arXiv:1704.03212v1 [] 11 Apr 2017

Nearly resolution V plans on blocks of small
size.
Sunanda Bagchi
Theoretical Statistics and Mathematics Unit
Indian Statistical Institute
Bangalore 560059, India.
Abstract
In Bagchi (2010) main effect plans “orthogonal through the block factor” (POTB) have been constructed. The main advantages of a POTB
are that (a) it may exist in a set up where an “usual” orthogonal main
effect plan (OMEP) cannot exist and (b) the data analysis is nearly as
simple as an OMEP.
In the present paper we extend this idea and define the concept of
orthogonality between a pair of factorial effects ( main effects or interactions)“through the block factor” in the context of a symmetrical experiment. We consider plans generated from an initial plan by adding runs.
For such a plan we have derived necessary and sufficient conditions for a
pair of effects to be orthogonal through the block factor in terms of the
generators. We have also derived a sufficient condition on the generators
so as to turn a pair of effects aliased in the initial plan separated in the
final plan.
The theory developed is illustrated with plans for experiments with
three-level factors in situations where interactions between three or more
factors are absent. We have constructed plans with blocks of size four
and fewer runs than a resolution V plan estimating all main effects and
all but at most one two-factor interactions.

Key words : Symmetrical experiment, blocking.

1

Introduction

A situation in which a treatment factor is neither orthogonal nor confounded to
a nuisance factor in a main effect plan (MEP) was first explored in Morgan and
Uddin (1996). They considered a nested row-column set up and derived a sufficient condition for a treatment factor, possibly non-orthogonal to the nuisance
factors, to be orthogonal to every other treatment factor. They also derived
sufficient condition for optimality and constructed several series of orthogonal
and optimal MEPs.
Mukherjee, Dey and Chatterjee (2001) Constructed main effect plans on blocks
of a small size. Their plans also satisfy the property that treatment factors are
1

possibly non-orthogonal to the block factor and possess optimality property.
However, their method relies on an existing orthogonal main effect plan (OMEP)
as a starting point. Bose and Bagchi (2007) provided examples of OMEPs in
blocks of size 2 satisfying the same property as the plans of Mukherjee, Dey and
Chatterjee (2001) but requiring fewer blocks. Extending this idea to an arbitrary
block size, Bagchi (2010) defined orthogonality between a pair of treatment
factors“through the block factor” and derived a sufficient condition for that.
This condition is weaker (thus satisfied by more plans) than that of Mukherjee,
Dey and Chatterjee (2001). Method of construction of plans orthogonal through
the block factor or “POTB” were also presented, where it was seen that a POTB
may exist in a set up where an “usual OMEP” cannot exist.
In this paper we extend the concept of orthogonality through the block factor
to any pair of factorial effects (main effect or interaction) in a symmetric experiment. We compare this concept with the usual orthogonality. We also obtain
necessary and sufficient condition on a plan which makes the inference on a
given factorial effect free from the involvement of all other factorial effects, in
the presence or absence of a blocking factor. [See Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2]
Next we concentrate on construction. We consider plans obtained by “expanding an initial plan along a subspace” [see Definition 4.1]. We derive sufficient
conditions on the subspace so that the relation between the effects is improved
upon in the final plan. That is, a pair of effects aliased in the initial plan is not
so in the final plan. Similarly, a pair aliased or non- orthogonal in the initial
plan becomes orthogonal (through the block factor) in the final plan.
We have illustrated these ideas using plans for three-level factors assuming all
interactions involving three or more factors to be absent. We have obtained
plans on blocks of size four for 33 experiment on 6 blocks, 34 , 35 experiments,
each on 18 blocks and 36 experiment on 24 blocks. The first two plans estimate
all effects assumed in the model, while the last two plans estimate all but one
two-factor interaction. [See Theorems 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4]. Each plan requires
fewer runs than a resolution V plan for the corresponding experiment.

2

Preliminaries

Let s be a prime power. Let us recall the terminology of the m-dimensional Euclidean geometry and a few other terms and notations required for a symmetric
experiment. We shall mostly follow the notations of Bose (1947).
Notation 2.1 (a) F will denote the Galois field of order s. 0 will denote the
additive identity of F .
(b) F m will denote the vector space of dimension m over F . We shall think of
the vectors in F m as column vectors.
2

