How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Approximate designs and linear-model optimality criteria
Definition
Let be a finite nonempty candidate set, let , and let be the declared regression-vector map. Work under the stated linear mean model , with mean-zero independent run errors of common variance . These are modeling assumptions, not claims about an experiment's empirical adequacy.
An approximate design is a weight function with . Its support is and its information matrix is This matrix is symmetric and positive semidefinite. A design is nonsingular when is positive definite. For a singular design, the page's estimability convention is that a specified coefficient contrast is estimable exactly when ; the inverse-matrix criteria below are defined only for nonsingular designs.
For nonsingular designs on this fixed and , D-optimality maximizes , A-optimality minimizes , E-optimality maximizes , and -optimality for a fixed minimizes ; gives a trivial tie. The smallest eigenvalue is real because is real symmetric (Real spectral theorem: a self-adjoint endomorphism of a finite-dimensional real inner product space has an orthonormal eigenbasis). These are different model- and candidate-dependent objectives; none is a universal design ranking.
An exact -run design, for an integer , has weights with nonnegative integer counts summing to ; optimizing over those integer allocations is a separate finite problem.
Remarks
The equivalence criterion for D-optimality is proved in Equivalence criterion for D-optimal approximate designs.
Depends on
Used by
- Finite-budget multiplicative update for approximate D-optimal design Algorithm
- Finite nonlinear observation designs, local identifiability, and weighted information Definition
- An approximate D-optimum need not be an exact three-run design Example
- Endpoint sensor times are D-optimal for an intercept-slope model Example
- Equivalence criterion for D-optimal approximate designs Theorem
- Finite-budget multiplicative design updates preserve the simplex and nonsingularity Theorem
- The D-equivalence violation bounds the finite-budget design's log-determinant gap Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
4 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, §7.5 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Gary W. Oehlert, A First Course in Design and Analysis of Experiments, Chapter 19 (standard reference, not scraped)