Abstract
Results from the comparison of D, G, and A efficiencies and the scaled average prediction variance IV criterion are presented for the central composite, small composite, Notz, Hoke, Box–Draper, and computer-generated designs. These design optimality criteria are evaluated over the cuboidal design region for three, four, and five design variables.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