(c) The points of an m-dimensional Euclidean geometry (EG(m, s)) are the
vectors of F m . A point is denoted by x = (x1 , · · · xm )′ , xi ∈ F, i = 1, · · · m.
(b) A hyperplane is a coset of an (m − 1)-dimensional subspace of F m . Specifically, for a ∈ F m , a 6= 0 and t ∈ F , the hyperplane Ha (t) is the set of points of
EG(m, s) satisfying a′ x = t.
(c) A pencil is a set of s parallel hyperplanes of EG(m, s). The pencil Pa
denotes the set of parallel hyperplanes {Ha (t), t ∈ F }. Thus, the pencils are the
sets Pa = {Ha (t), t ∈ F }, a ∈ F m \ {0}.
Remark 2.1 : The pencil Pa is the same as the pencil Pb , if b = pa, p ∈ F, p 6= 0.
Notation 2.2 Consider an sm experiment on n runs. Let us name the factors
as Ai , i = 1, 2, · · · m.
(i) A point x = (x1 , x2 , · · · xm ) in EG(m, s) represents a level combination
(run), in which Ai is at level xi , i = 1, 2, · · · m.
(ii) The combined effect of all the main effects and interactions present on the
level combination x will be denoted by τx .
(ii) By a (factorial) effect we mean a main effect or an interaction and it will
generally be denoted by D, E etc.
(iii) For a vector a = (a1 , · · · am )′ ∈ F m , Ea will denote the factorial effect
Aa1 1 Aa2 2 · · · Aamm . Thus, the main effect of Ai will be denoted by Ea , where a has
1 in only the ith position and 0 elsewhere. Similarly, for a 35 experiment the
interaction A2 A24 will be denoted by Eb , where b = (0, 1, 0, 2, 0)′.
(iv) The pencil Pa will represent the factorial effect Ea .
(v) We shall say that a run x is in the tth level of the factorial effect Ea if x
satisfies a′ x = t.
Remark P
2.2: Recall
P that a contrast belonging to the factorial effect Ea is of
τx , where lt is a real number for each t ∈ F , such that
lt
the form
t∈F
x∈Ha (t)
P
lt = 0. Thus, for b = pa, p ∈ F, p 6= 0, a contrast belonging to the effect
t∈F

Ea also belongs to Eb . This is consistent with the property of pencils noted in
Remark 2.1.
Notation 2.3 Consider an sm experiment on b blocks of size k each.
(i) E will denote the set of effects believed to be present.
(ii) Consider an effect E ∈ E. The replication number rtE of the level t of E
3

is the number of runs in which E is at level t. The replication vector rE is the
s × 1 vector with rtE as the tth entry, t ∈ Fs .
(iii) For two effects D and E, the D-versus E incidence matrix is a s × s matrix
DE
denoted by N DE = ((nDE
pq ))p,q∈F , where npq denotes the number of runs which
are in the pth level of D as well as the qth level of E.
Note that when D and E are main effects, say of factors Ai and Aj , nDE
pq is the
number of runs in which the ith entry is p and the jth entry is q.
(iv) For an effect E, the E-versus block incidence matrix is a s × b matrix
E,bl
denoted by N E,bl = ((nE,bl
denotes the number of runs
pj ))p∈F,1≤j≤b , where npj
which are in the p-th level of E and in the jth block.
We now define the concept of orthogonality through the block factor.
Definition 2.1 Two effects D and E are said to be orthogonal through the
block factor (OTB) if
kNDE = ND,bl (NE,bl )′ .

(2.1)

We denote this by D⊥E(bl).
Remark 2.3: Condition ( 2.1 ) is equivalent to equation (7) of Morgan and
Uddin (1996) in the context of nested row-column designs.
The next result follows immediately from the definition of OTB.
Theorem 2.1 A sufficient condition for effects D and E to be ‘OTB’ is that
each of the three incidence matrices ND,bl , NE,bl and NDE have all entries
equal. Specifically, the condition is
ND,bl
NE,bl

=
=

(n/(bs)J,
(n/(bs)J

and NDE

=

(n/s2 )J.

Here J is the all-one matrix.
Before closing this section we present a few well-known results of block designs.
Consider an equireplicate block design d with v treatments and b blocks of size
k each. Let the replication number be r.
Theorem 2.2 The incidence matrix N of d satisfies
N 1b = r and N ′ 1v = k1b .
4

Consider a pair of equireplicate block designs d1 and d2 on the same set of v
treatments on b blocks of size k each. Let their incidence matrices be denoted
by N1 and N2 respectively. Let the common replication number be r. Then,
clearly we have :
in view of Lemma 2.2 we can say the following.
Theorem 2.3
N1 N2′ 1v = rk1v .

3

Orthogonality through block versus usual orthogonality

We shall now compare OTB with the usual orthogonality. For the sake of
simplicity we assume a main effect plan, but the results are valid for any factorial
effect.
We first present a few notation and well-known results.
Notation 3.1 (a) Consider a blocked MEP for m − 1 factors. The block factor
is named as Am and the general effect as Am+1 . The model is expressed as


α1




..
Y = Xβ, where X = X1 · · · Xm+1 and β = 
(3.2)
.
.
αm+1

Here, Xi , the design matrix for Ai is a 0 − 1 matrix - the (u, t)th entry of Xi
is 1 if in the uth run the factor Ai is set at level t and 0 otherwise, i = 1, 2, · · · m
and Xm+1 = 1n .
Throughout this section ri will denote the vector of replications of Ai , Nij the
Ai -versus Aj incidence matrix and Ri will replace Nii .
(b) ai ×1 vector αi will denote the vector of unknown effects of Ai , 1 ≤ i ≤ m+1.
Thus, αm is the vector of block effects and αm+1 is the general effect.
(c) For any m × n matrix A, C(A) will denote the column space of A. Further,
PA will denote the projection operator on the column space of A. In other words,
PA = A(A′ A)− A′ , where B − denote a g-inverse of B.
(d) Let I = {1, 2, · · · m + 1} and S = {i, j, · · · } be a subset of I. We shall use
the following notation for the sake of compactness.


