Article Details

How to Cite
Chekwube, B. D., Paul, O. C., & Joan, I.-C. (2021). Scaled Prediction Variances of Equiradial Design under Changing Design Sizes, Axial Distances and Center Runs. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 11(1), 1-13.
Original Research Article


Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM. Response surface methodology: process and product opti-mization using designed experiments. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey;

Khuri AI, Cornel JA. Response Surface: design and analysis. Second Edition. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York; 1996.

Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attain-ment of optimum conditions. J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser B. 1951;(13)1–45.

Atkinson AC, Donev AN. Optimum experimental designs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.Bartholomew et al.; AJPAS, 11(1): 1-13, 2021; Article no.AJPAS.65351

Iwundu MP. Useful numerical statistics of some response surface methodology designs. Journal of Mathematics Research. 2016a;8(4):40-67.
DOI:10.5539/jmr.v8n4p40 URL:

Preece DA. RA Fisher and experimental design: A Review. Biometrics. 1990;46(4):925–935. JSTOR. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021.

Bartholomew DC. A simple two – way multiple analysis of variance – SPSS; Res Rev. Journal of
Statistics and Mathematical Sciences. 2018;3(1).

Iwundu MP. On the behaviour of second-order N-point equiradial designs under varying model parameters. International Journal of Statistics and Applications, 2016b;6(5):276-292.

Iwundu MP, Onu OH. Equiradial designs under changing axial distances, design sizes and varying center runs with their relationships to the central composite designs. International Journal of Advanced Statistics and Probability. 2017;5(2):77-82.
DOI: 10.14419/ijasp.v5i2.7701

Rady EA, Abd El-Monsef MME, Seyam MM. Relationship among several optimality criteria. interstat. Stat Journals. net>YEAR>articles; 2009.

St. John R, Draper N. D – optimality for regression designs: A review. Technometrics. ;17(1):15–23.
DOI: 10.2307/1267995