arxiv: v1 [math.st] 22 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 Optimal Designs for Prediction in Two Treatment Groups Rom Coefficient Regression Models Maryna Prus Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Institute for Mathematical Stochastics, PF 4, D-396 Magdeburg, Germany arxiv:8954v [mathst] Dec 8 Abstract: The subject of this work is two treatment groups rom coefficient regression models, in which observational units receive some group-specific treatments We provide A- D-optimality criteria for the estimation of the fixed parameter the prediction of the rom effects We illustrate the behavior of optimal designs by a simple example Keywords: Mixed models, estimation prediction, optimal design, cluster romization Introduction The subject of this paper is optimal designs in two treatment groups rom coefficient regression RCR models, in which observational units receive some group-specific kinds of treatment These models are typically used for cluster romized trials For some real data examples see e g Piepho Möhring Optimal designs for fixed effects models with multiple groups are well discussed in the literature see e g Bailey 8, ch 3 In models with rom coefficients, the estimation of the population fixed parameters is usually of prior interest see e g Fedorov Jones 5, Kunert et al, Van Breukele Cel 8 Optimal designs for the prediction of rom effects in models with known population parameters have been considered in detail in Gladitz Pilz 98 Prus Schwabe 6 provide analytical results for the models with unknown population mean under the assumption of same design for all individuals Multiple group models with fixed group sizes were briefly discussed in Prus 5, ch 6 Here, we consider two groups models with unknown population parameters group specific designs We provide A- D-optimality criteria for the estimation the prediction of fixed rom effects, respectively Our main focus is optimal designs for the prediction As a by-product we obtain some results for the estimation of fixed effects The paper is structured in the following way: In Section the two groups RCR model will be introduced Section 3 presents the best linear unbiased estimator for the population parameter the best linear unbiased predictor for individual rom effects Section 4 provides analytical results for the designs, which are optimal for the estimation for the prediction The paper will be concluded by a short discussion in Section 5 Two Treatment Groups RCR Model In this work we consider RCR models with two treatment groups G G, observational units or individuals receive group-specific kinds of treatment, T T, respectively The first group includes n individuals the second group n individuals The groups sizes n n are to be optimized the total number of individuals N = n + n in the experiment is fixed The k-th observation at the i-th individual is described for the first group by Maryna Prus: marynaprus@ovgude Y ik = µ i + ε ik, i = i,, i n, k =,, K

2 for the second group by Y ik = µ i + ε ik, i = i n +,, i N, k =,, K, K is the number of observations per individual, which is assumed to be the same for both groups, ε ik ε ik are the observational errors in the first the second group with zero expected value the variances varε ik = σ varε ik = σ, respectively µ i µ i are the individual response parameters As it has been already mentioned above, we optimize the group sizes n n Therefore, we define the individual parameters for all individuals for both groups: θ i := µ i, µ i, i =,, N The parameters can be interpreted as follows: Let the individual i be in the second group Then the parameter µ i describes the response, which would be observed at individual i if the individual would receive treatment T Otherwise, if individual i is in the first group, µ i is the real response of the i-th individual The individual parameters are assumed to have an unknown mean Eθ i = µ, µ =: θ a covariance matrix Covθ i = diagσ u, σ v for given dispersions u > v > All individual parameters θ i, i =,, N, all observational errors ε i k ε i k, i =,, N, k, k =,, K, are assumed to be uncorrelated Further we focus on the following contrasts: population parameter α = µ µ individual rom parameters α i = µ i µ i, i =,, N α describes the difference between the mean parameters µ µ in the first in the second group, respectively, α i may be interpreted as the difference for individual i between the real response the response, which could be observed if the individual would receive another treatment We search for the designs group sizes, which are optimal for the estimation of α or for the prediction of α i 3 Estimation Prediction In this section we concentrate on the estimation of the population parameter α the prediction of the individual parameters α i We use the stard notation Ȳ = n n i= K K i= Y ik Ȳ = n N i=n + K K i= Y ik for the mean response in the first the second treatment group, respectively, obtain the following best linear unbiased estimator BLUE for α Theorem The BLUE for the population parameter α is given by The next theorem provides the variance of the BLUE ˆα Theorem The variance of the BLUE ˆα is given by ˆα = Ȳ Ȳ 3 var ˆα = σ Ku + + σ Kv + 4 Kn Kn Further we use the notation Ȳi = K K k= Y ik Ȳi = K K k= Y ik for the mean individual response for individuals in the first in the second treatment group, respectively We obtain the next result for the best linear unbiased predictor BLUP for the individual response parameter α i Theorem 3 The BLUP for the individual response parameter α i is given by ˆα i = { Ku Ku+ Ȳi + Ku+ Ȳ Ȳ, ind i in G Ȳ Kv Kv+ Ȳi Kv+ Ȳ, ind i in G 5