(i) XS will denote Xi Xj · · · .
5


αi
 j 
(ii) αS will denote  α .
..
.


(iii) Pi will denote the projection operator onto the column space of Xi , i ∈ I.
Further, PS will denote the projection operator onto the column space of XS .
(e) Sum of squares : Fix a set of factors T of I. For i not in T , we define SSi;T ,
the sum of squares for Fi , adjusted for the factors Ft , t ∈ T . More generally
we define the combined sum of squares for the set factors {Fi , i ∈ S}, SSS;T ,
adjusted for the factors Ft , t ∈ T (T disjoint from S) as follows.
SSi;T
and SSS;T

= Q′i;T (Cii;T )− Qi;T
= Q′S;T (CS,S;T )− QS;T

For ready reference, we present the following well-known results.
Lemma 3.1 (a) For i 6= j, i, j = 1, · · · m + 1, SSi;j is the quadratic form
Y ′ PU Y , where U = (I − Pj )Xi .
(b) More generally, for two disjoint subsets S and T of I, SSS;T is the quadratic
form Y ′ PV Y , where V = (I − PT )XS .
(c) The so-called unadjusted sum of squares for Fi is SSi;m+1 = Ti′ (Ri )−1 Ti −
G2 /n.
Lemma 3.2 Consider a matrix W partitioned as
PV )U . Then, PW − PV = PZ .



U

V



. Let Z = (I −

Corollary 3.1 Let T ⊂ I and i ∈ I \ T . Let D = (I − PT )Xi . Then,
PD = PT ∗ − PT , where T ∗ = T ∪ {i}.
Notation 3.2 (a) The total sum of squares and the error sum of squares will
be denoted by SStot and SSE respectively.
(b) Fix a factor Ai , 1 ≤ i ≤ m. Let T = {i + 1, · · · m + 1} and ī = I \ {i}.
(i) Let SSi;all> = SSi;T and
(ii) SSi;all = SSi;ī .
Thus, SSi;all> is the sum of squares for Ai , adjusted for the factors Ai+1 , · · · Am+1 ,
while SSi;all denotes the sum of squares for Ai , adjusted for all other factors.
Now we seek the answer to the following questions. Consider a main effect
plan for m factors (m ≥ 3). Fix a factor, say Ai . What conditions
6

the design matrices must satisfy so that the sum of squares for Ai
adjusted for all others is the same as
(a) the unadjusted sum of squares for Ai ?
(b) the sum of squares for Ai adjusted for only one factor, (say Fm ) ?
[That is so far as Ai is concerned, other factors are virtually absent.]
Theorem 3.1 Fix a factor, say Ai .
(a)A necessary and sufficient condition for SSi;all = SSi;m+1 is that the incidence matrix Nij satisfies the proportional frequency condition of Addelman
(1962). That is Nij = ri rj′ /n , for every j 6= i .
(b) A necessary and sufficient condition for SSi;all = SSi;m is that
′
Nij = Nim (Rm )−1 Njm
, j 6= i, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m − 1.

(3.3)

[Recall Notation 3.2 ]
The proof relies on a lemma that we present now.
Lemma 3.3 Consider matrices A(m × n), B((m × p) such that
C(B) ⊆ C(A).
Let C((m × q) be any matrix. Then the necessary and sufficient condition that
C(PB C) = C(PA C) is that (PA − PB )C = 0.
Proof of theorem 3.1: Let T = {1, 2, · · · i − 1, i + 1, · · · m − 1}, T ∗ = T ∪ {m}
and T ∗∗ = T ∗ ∪ {m + 1}. From Lemma 3.1 and Notation 3.2, we see that
SSi;all = Y ′ PU Y, SSi;m+1 = Y ′ PV Y, SSi;m = Y ′ PW Y,
where U = (I − PT ∗∗ )Xi , V = (I − Pm+1 )Xi and W = (I − Pm )Xi .
Proof of (a); From the expressions above, a necessary and sufficient condition
for SSi;all = SSi;m+1 is that PU = PV .
Therefore, in view of lemma 3.3 , the necessary and sufficient condition for
SSi;all = SSi;m+1 is that
(PT ∗ − Pm+1 )Xi = 0.

(3.4)

Now by Lemma 3.2, PT ∗ − Pm+1 = PZ , where Z = (I − Pm+1 )XT . Thus, ( 3.4 )
is ⇔ Pz Xi = 0 ⇔ Xi′ (I − Pm+1 )XT = 0 ⇔ Xi′ (I − Pm+1 )Xj = 0, j 6= i, which
is the same as the proportional frequency condition.
7

Proof of (b) : Proceeding along the lines as in the proof of (a), we find that
the necessary and sufficient condition for SSi;all = SSi;m is that
PZ Xi = 0, where Z = (I − Pm )XT .

