Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 82–92 | Cite as

Optimal two-level choice designs for estimating main and specified two-factor interaction effects

  • Feng-Shun Chai
  • Ashish DasEmail author
  • Rakhi Singh


Under the multinomial logit model, designs for choice experiments are usually based on an a priori assumption that either only the main effects of the factors or the main effects and all two-factor interaction effects are to be estimated. However, in practice, there are situations where interest lies in the estimation of main plus some two-factor interaction effects. For example, interest on such specified two-factor interaction effects arise in situations when one or two factor(s) like price and/or brand of a product interact individually with the other factors of the product. For two-level choice experiments with n factors, we consider a model involving the main plus all two-factor interaction effects, with our interest lying in the estimation of the main effects and a specified set of two-factor interaction effects. The two-factor interaction effects of interest are either (i) one factor interacting with each of the remaining n − 1 factors or (ii) each of the two factors interacting with each of the remaining n − 2 factors. For the two models, we first characterize the information matrix and then construct universally optimal choice designs for choice set sizes 3 and 4.


Choice experiment choice set Hadamard matrix multinomial logit model universal optimality 

AMS Subject Classification

62K05 05B15 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burgess, L., and D. J. Street. 2003. Optimal designs for 2k choice experiments. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods 32 (11):2185–206.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu, W.-Y., and P. W. M. John. 1998. D-optimal fractional factorial designs. Statistics & Probability Letters 37 (4):367–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Das, A. and R. Singh. 2016. A unified approach to choice experiments. Technical Report, IIT Bombay,
  4. Demirkale, F., D. Donovan, and D. J. Street. 2013. Constructing D-optimal symmetric stated preference discrete choice experiments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 143 (8):1380–91.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dey, Α., and R. Mukerjee. 1999. Inter-effect orthogonality and optimality in hierarchical models. Sankhya 61 (3):460–68.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dey, Α., and C.-Y. Suen. 2002. Optimal fractional factorial plans for main effects and specified two-factor interactions: A projective geometric approach. Annals of Statistics 30 (5):1512–23.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grafihoff, U., H. Grofimann, H. Holling, and R. Schwabe. 2003. Optimal paired comparison designs for first-order interactions. Statistics 37 (5):373–86.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grafihoff, U., H. Großmann, H. Holling, and R. Schwabe. 2004. Optimal designs for main effects in linear paired comparison models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 126 (1):361–76.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Großmann, H. and R. Schwabe. 2015. Design for discrete choice experiments. In M. Morris, J. Stufken, and D. Bingham. Handbook of design and analysis of experiments, ed. A. Dean, 787–831. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedayat, A. S., and Η. Pesotan. 1992. Two-level factorial designs for main effects and selected two-factor interactions. Statistica Sinica 2 (2):453–64.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedayat, A. S., and H. Pesotan. 1997. Designs for two-level factorial experiments with linear models containing main effects and selected two-factor interactions. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 64 (1):109–24.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huber, J., and K. Zwerina. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33:307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kiefer, J. 1975. Construction and optimality of generalized Youden designs. In A survey of statistical design and linear models (Proc. Internat. Sympos., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colo., 1973), 333–53. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Singh, R., F.-S. Chai, and A. Das. 2015. Optimal two-level choice designs for any number of choice sets. Biometrika 102 (4):967–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Street, D. J., and L. Burgess. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods, vol. 647. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Street, D. J., and L. Burgess. 2012. Designs for choice experiments for the multinomial logit model. In Design and analysis of experiments, special designs and applications, ed. K. Hinkelmann, vol. 3, 331–78. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wu, C, and Y. Chen. 1992. A graph-aided method for planning two-level experiments when certain interactions are important. Technometrics 34 (2):162–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Statistical ScienceAcademia SínicaTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsIITB-Monash Research AcademyMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations