Optimal experimental design that minimizes the width
of simultaneous confidence bands
arXiv:1704.03995v2 [] 26 Mar 2018

Satoshi Kuriki∗ and Henry P. Wynn†

Abstract
We propose an optimal experimental design for a curvilinear regression model
that minimizes the band-width of simultaneous confidence bands. Simultaneous
confidence bands for curvilinear regression are constructed by evaluating the volume
of a tube about a curve that is defined as a trajectory of a regression basis vector
(Naiman, 1986). The proposed criterion is constructed based on the volume of
a tube, and the corresponding optimal design that minimizes the volume of tube
is referred to as the tube-volume optimal (TV-optimal) design. For Fourier and
weighted polynomial regressions, the problem is formalized as one of minimization
over the cone of Hankel positive definite matrices, and the criterion to minimize
is expressed as an elliptic integral. We show that the Möbius group keeps our
problem invariant, and hence, minimization can be conducted over cross-sections of
orbits. We demonstrate that for the weighted polynomial regression and the Fourier
regression with three bases, the tube-volume optimal design forms an orbit of the
Möbius group containing D-optimal designs as representative elements.
Key words: D-optimality, Fourier regression, Hankel matrix, Möbius group, volumeof-tube method, weighted polynomial regression.

1

Introduction

Suppose that we observe pairs of explanatory variables xi ∈ X and response variables
yi ∈ R, i = 1, . . . , N. Here, X ⊂ R is a domain of explanatory variables, and typically, a
segment of R. For such data, we consider the regression model
yi = b⊤ f (xi ) + εi ,

εi ∼ N(0, σ 2 (x)) i.i.d.,

where b = (b1 , . . . , bn )⊤ is an unknown coefficient vector, and f (x) = (f1 (x), . . . , fn (x))⊤ ,
x ∈ X , is a piecewise smooth regression basis vector. For the problem of this paper, we
∗

The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midoricho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan, Email:
kuriki@ism.ac.jp
†
The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK,
Email: h.wynn@lse.ac.uk

1

assume that the variance function σ 2 (x) > 0 is known. When σ 2 (x) is not a constant, the
regression model is called weighted .
In the case of experimental data, the explanatory variables xi can be chosen arbitrarily
within its domain X ⊂ R. The allocation of {x1 , . . . , xN } ⊂ X to optimize some target
function is called optimal experimental design. For example, for D-optimality, we take a
function det(Σ) with Σ = Var(bb), where bb is the ordinary least square (OLS) estimator of
b. Here,
N
X
1
−1
Σ=M
with M =
f (xi )f (xi )⊤ 2
,
σ
(x
)
i
i=1
the information matrix.
Following Kiefer and Wolfowitz (1959), in an optimal design, allocation {x1 , . . . , xN }
is regarded as the probability measure over X with mass pi = 1/N at each point xi . We
write this discrete probability measure as

 

x1 · · · xN
xi
.
= 1
· · · N1
pi 1≤i≤N
N

Viewed from this point, the problem is formalized as that of optimization with respect
to the probability measure over X . Most criteria in the literature including the criterion
mentioned above are convex or concave functionals of the probability measure, and can
be considered in the framework of convex analysis (Wynn, 1985; Pukelsheim, 2006).
In this paper, we propose a new non-convex criterion based on simultaneous confidence
bands. The pointwise confidence band is based on the confidence region for regressor
b⊤ f (x) at a fixed point x. On the other hand, the simultaneous confidence band is the
confidence region for the full regression curve {(x, b⊤ f (x)) | x ∈ X } ⊂ R2 . The standard
form of the simultaneous confidence band of hyperbolic-type is of the form
p
b⊤ f (x) ∈ bb⊤ f (x) ± cα f (x)⊤ Σf (x),
(1.1)