(3.5)

But this condition ⇔ Xi′ (I − Pm )XT = 0 ⇔ Xi′ (I − Pm )Xj = 0, j 6= i, 1 ≤ i, j ≤
m − 1. This condition can be expressed in the same form as in the statement by
using the relation between the design matrices and the incidence matrices. 
Remark 3.1 : The sufficiency part of (a) of Theorem 3.1 is already known.
We have now shown that the condition is also necessary.
Remark 3.2 : The results of Theorem 3.1 can be easily generalized to a situation where interactions are present. Part (a) says that the sums of squares
for testing the significance of effect E (say SSE;adj ) is the same as the so-called
unadjusted sum of squares for E if and only if E satisfies PFC with every other
effect present. Similarly, part (b) says that SSE;adj is the same as that sums
of squares for E adjusted for the block effect if and only if E⊥D(bl) for every
other effect D.

4

Construction

In the rest of this paper by orthogonality we mean orthogonality through the
block factor.
Suppose our aim is to construct a plan for an sm experiment on blocks of size k
each. We begin with an initial plan P and then develop or expand it with the
help of a vector subspace V of F m to our final plan. In this section we find out
conditions on V , so that the final plan satisfies certain desirable properties.
Notation 4.1 Consider a plan P for an sm experiment on b blocks of size k
each. Let n = bk. Thus, there is a total of n runs in the plan, which in general
may not be distinct.
(a) Let B denote the set of all blocks in P, say B = {Bj , j = 1, · · · b}.
(b) Let E = {Ea , a ∈ I}, be the set of effects believed to be present. Thus,
I ⊆ F m \ {0}.
(c) For a ∈ I, the replication number rta of the level t of effect Ea is the number
Pb
P
of runs in P in which Ea is at level t. Thus, rta = j=1
1.
x∈Bj :a′ x=t

The replication vector ra is the s × 1 vector with rta as the tth entry, t ∈ Fs .
(d) For a, b ∈ I, the Ea versus Eb incidence matrix is the s × s matrix N ab ,
8

ab
where N ab = ((nab
α,β ))α,β∈F , and nα,β is the number of runs in P in which Ea
is at level α and Eb is at level β. That is

nab
α,β =

b
X

X

1.

x∈Bj :

j=1

a′ x=α,b′ x=β

(e) For a ∈ I, the Ea -versus block incidence matrix La is the s × b matrix
a
a
La = ((lα,j
))α∈F,1≤j≤b , where lα,j
is the number of runs in the jth block of P
in which Ea is at level α. That is
a
lα,j
=

X

1.

x∈Bj :a′ x=α

Definition 4.1 Let V be a vector subspace of F m , say of dimension t ≥ 1. For
any block B ∈ B, and any vector v ∈ V , v +B will denote the set {v +x : x ∈ B}
of runs. By the expansion V (P) of P along V we shall mean the plan (for
the same experiment, with b.st blocks of size k each) whose set of blocks is
{v + B : v ∈ V, B ∈ B}.
Notation 4.2 We shall use the following notation for the replication vectors
and incidence matrices for an expansion V (P) of a plan P along a vector subspace V .
(a) r̃a will denote the replication vector of Ea in V (P).
(b) Ñ ab = ((ñab
α,β ))α,β∈F will denote the Ea versus Eb incidence matrix in V (P).
(c) Let J = {1, 2, · · · b}. The s × b|V | matrix L̃a will denote the Ea versus block
a
, α ∈ F, j̃ ∈ J × V .
incidence matrix in V (P). Its entries will be denoted by l̃α,
j̃
We now find the replication vectors and incidence matrices of effects in V (P)
in terms of those in the original plan P.
Theorem 4.1 Consider an expansion of a plan P along a vector subspace V as
in Definition 4.1. Consider a pair of effects Ea and Eb . Then, the replication
vectors of these effects and the incidence matrices involving Ea , Eb and block for
V (P) are given in terms of the corresponding quantities for P as follows.

9

ñab
α,β

=

X

nab
α−a′ v,β−b′ v , α, β ∈ F.

(4.6)

X

a
rα−a
′ v , α ∈ F.

(4.7)

v∈V

r̃αa

=

v∈V
a
l̃α,
j̃

=

a
lα−a
′ v,j , α ∈ F, j̃ = (j, v), 1 ≤ j ≤ b, v ∈ V.