3 The next theorem presents the mean squared error MSE matrix for the total vector ˆα := ˆα,, ˆα N of all BLUPs ˆα i for all individuals Theorem 4 The MSE matrix of the vector ˆα of individual predictors is given by A A Cov ˆα α = A A 6 for A = σ KKu + n + σ Kv + u n n Kn + σ Ku + + v I n, m denotes the vector of length m with all entries equal to, I m is the m m identity matrix denotes the Kronecker product, σ A = + σ n n Kn Kn A = σ Ku + Kn + σ n n KKv + n + σ u + Proofs of Theorems -4 are deferred to Appendix A 4 Experimental Design v I n Kv + We define the experimental exact design for the RCR model with two treatment groups G G as follows: G G ξ := n n For analytical purposes, we generalize this to the definition of an approximate design: G G ξ :=, w w w = n N w = n N are the allocation rates for the first the second groups, respectively, only the condition w has to be satisfied Then only the optimal allocation rate w to the first group has to be determined for finding an optimal design Further we search for the allocation rates, which minimize variance 4 of the BLUE ˆα MSE matrix 6 of the BLUP ˆα concentrate on the A- average D- determinant optimality criteria 4 Optimal designs for estimation of population parameter For the estimation of the population parameter α both A- D-criteria may be considered to be equal to variance 4 of the BLUE ˆα The A-criterion is initially defined as the trace of the covariance matrix of the estimator results in the variance itself for one-dimensional parameters The D-criterion, which is defined as the logarithm of the determinant of the covariance matrix, may be simplified to the determinant since the logarithm is a monotonic function We rewrite the variance of the estimator in terms of the approximate design receive the next result neglecting the constant factor KN 3

4 Theorem 5 The A- D-criteria for the estimation of the population parameter α are given by Φ A,D,α w = σ Ku + + σ Kv + w w 7 Criterion function 7 can be minimized directly The optimal allocation rate is presented in the following theorem Theorem 6 The A- D-optimal allocation rate for the estimation of the population parameter α is given by wα = 8 σ + Kv+ σ Ku+ Note that the optimal allocation rate wα to the first group increases with increasing observational error variance σ the dispersion u of rom effects for the first group decreases with variance parameters σ v for the second group Note also that if the observational error variance is the same for both groups σ = σ, w α is larger than 5 for u > v smaller than 5 for u < v 4 Optimal designs for prediction of individual response parameters We define the A-criterion for the prediction of the individual response parameters α = α,, α N as the trace of MSE matrix 6: Φ A,α := tr Cov ˆα α 9 We extend this definition for approximate designs receive the following result neglecting the constant factor K Theorem 7 The A-criterion for the prediction of the individual response parameters α = α,, α N is given by Ku + Ku Φ A,α w = c + σ + N w w Ku + + Kv Kv + Kv + σ + N w w Kv + + Ku, c = σ Ku + Ku + σ Kv + Kv For this criterion no finite formulas for optimal allocation rates can be provided For given dispersion matrix of rom effects given values of u an v, the problem of optimal designs can be solved numerically In this work we are however interested in the behavior of optimal designs with respect to the variance parameters Therefore, we consider some special cases, which illustrate this behavior Special case : σ = σ u = v If the variances σ σ of the observational errors as well as the dispersions u v consequently the variances σ u σ v of the rom effects are the same for both groups, A-criterion simplifies to Φ A,α w = c + w + w, 4

5 c = NKu Ku + + Ku + for u = u = v neglecting the factor Ku + the observational errors variance We obtain for this criterion the optimal allocation rate wa,α = 5, which is also optimal for estimation in the fixed-effects model u = v = Special case : σ = σ If only the variances σ σ of the observational errors are the same for both groups, the A-criterion for the prediction simplifies to Φ A,α w = c 3 + Ku + Ku + N w w Ku + + Kv + Kv + Kv + N w w Kv + + Ku, c 3 = Ku + + Ku + v, Kv + neglecting the observational errors variance The behavior of the optimal allocation rate will be considered for this case in a numerical example later The D-criterion for the prediction of α = α,, α N can be defined as the logarithm of the determinant of MSE matrix 6: For approximate designs we obtain the next result Φ D,α := log det Cov ˆα α 3 Theorem 8 The D-criterion for the prediction of the individual response parameters α = α,, α N is given by σ Φ D,α w = b + w N log Kv + σ σ + log w + σ w, 4 Ku + w w σ b = log N v + ukv + N Ku + Ku + v + σ K NKv + N Proof We compute the determinant of MSE matrix 6 using the formula for block-matrices det Cov ˆα α = det A det A A A A Then we rewrite the result in terms of the approximate design receive criterion 4 Also for this criterion no finite analytical solutions for optimal designs can be provided We consider the same special cases as for the A-criterion Special case : σ = σ u = v If the variances of the observational errors the variances of the rom effects are the same for the first the second treatment groups, the D-criterion for the prediction is given by Φ D,α w = b log w w, 5 b = b + logσ for σ = σ = σ Then we obtain the optimal allocation rate w D,α = 5 = wa,α formulate the next corollary 5

6 Corollary If the variances of the observational errors as well as the dispersions of the rom effects are equal for both groups, the A- D-optimal designs in the fixed-effects model are A- D-optimal for the prediction of the individual response parameters in the two groups RCR model Special case : σ = σ If the variances of the observational errors are the same for both groups the dispersions u v of rom effects may be different, we receive the following D-criterion for the prediction: Φ D,α w = b + w N log Kv + Ku + log w w 6 If we additionally assume different dispersions of rom effects u v, we obtain the next result for the optimal designs Theorem 9 If the variances of the observational errors are the same the dispersions of the rom effects are different for the first the second treatment groups, the D-optimal allocation rate for the prediction of the individual response parameters α = α,, α N is given by wd,α = a + a a + 4, 7 a = N log Kv + Ku + Note that the optimal allocation rate wd,α to the first group increases with u decreases with v It can be easily proved that wd,α is larger than 5 if u > v smaller than 5 if u < v For further considerations we rewrite the optimal allocation rate 7 as a function of the ratio q = u v of the variances of rom effects in the first the second groups the variance parameter u: Ku/q + a = N log Ku + Than it is easy to verify that wd,α increases with u for q > u > v decreases for q < 43 Numerical example In this section we illustrate the obtained results for the prediction of the individual response parameters by a numerical example We consider the two groups RCR model with N = 6 individuals, K = observation per individual same variance of observational errors for both treatment groups: σ = σ special case We fix the ratio q = u v of the variances of rom effects in the first the second groups by q = 3, q = q = 3 Figures illustrate the behavior of the optimal allocation rates for the A- D-criteria in dependence of the rescaled rom effects variance in the first group ρ = u/ + u, which is monotonic in u has been used instead the of rom effects variance itself to cover all values of the variance by the finite interval [, ] As we can observe on the graphics, the optimal allocation rate to the first group increases with the rescaled variance ρ from 5 for ρ to 9 for the A-criterion to 985 for the D-criterion for ρ if q = 3 If q = 3, the optimal allocation rate decreases from 5 to 83 5 for the A- D-criterion, respectively For q = the model coincides with that considered in special case the optimal design remains the same wa,α =w D,α =5 for all values of u 6

7 w A,α * 4 w D,α * ρ ρ Figure : A-optimal allocation rate w for variance ratios q = 3 solid line, q = dashed line q = 3 dotted line Figure : D-optimal allocation rate w for variance ratios q = 3 solid line, q = dashed line q = 3 dotted line Figures 3 4 exhibit the efficiencies of the balanced design w = 5 for the prediction in the two groups model for the A- D-criteria For computing the A- D-efficiencies, we use the formulas eff A = Φ A,αwA,α 8 Φ A,α 5 expφd,α wd,α eff D = expφ D,α 5 N, 9 respectively As we can observe, the efficiency of the balanced design decreases with increasing values of ρ from for ρ to if q = 3 to if q = 3 for the A- D-criteria, respectively For q = the balanced design is optimal for the prediction, which explains the efficiency equal to for all values of the variance 5 Discussion In this work we have considered RCR models with two treatment groups We have obtained the A- D-optimality criteria for the estimation of the population parameter the prediction of the individual response For a particular case of the same observational error variance for both groups, we illustrate the behavior of the optimal designs by a numerical example The optimal allocation rate to the first treatment group turns out to be larger than 5 if the variance of individual rom effects in the first group is larger than in the second group Otherwise, the optimal allocation rate is smaller than 5 The efficiency of the balanced design, which assigns equal group sizes, is relatively high only for small values of the variances of rom effects The efficiency decreases fast with increasing variance 7

8 eff A 4 eff D ρ ρ Figure 3: A-efficiency of the balanced design w = 5 for variance ratios q = 3 solid line, q = dashed line q = 3 dotted line Figure 4: D-efficiency of the balanced design w = 5 for variance ratios q = 3 solid line, q = dashed line q = 3 dotted line For simplicity, we have assumed a diagonal covariance matrix of rom effects For more general covariance structure further considerations are needed We have also assumed the same number of observations for all individuals Optimal designs for models with different numbers of observations for different individuals may be one of the next steps in the research Moreover, optimal designs for RCR models with more than two groups can be investigated in the future Furthermore, some research on more robust design criteria for example, minimax or maximin efficiency, which are not sensible with respect to variance parameters, may be an interesting extension of this work A Proofs of Theorems -4 The two treatment groups RCR model described by formulas may be recognized as a special case of the general linear mixed model Y = Xβ + Zγ + ε with specific design matrices X Z for fixed rom effects, respectively ε are the observational errors, β denotes the fixed effects vector γ are the rom effects The rom effects the observational errors are assumed to have zero mean to be all uncorrelated with corresponding full rank covariance matrices Cov γ = G Cov ε = R In model the BLUE for β the BLUP for γ are solutions of the mixed model equations ˆβ ˆγ X = R X X R Z Z R X Z R Z + G X R Y Z R Y if the fixed effects design matrix X has full column rank see e g Henderson et al 959 Christensen According to Henderson 975, the joint MSE matrix for both ˆβ ˆγ is 8

9 given by Cov ˆβ ˆγ γ X = R X X R Z Z R X Z R Z + G To make use of the theoretical results available for the general linear mixed model, we rewrite the two groups RCR model in form : Y = Kn e Kn e In β + K e I n K e γ + ε, 3 β = θ, γ = θ N I β, θ = θ,, θ N e m denotes the m-th unit vector The covariance matrices of the rom effects the observational errors in model 3 are given by G = I N diagσ u, σ v R = block-diagσ I Kn, σ I Kn, respectively Then we obtain using formula the BLUEs ˆµ = Ȳ ˆµ = Ȳ for the fixed effects the BLUPs { Ku Ku+ ˆµ i = Ȳi + Ku+ Ȳ, ind i in G 4 Ȳ, ind i in G ˆµ i = { Kv Kv+ Ȳi + Kv+ Ȳ, ind i in G Ȳ, ind i in G 5 for the rom effects Then the BLUE the BLUP for the contrasts α α i can be computed as ˆα = ˆµ ˆµ ˆα i = ˆµ i ˆµ i result to formulas 3 5, respectively Using formula we obtain the following joint MSE matrix for both ˆβ ˆγ: for B = σ B = σ Cov C = ˆβ ˆγ γ C C = C C σ Ku+ Kn σ Kv+ Kn C = n σ u n e n σ v n e B C = B, 6 Ku u n Ku + n n e e + I n diag Ku +, v Kv n Kv + n n e e + I n diag, u, v Kv + As we can see by formula 6, the covariance matrix of ˆβ is equal to C Then we present the variance of the estimator ˆα in form obtain result 4 of Theorem varˆα =, Covˆβ, 9

10 The MSE matrix of the prediction ˆθ can be written in terms of the joint MSE matrix 6: Cov ˆθ θ = N I C N I + N I C + C N I + C 7 Using this formula we obtain H H Cov ˆθ θ = H H, H = n n H = n n σ KKu+n σ Kv+ Kn σ Kn H = n n σ Ku+ Kn σ KKv+n u + σ I n Ku+ v σ Kn u + σ I n v Kv+ Then we present the MSE matrix of the predictor ˆα in form Cov ˆα α = I N Cov ˆθ θ I N receive result 6 of Theorem 4 References Bailey, R A 8 Design of Comparative Experiments Cambridge University Press Christensen, R Plane Answers to Complex Questions: The Theory of Linear Models Springer, New York Fedorov, V Jones, B 5 The design of multicentre trials Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 4, 5 48 Gladitz, J Pilz, J 98 Construction of optimal designs in rom coefficient regression models Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik, Series Statistics, 3, Henderson, C R 975 Best linear unbiased estimation prediction under a selection model Biometrics, 3, Henderson, C R, Kempthorne, O, Searle, S R, von Krosigk, C M 959 The estimation of environmental genetic trends from records subject to culling Biometrics, 5, 9 8 Kunert, J, Martin, R J, Eccleston, J Optimal block designs comparing treatments with a control when the errors are correlated Journal of Statistical Planning Inference, 4, Piepho, H P Möhring, J Generation means analysis using mixed models Crop Science, 5, Prus, M 5 Optimal Designs for the Prediction in Hierarchical Rom Coefficient Regression Models PhD thesis, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg,

11 Prus, M Schwabe, R 6 Optimal designs for the prediction of individual parameters in hierarchical models Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 78, 75 9 Van Breukele, G J P Cel, J J M 8 Efficient design of cluster romized trials with treatment-dependent costs treatment-dependent unknown variances Statistics in Medicine, 37,