where u ± v stands for the region (u − v, u + v). The threshold cα is determined so that
the event (1.1) holds for all x ∈ X with given probability 1 − α (Working and Hotelling,
1929; Scheffé, 1959; Wynn and Bloomfield, 1971; Liu, 2010). The simultaneous confidence
bands are useful when x cannot be determined in advance. (See van Dyk (2014) for
an application in experimental particle physics.) As shown in the next section, cα is
also a functional of the allocation {x1 , . . . , xN }, and hence, we can consider an optimal
design that in some way minimizes both the threshold cα and f (x)⊤ Σf (x). In fact,
from the general equivalence theorem of Kiefer and Wolfowitz (1959), the design measure
that minimizes maxx∈X f (x)⊤ Σf (x) coincides with the D-optimal design. Therefore, we
propose the use of cα as a criterion of optimal design, and consider the corresponding
optimal design as the tube-volume optimal (TV-optimal) design. If a design is optimal
under both the tube-volume criterion and the D-criterion, it becomes the universal optimal
design to minimize the width of confidence bands (1.1). Indeed cα substantially depends
on the design. In Table 4.3 of Section 4.3, we will show how the difference in design affects
the width of the simultaneous confidence band.
2

From its definition, cα is a complicated function of Σ. However, when α is small,
cα tends to a simpler function. This approximation is due to the volume-of-tube method
used to construct simultaneous confidence bands in curvilinear regression curves (Naiman,
1986; Johansen and Johnstone, 1990; Sun and Loader, 1994; Lu and Kuriki, 2017). The
volume-of-tube method is a methodology to approximate the probability of the maximum
of a Gaussian random field (Sun, 1993; Kuriki and Takemura, 2001, 2009; Takemura and Kuriki,
2002; Adler and Taylor, 2007). As shown later, cα corresponds to the upper tail probability of the maximum of a Gaussian field, and hence, the volume-of-tube method works
well.
As concrete regression models, weighted polynomial and Fourier regressions are mainly
covered here. In these models, we will see that there is a group referred to as the Möbius
transform that keeps the tube-volume optimal design problem invariant. In general, a
group action simplifies problems. (See Section 13 of Pukelsheim (2006) for invariant
optimal experimental design.) The use of such group invariance is another subject of this
paper.
The outline of this paper is as follows. Section 2 summarizes the volume-of-tube formula to construct approximate simultaneous confidence bands, and formalizes the tubevolume criterion and the corresponding optimal design. Section 3 analyzes the tubevolume optimal designs for Fourier and weighted polynomial regressions. The Möbius
group is proved to keep the optimization problem invariant, and hence can be used to
reduce the dimension of the problem. Using this consideration, Section 4 identifies the
tube-volume optimal design in the weighted polynomial regression and the Fourier regression when n = 3. Some proofs are given in Appendix.

2
2.1

Tube-volume optimal design
Volume-of-tube formula for simultaneous confidence bands

In this subsection, we briefly summarize the volume-of-tube method. This is a general
methodology used to approximate the probability of the maximum of a smooth Gaussian
random process or random field. Here, we describe how this method is used to determine
threshold cα .
As mentioned in Section 1, threshold cα should be determined as a solution c = cα of
 b⊤

| b f (x) − b⊤ f (x)|
p
Pr
< c, ∀x ∈ X = 1 − α,
f (x)⊤ Σf (x)

which is equivalent to

1



| (bb − b)⊤ f (x)|
Pr max
> c = α,
1
x∈X
kΣ 2 f (x)k
1

1

where Σ 2 is a square-root matrix such that (Σ 2 )⊤ Σ 2 = Σ.

3

(2.1)

(2.2)

We define the normalized basis vector and its trajectory as
1

ψΣ (x) =

Σ 2 f (x)
1

kΣ 2 f (x)k

,


γΣ = ±ψΣ (x) | x ∈ X ,

(2.3)

respectively. From this definition, the trajectory is a subset of the (n − 1)-dimensional
unit sphere:
γΣ ⊂ Sn−1 = {u ∈ Rn | kuk = 1}.
In particular, when X is a segment, γΣ is a curve on the unit sphere. Let Vol1 (·) denote
the one-dimensional volume, that is, the length. Then, when c is large, the volume-of-tube
method provides an approximation to the upper tail probability of the maximum in (2.2).
Further, let χ2ν denote the chi-square random variable with ν degrees of freedom.
Proposition 2.1. (i) As c → ∞,




| (bb − b)⊤ f (x)|
Vol1 (γΣ )
Pr χ22 > c2 .
Pr max
>c ∼
1
x∈X
2π
kΣ 2 f (x)k

(2.4)

(ii) For all c > 0, the left-hand side of (2.4) is bounded above by


Vol1 (γΣ )
Pr χ22 > c2 + χ(γΣ ) Pr χ21 > c2 ,
2π

(2.5)

where χ(γΣ ) is the number of the connected components of the set γΣ (⊂ Sn−1 ).
If we admit approximation (2.4), an approximate threshold cα can be determined from
the equation

Vol1 (γΣ )
Pr χ22 > c2α = α.
2π
This means that the smaller the value of Vol1 (γΣ ), the smaller is cα .
The statement (ii) above is due to Naiman (1986). Alternative proofs of the inequality
can be found in Johnstone and Siegmund (1989) and Takemura and Kuriki (2002). See
Lu and Kuriki (2017) for a generalization of Naiman’s inequality. By equating (2.5) to
be α, we have a conservative threshold for the simultaneous confidence band.

2.2

Tube-volume criterion

From (2.5), we find that the smaller the value of Vol1 (γΣ ), the narrower is the width of the
confidence band. In this subsection, we formalize the experimental design optimization
problem of the allocation of explanatory variables to minimize Vol1 (γΣ ).
Here, we give our assumptions on f (x).
Assumption 2.2. f : X → Rn is a continuous and piecewise C 1 -function. Image f (X )
spans Rn .
4

From elementary geometry, the volume of γΣ in (2.3) is given by
Z
dψΣ (x)
Vol1 (γΣ ) = 2
dx
dx
X
 1

Z
d
Σ 2 f (x)
=2
dx
1
X dx kΣ 2 f (x)k
Z p
(f (x)⊤ Σf (x))(g(x)⊤ Σg(x)) − (f (x)⊤ Σg(x))2
=2
dx
f (x)⊤ Σf (x)
X

1

 2
f (x)⊤
Σ f (x), g(x)
Z det
g(x)⊤
2×2
dx,
=2
⊤
f (x) Σf (x)
X

(2.6)

where g(x) = df (x)/dx. We call (2.6) the tube-volume (TV) criterion.
Note that (2.6) is invariant with respect to scale Σ 7→ kΣ (k > 0). Because of this, we
introduce the set of all nonnegative measures (not necessarily probability measures) on X
denoted by P. Each element of ρ ∈ P corresponds to an experimental design. This is an
extension of the design measure of Kiefer and Wolfowitz (1959). We also extend the set
of moment matrices. Thus, the set of all non-singular information matrices is denoted by
Z

1
⊤
f (x)f (x) 2 dρ(x) ≻ 0 | ρ ∈ P
M=
σ (x)
X
Z

⊤
=
f (x)f (x) dρ(x) ≻ 0 | ρ ∈ P ,
X

where “≻ 0” denotes positive definiteness. From its definition, M forms a convex cone.
Our optimal design problem is formulated as minimizing Vol1 (γΣ ) in (2.6) subject to
Σ−1 ∈ M. The lemma below is a direct consequence of this invariance.
 
 
xi
xi
2
with variance function σ1 (x), and the design
Lemma 2.3. The design
qi 1≤i≤N
pi 1≤i≤N
2
2
2
with variance function
Pσ2 (x), qi = kpi σ2 (xi )/σ1 (xi ), give the same volume, where k > 0
is a constant so that i qi = 1.
Proof. The information matrices M1 and M2 of the two designs satisfy M1 = kM2 .

A difficulty with this optimization problem is that this is not a convex problem. Figure
2.1 depicts the volume Vol1 (γM (c)−1 ) for a mixing design connecting two Fourier designs
with three bases ((3.1) with n = 3) with weights 1 − c and c :
 1
 

 1
1 
− 3 0 13
− 12 0 12
ti
=
and
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
pi i=1,2,3
3
3
3
3
3
3
The information matrix is




1 0 0
1
0
M(c) = (1 − c) 0 1 0 + c  √ 0√ 13
2+ 6
0 0 1
0
3
5

√ √ 
2+ 6
3

0
5
3

.

We see that Vol1 (γM −1 (c) ) is not convex in c.

c

Figure 2.1: Vol1 (γM (c)−1 ) for a mixing design.