(4.8)

Corollary 4.1 For a plan V (P) which is an expansion of P along V , the following hold. For α, β ∈ F , the (α, β)th element of L̃a (L̃b )′ is given by
X

(La (Lb )′ )α−a′ v,β−b′ v .

v∈V

We now find the condition for orthogonality between a pair of effects in the final
plan.
Notation 4.3 For V as in Definition 4.1 let V ⊥ denote its orthocomplement.
That is V ⊥ is vector subspace of F m of dimension m − t, given by V ⊥ = {w ∈
F m : w′ v = 0, ∀v ∈ V }.
Definition 4.2 Given a vector subspace V of F m , let ∼V denote the binary
relation on the set of all effects given by
Ea ∼V Eb if < a > +V ⊥ =< b > +V ⊥ .
Clearly ∼V is an equivalence relation and so it partitions the set of all effects
into the corresponding equivalence classes. We define “the effects classes relative
to V ” to be the ∼V -equivalence classes.
We now present our main result.
Theorem 4.2 Consider an expansion V (P) of P along V . Fix a pair of effects
Ea and Eb .
(a) If Ea and Eb are from different effects classes relative to V , then Ea ⊥Eb (bl)
in V (P).
(b) Suppose Ea and Eb are from the same effects classes relative to V . Then,
the following hold.
(i) If both a and b are in V ⊥ , then the relation between Ea and Eb in V (P) is
the same as that in P. That is Ea is confounded, non-orthogonal or orthogonal
to Eb in V (P) if it is so in P.
10

(ii) If neither a nor b is in V ⊥ and Ea is aliased with Eb in P, then Ea and Eb
are no more aliased in V (P), provided V is non-trivial.
The proof is based on two lemmas we present now.
Lemma 4.1 Let V be a t-dimensional vector subspace of F m , a, b ∈ F m and
α, β ∈ F . Consider the subset S(a, b, α, β) of V , namely S = {v ∈ V : a′ v =
α, b′ v = β}. Then, the following hold.
(a) S is empty in the following cases. (i) a ∈ V ⊥ , α 6= 0, (ii) b ∈ V ⊥ , β 6= 0
and (iii) a − cb ∈ V ⊥ , for some c ∈ F, c 6= 0, but α 6= cβ.
(b) |S| = st if a, b ∈ V ⊥ , α = β = 0.
(c) |S| = st−1 if one of the following conditions is satisfied. (i) a ∈ V ⊥ , α =
0, b 6∈ V ⊥ , (ii) b ∈ V ⊥ , β = 0, a 6∈ V ⊥ , (iii) a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ and ∃ c ∈ F such
that a − cb ∈ V ⊥ , α = cβ.
(d) |S| = st−2 if a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , < a > +V ⊥ 6=< b > +V ⊥ .
Proof : This is trivial if a ∈ V ⊥ or b ∈ V ⊥ . So, we assume a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ .
Case 1: < a > +V ⊥ =< b > +V ⊥ . Then, ∃c ∈ F such that a − cb ∈ V ⊥ . If
α 6= cβ, then the set is empty, proving (a)(iii). If α = cβ, then the set is nothing
but {v ∈ V, a′ v = α}, which has size st−1 . Thus, (c) (iii) is proved.
Case 2 : < a > +V ⊥ 6=< b > +V ⊥ . Then, v 7−→ a′ v and v 7−→ b′ v are
non-zero linear functionals on on V . Their kernels are (t − 1)−dimensional
vector subspaces of V , namely a⊥ ∩ V and b⊥ ∩ V . These subspaces are distinct,
since < a > +V ⊥ 6=< b > +V ⊥ . The sets {v ∈ V, a′ v = α} and {v ∈
V, b′ v = β} are cosets of these subspaces and therefore are euclidean hyperplanes
in the t-dimensional euclidean space over F . Since the vector subspaces are
distinct, these hyperplanes are distinct and non-parallel. But any two nonparallel hyperplanes in the t-dimensional euclidean space meet in an euclidean
subspace of dimension t − 2, having st−2 common points. This proves (d) and
hence completes the proof..
Lemma 4.2 Let a, b and V be as in Lemma 4.1. For any s × s matrix M with
rows and columns indexed by F , we define the s × s matrix M̃ as follows.
m̃α,β =

X

mα−a′ v,β−b′ v , α, β ∈ F.

v∈V

Then, we have :(a) If a, b ∈ V ⊥ , then, M̃ = st M .
11

(b) If a ∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , then, m̃α,β = st−1

P

mα,γ , α, β ∈ F.

P

mγ,β , α, β ∈ F.

γ∈F

(c) If a 6∈ V ⊥ , b ∈ V ⊥ , then, m̃α,β = st−1

γ∈F

(d) If a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , < a > +V ⊥ =< b > +V ⊥ , then, m̃α,β = st−1

P

mα−u,β−cu ,

u∈F

for some c 6= 0 ∈ F .
(e) If a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , < a > +V ⊥ 6=< b > +V ⊥ , then, M̃ = cst−2 J, where c
is the sum of all entries of M and J is the all-one matrix.
Proof : From the definition of M̃ , its (α, β)th entry is nothing but
X

mz,w .k{v ∈ V, a′ v = α − z, b′ v = β − w}k.

z,w∈F

Therefore the result is immediate from Lemma 4.1.
Proof of Theorem 4.2: Put P = La L′b , M = N ab . Then, by Theorem 4.1and
Corollary 4.1, we have (in the notation of Lemma 4.2) L˜a L̃′b = P̃ and N˜ab = M̃ .
Proof of (a): Consider two cases.
Case 1: Exactly one of a and b is in V ⊥ .
Case 2: a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , < a > +V ⊥ 6=< b > +V ⊥ .
We first consider Case 1. W.l.g, let b ∈ V ⊥ . Then, a is not in V ⊥ . So, Lemma
4.2 implies
P
Qγ,β , α, β ∈ F, Q = P, M.
Q̃α,β = st−1
γ∈F

Now, by Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 it follows that
t−1 b
ñab
rβ and L˜a L̃′b = st−1 krβb .
α,β = s

Now, the result follows from Definition 2.1.
In Case 2, applying (e) of Lemma 4.2 we get Q̃ = st−2 cq J, Q = P, M , where
Cq is the total sum of the entries of Q. But in view of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3
cp = kcm . Hence the condition of Definition 2.1 is satisfied.
Proof of Case (b):(i) The result is immediate from (a) of Lemma 4.2.
(ii) It is enough to show that when a 6∈ V ⊥ , b 6∈ V ⊥ , < a > +V ⊥ < b > +V ⊥
and M is positive diagonal, then every entry of M̃ is non-zero. But (d) of
Lemma 4.2 says that for every α, β ∈ F , m̃α,β is st−1 times the sum of entries
of M on a transversal. Since M is positive diagonal, the result follows.
12

5

Plans for three-level factors

In this section we concentrate on three-level factors and assume that interactions
involving three or more factors are not present. In the preceding section we
have obtained the conditions on the developing procedure, so that the final plan
satisfies desirable properties. However, in order that the size of the experiment
is not too large, one needs also to have a good start. We have been able to find
such a good start - a plan (P )for a 34 experiment on two blocks of size four
each - as shown below.
Blocks
A
B
P=
C
D

|
|0
|0
|0
|0

1
1
1
0

B1
1
2
0
1

2
0
1
1

|
|
|
|
|

0
2
1
2

B2
0
1
2
1

2
1
0
2

2
2
2
0

Properties of P : The effects satisfy the following defining relations.
Block ≡ ABC ≡ AC 2 D2 ≡ AB 2 D ≡ BC 2 D.
This implies that the main effects and the two-factor interactions form the
following alias classes.
A1

= {A, B 2 C 2 , BD2 , CD},

(5.9)

A2
A3

= {B, A2 C 2 , AD, CD2 },
= {C, AD2 , A2 B 2 , BD},

(5.10)
(5.11)

A4

= {D, AC 2 , A2 B, B 2 C}.

(5.12)

The relation among the classes are shown in the following graph, where adjacency represents orthogonality.
A1•❅
❅

• A2

❅
❅•
A4
A3•
We now modify P according to our requirement and expand along suitable
subspaces to obtain the final plan V (P). Before that we need a definition.
Definition 5.1 Let us consider a plan ρ. Suppose the set E of all effects of
interest can be divided into several classes in such a way that every effect is
orthogonal to every other from a different class. Then ρ is called inter-class
orthogonal and the classes will be referred to as “orthogonal classes”.
Remark 4.1: The concept of inter-class orthogonality has been introduced and
studied in Bagchi (1916).
13

Case 1: A 33 experiment.
Theorem 5.1 There exists an inter-class orthogonal plan for a 33 experiment
on six blocks of size four each estimating all main effects and all two-factor
interactions.
Proof : We delete factor D from P to get a plan, say P 3 . Now the alias classes
are
A1

= {A, B 2 C 2 },

A2
A3

= {B, A2 C 2 },
= {C, A2 B 2 },

A4

= {AC 2 , A2 B, B 2 C}.

Now we expand P 3 along V =< {(1, 0, 0)} >. Using Theorem 4.2 one can verify
that in V (P 3 ) the set of all effects in the model satisfy inter-class orthogonality,
the orthogonal classes being as follows.
C1 = {A, AC},
2

C3 = {C, B C}

C2 = {B, BC}
and C4 = {AB, AC 2 , A2 B}.

Since no effect is aliased with any other, the result follows. 
Case 2: A 34 experiment.
Theorem 5.2 There exists an inter-class orthogonal plan for a 34 experiment
on eighteen blocks of size four each estimating all main effects and all two-factor
interactions.
Proof; We start with P in which the alias classes are as given in ( 5.9 ) and the
equations next to it. Now we expand P along V =< {(0, 1, 0, 2), (1, 0, 1, 0)} >.
Theorem 4.2 implies that the resultant plan V (P) is inter-class orthogonal for
the set of all main effects and two-factor interactions. The classes are :
C1

= {A, AC}, C2 = {B, BD2 }

C3
C5

= {C}, C4 = {D}
= {BC, CD2 }, C6 = {AD, CD}

C7
C9

= {AB, AD2 , }, C8 = {AB 2 , BC 2 }
= {AC 2 , BD}

Since no effect is aliased with any other, the result follows. 
Case 3: A 35 experiment.
14