3
3.1

Tube-volume optimal design for polynomial and
Fourier regressions
Equivalence between weighted polynomial regression and
Fourier regression

From this section, we focus on Fourier regression and weighted polynomial regression. In
linear optimal design theory, the Fourier regression model has been used as one of the
standard models to see the performance of the proposed criteria. The weighted polynomial
used here is closely connected to the Fourier regression model, as is shown later.
The Fourier (trigonometric) regression has basis vector
f (x) =fF (x)
( √
√
√
√
(1, 2 sin(2πx), 2 cos(2πx), 2 sin(4πx), . . . , 2 cos(2πmx))⊤
√
√
√
= √
( 2 cos(πx), 2 sin(πx), 2 cos(3πx), . . . , 2 cos(π(n − 1)x))⊤

(n = 2m + 1),
(n = 2m)
(3.1)

defined on the domain X = (−1/2, 1/2]. For the Fourier regression, we only deal with
the constant variance σ 2 (x) = σF2 (x) ≡ 1. Although the Fourier regression is not used for
even values of n in practice, we define it for the sake of consistency.
The polynomial regression is a regression model with basis vector
f (x) = fP (x) = (1, x, x2 , . . . , xn−1 )⊤ ∈ R[x]n .

(3.2)

Here, we set the domain X to be the whole real line R. For the polynomial regression,
we assume the variance function of form σ 2 (x) = Q(x)n−1 , where Q(x) is an arbitrary
6

positive quadratic function. As a canonical form of this class of variance functions, we
use
σP2 (x) = (1 + x2 )n−1 .
(3.3)
Later, we introduce a parameterization for Q(x) (see (3.20)).
In this subsection, we see that under the tube-volume criterion, the optimization problem for the Fourier regression is equivalent to that for the weighted polynomial regression.
That is, the optimization problem in the Fourier regression can be translated to one in
the weighted polynomial regression, and vice versa.
The model we discuss is a special case of the model proposed by Dette, et al. (1999),
Section 2.2, who study the D-optimality. Further, Dette and Melas (2003) make use of
the connection between the weighted polynomial and Fourier regressions. We will return
briefly to question on the D-optimality in Section 3.5 below.
From the lemma below, the transformation x = tan(πt) connects the two regression
models.
Lemma 3.1. There exists an n × n non-singular matrix B such that for all x ∈ R and
t ∈ (−1/2, 1/2] satisfying x = tan(πt), we have
fF (t) = BfP (x)λ0 (x),

λ0 (x) = 1/(1 + x2 )(n−1)/2 .

(3.4)

Proof. Note that
sin(2πt) =

2x
,
1 + x2

cos(2πt) =

1 − x2
,
1 + x2

dt =

dx
.
π(1 + x2 )

(3.5)

It is known that

k
sin(2πkt) =
sin2r+1 (2πt) cosk−2r−1 (2πt),
(−1)
2r
+
1
r=0
 
[k/2]
X
k
r
sin2r (2πt) cosk−2r (2πt)
cos(2πkt) =
(−1)
2r
r=0
[(k−1)/2]

X

r



(Moriguti, et al., 1957, pages 186–187). Substituting the formulas for sin(2πt) and cos(2πt)
in (3.5) and expressing fF (t) as a rational function in x, we have formula (3.4).
To prove that B is non-singular, consider the integral
Z ∞

Z 1/2
dx
⊤
2
⊤
fF (t)fF (t) dt = B
fP (x)λ0 (x) fP (x)
B⊤.
(3.6)
2)
π(1
+
x
−1/2
−∞
Here, we used (3.5). The left-hand side is the identity matrix In by standard orthogonality.
Hence, it is enough to check that the integrals in the parentheses of the right-hand side
exist. The matrix in the parentheses of the right-hand side of (3.6) is (B ⊤ B)−1 with (i, j)
element




Γ n − i+j−1
Γ i+j−1
Z ∞

i+j−2
2
2
x
(i + j is even),
dx =
(B ⊤ B)−1
(3.7)
πΓ(n)
i,j =
2
n

−∞ π(1 + x )
0
(i + j is odd),
7

which exists for i, j ≤ n. Hence, B is non-singular.
When n = 3, 4,

1
1
0
1
0
√
0 , 
B = √0 2 2
1
√
2 0 − 2
0





0 1
0
1 0
1
,
0 −3 0 
3 0 −1

respectively.
The set of information matrices for the polynomial regression
Z ∞

⊤
MP =
fP (x)fP (x) dρ(x) ≻ 0 | ρ ∈ P

(3.8)

−∞

is referred to as the moment cone (Karlin and Studden, 1966). The set of information
matrices for the Fourier regression is given by
Z 1/2

⊤
MF =
fF (t)fF (t) dρ(t) ≻ 0 | ρ ∈ P
−1/2

= {BMB ⊤ | M ∈ MP } = BMP B ⊤ .