Theorem 5.3 There exists an inter-class orthogonal plan for a 35 experiment
on eighteen blocks of size four each estimating all main effects and all two-factor
interactions, except DE 2 , which is confounded with the block factor.
Proof : We obtain the following plan P 5 from P by adding a factor E.
Blocks
A
B
Plan P 5 :
C
D
E

|
|0
|0
|0
|0
|0

1
1
1
0
0

B1
1
2
0
1
1

|
|
|
|
|
|

2
0
1
1
1

B2
0
1
2
1
1

0
2
1
2
2

2
1
0
2
2

2
2
2
0
0

The effects satisfy the following defining relations :
Block ≡ DE 2 ≡ ABC
2

2

≡ AB D ≡ AB E

≡ AC 2 D2 ≡ AC 2 E 2 ,
≡ BC 2 D ≡ BC 2 E 2 .

Thus, interaction DE 2 is confounded with the block factor and the alias classes
are as given below.
A1
A2

= {A, B 2 C 2 , BD2 , CD, CE, BE 2 },
= {B, A2 C 2 , AD, AE, CD2 , CE 2 },

A3

= {C, AD2 , A2 B 2 , AE 2 , BD, BE},

A4

= {D, E, D2 E 2 , AC 2 , A2 B, B 2 C}.

We expand P along V =< {(0, 1, 0, 2, 0), (1, 0, 1, 0, 2)} > to obtain the final plan
V (P 5 ). Using Theorem 4.2 we find that if we forget DE 2 , then V (P 5 ) can be
viewed as inter-class orthogonal plan : the classes being as listed below.
C1

=

{A, AC, CE 2 }, C2 = {B, BD2 }

C3

=

{C, E, AE 2 }, C4 = {D}

C5
C7

=
=

{BC, BE 2 , CD2 }, C6 = {CD, AD}
{AD2 , AB, DE}, C8 = {BE, BC 2 , AB 2 }

C9

=

{CE, AE}, C10 = {BD, AC 2 }

Remark 4.2: A resolution V plan for a 34 as well as a 35 experiment requires
81 runs. Thus, apart from providing more flexibility due to small size of the
blocks, we have saved 9 runs in both the situations. While all effects in the
model are estimable in the former plan, only one two-factor interaction is lost
in the later.
Case 4: A 36 experiment.

15

Theorem 5.4 There exists an inter-class orthogonal plan for a 35 experiment
on eighteen blocks of size four each estimating all main effects and all but nine
two-factor interactions.
Proof: We obtain the following plan P 6 from P by adding factors E and F ..
Blocks
A
B
C
Plan P 6 :
D
E
F

|
|0
|0
|0
|0
|0
|0

1
1
1
0
0
1

B1
1
2
0
1
1
1

2
0
1
1
1
2

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

0
2
1
2
2
0

B2
0
1
2
1
1
0

2
1
0
2
2
2

2
2
2
0
0
2

The effects satisfy the following defining relations :
Block ≡ DE 2 ≡ AF 2 ≡ ABC ≡ AB 2 D ≡ AB 2 E ≡ AC 2 D2 ≡ AC 2 E 2
≡ BC 2 D ≡ BC 2 E ≡ BCF ≡ B 2 DF ≡ B 2 EF ≡ C 2 E 2 F ≡ C 2 D2 F
Thus, interactions DE 2 and AF 2 are confounded with the block factor and the
alias classes are as given below.
A1

= {A, A2 F 2 , B 2 C 2 , BD2 , BE 2 , CD, CE, F },

A2
A3

= {B, A2 C 2 , AD, AE, CD2 , CE 2 , C 2 F 2 , DF, EF },
= {C, A2 B 2 , AD2 , AE 2 , BD, BE, B 2 F 2 , D2 F, E F },

A4

= {D, E, A2 B, AC 2 , B 2 C, BF 2 , C 2 F, D2 E 2 , }.

We expand P 6 along V =< {(1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0)(0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1)} > to obtain the final
plan V (P 6 ). From Theorem 4.2 it follows that all the effects in the assumed
model, except DE 2 and AF 2 are divided into the orthogonal classes listed below. The classes do contain pairs of aliased two-factor interactions, which are
presented within ().
C1 = {A, B, AD, }, C2 = {C, E}, C3 = {D, AB 2 , BD},
C4 = {F, CE, CF, EF }, C5 = {BD2 , CF 2 }, C6 = {CD2 , BE 2 },
C7 = {BE, BF 2 , D2 E 2 }, C8 = {(AD2 , EF 2 ), (AB 2 , CF 2 )},
C9 = {AE 2 , BC 2 , (AC 2 , BF 2 )}, C10 = {CD, AC, (AE, DF ), (AF, BC)},
We see that there are five pairs of mutually aliased two-factor interactions.
These together with the interactions confounded with the blocks make the size
of the set on non-estimable two-factor interactions as seven. Again, the classes
C4 and C10 are of size four (counting each alias pair as one effect). But in the
present set up at most three non-orthogonal effects can be estimated, so that
two more two-factor interactions are lost. Hence the result. 
16

Remark 4.3: In a plan of 18 blocks of size 4 each, the available treatment
degrees of freedom is 54 and so at most 27 effects can be estimated. In V (P 6 )
these treatment degrees of freedom are utilized to the full extent as 6 main
effects and 30-9 = 21 two-factor interactions are estimated.
We now present another plan, which may be viewed as a supplement of the plan
V (P 6 ) of Theorem 5.4, in the sense that these two plans together estimates all
main effects and all two-factor interactions.
Theorem 5.5 There exists a plan V (P26 ) on 6 blocks of size 4 each, which estimates all but one of the two-factor interactions lost in V (P 6 ), so that these
two plans together estimates all effects in the model except one two-factor interaction.
Proof : The plan is as given below.
Blocks
A
B
C
D
E
F

|
|0
|0
|0
|0
|0
|0

1
1
1
1
0
1

B1
1
2
1
2
1
0

2
0
2
0
1
1

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

0
2
0
2
2
1

B2
0
1
0
1
1
2

2
1
2
1
2
0

2
2
2
2
0
2

We can see that the effects AC 2 and BD2 are confounded with the block factor.
The remaining effects form the following alias classes.
A1

=

{A, C, AC, BE 2 , B 2 F 2 , DE 2 , D2 F 2 , EF },

A2
A3

=
=

{B, D, AE, A2 F 2 , BD, CE, C 2 F 2 , E 2 F },
{F, A2 B 2 , A2 D2 , AE 2 , B 2 C 2 , BE, C 2 D2 , CE 2 , DE},

A4

=

{E, A2 B, A2 D, AF 2 , BC 2 , B 2 F, C 2 D, CF 2 , D2 F, }.

Now, we expand the above plan along V =< {(1, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0)} > and get the
required plan V (P26 ). We now present the orthogonal classes obtained in view
of Theorem 4.2. The effects within () are aliased.
C1 = {(C, DE 2 , BF ), (B, AE, CF )},
C2 = {(A, AC, BE 2 ), (D, BD, EF 2 ), (EF, DF ), (AF, CE)},

(5.13)
(5.14)

C3 = {(F, DE, BC), (AD2 , BC 2 , BF 2 , CF 2 )},
C4 = {(E, AB 2 , DF 2 ), (AD, CE 2 ), (CD2 , AF 2 ),

(5.15)
(5.16)

(AB, AE 2 , BE, CD)}

(5.17)

We shall now see how the lost effects can be estimated. When two effects are
aliased in V (P 6 ) we need to see that one of them can be estimated from V (P26 ).
17

When there are four effects among which at most three can be estimated from
V (P 6 ), we need to find one member which can be estimated from V (P26 ). We
present the details in the following table.



















Effects to
be Estimated
DE 2
AF 2
EF 2
DF
BF 2
BC
AB 2
CF
CD

Class of the
New plan
C1
C4
C2
C2
C3
C3
C4
C1
C4

Earlier
Confounded with
Block
Block
AD2
AE
AC 2
AF
CF 2
one of F, CE, EF
one of AC, BC, DF











.









We note that C4 contains three and each of the other classes contains two of
the effects to be estimated. Further, one may check from equation ( 5.13 ) and
the following three equations that the effects in the table, which belongs to the
same class of V (P26 ) are not aliased. But since from every class at most two
effects can be estimated, one effect in C4 is lost. Thus, all but one of the lost
nine effects can be estimated. Hence the result. 
Remark 4.4 It is known that a resolution V plan for a 36 experiment requires
35 = 243 runs [see Theorem 13.1 of Hinkelman and Kempthorn (205), for instance]. The plans V (P 6 ) and V (P26 ) together provides estimability almost to
the same extent, but requires only 96 runs.
Acknowledgement :

6

References
1. Addelman,S. (1962). Orthogonal main effect plans for asymmetrical factorial experiments. Technometrics, vol. 4, p: 21-46.
2. Bagchi, S. (2010). Main effect plans orthogonal through the block factor,
Technometrics, vol. 52, p : 243-249.
3. Bagchi, S. (2016) Inter-class orthogonal main effect plans for asymmetrical
experiments. To appear in Sankhya.
4. Bose, M. and Bagchi, S. (2007). Optimal main effect plans on blocks of
small size, Jour. Stat. Prob. Let., vol. 77, p : 142-147.
5. Bose, R.C. (1947). Mathematical theory of the symmetrical factorial design. Sankhya, vol. 8, p : 107-166.
18

6. Hinkelman, K. and Kempthorn, O. (2005). Design and analysis of experiments, vol.2, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
7. Morgan, J.P. and Uddin, N. (1996). Optimal blocked main effect plans
with nested rows and columns and related designs, Ann. Stat., vol. 24, p
: 1185-1208.
8. Mukerjee, R., Dey, A. and Chatterjee, K. (2001). Optimal main effect
plans with non-orthogonal blocking. Biometrika, vol. 89, p : 225-229.

19