(3.9)

The following lemma gives the equivalence of the Fourier regression and the polynomial
regression as the optimization problem for the tube-volume criterion.
Theorem 3.2. Let VolF (γM −1 ) and VolP (γM −1 ) be the length of γM −1 given in (2.6)
with f (x) being fF (x) in (3.1), and fP (x) in (3.2), respectively. Then, it holds that
VolP (γM −1 ) = VolF (γ(BM B⊤ )−1 ).
Proof. The derivatives of fF (t) and fP (x) are denoted by gF (t) = dfF (t)/dt and gP (x) =
dfP (x)/dx, respectively. Then,




 λ0 (x) λ̇0 (x)
1 0
.
fF (t), gF (t) = B fP (x), gP (x)
0 dx
0
λ0 (x)
dt

Therefore,

fF (t)⊤ (BMB ⊤ )−1 fF (t) = fP (x)⊤ M −1 fP (x) × λ0 (x)2 ,








fP (x)⊤
fF (t)⊤
−1
⊤ −1
M
fP (x), gP (x)
(BMB ) fF (t), gF (t) = det
det
gP (x)⊤
gF (t)⊤
 dx 2
× λ0 (x)4
,
dt

8

and
 21



fF (t)⊤
Z 1/2 det
(BMB ⊤ )−1 fF (t), gF (t)
gF (t)⊤
dt
fF (t)⊤ (BMB ⊤ )−1 fF (t)
−1/2

1

 2
fP (x)⊤
−1
Z ∞ det
M
fP (x), gP (x)
gP (x)⊤
=
dx.
fP (x)⊤ M −1 fP (x)
−∞
Theorem 3.2 and (3.9) imply that
M ∈ MP is the minimizer of VolP (M)
⇔ M ′ = BMB ⊤ ∈ MF is the minimizer of VolP (M ′ ).
That is, the optimization problems for the polynomial regression and the Fourier regression
are mathematically equivalent. For example, the information matrix M =
P
⊤
f
(t
)f
i F i F (ti ) pi ∈ MF for the Fourier regression, and the information matrix for the
polynomial regression
X
B −1 fF (ti )(B −1 fF (ti ))⊤ pi
MP ∋ B −1 M(B ⊤ )−1 =
i

=

X

fP (xi )fP (xi )⊤ λ0 (xi )2 pi ,

xi = tan(πti ),

i

=

X

fP (xi )fP (xi )⊤

i

1

pi
σP2 (xi )

give the same volume.
This equivalence is stated in terms of design measure as follows.
 
 
ti
xi
Theorem 3.3. The design
for the Fourier regression, and the design
,
pi 1≤i≤N
pi 1≤i≤N
xi = tan(πti ), for the weighted polynomial regression with variance function σP2 (x) give
the same volume. If the former is tube-volume optimal in the Fourier regression, then so
is the latter in the polynomial regression with variance σP2 (x), and vice versa.
In this paper, the (discrete) uniform designs in the Fourier regression and their counterparts in the polynomial regression play important roles. It is known that, in the
Fourier regression, the uniform design in which xi are allocated as equally spaced with
equal weights is D-optimal (Guest, 1958). Because of the symmetry, it is conjectured that
the uniform design is the tube-volume optimal design as well. In Section 4, we prove that
this is true for n = 3, and conjecture that it is true for all n.

9

The n-point discrete uniform design for the Fourier regression symmetric about the
origin is
 0
n+1
i
ti
.
(3.10)
, t0i = −
1
n
2n
n 1≤i≤n
For later use, we provide the concrete forms of the information matrix M for the weighted
polynomial designs with σ 2 (x) = σP2 (x) in (3.3),
 0
xi
, x0i = tan(πt0i ) with t0i given in (3.10).
(3.11)
1
n

1≤i≤n

Lemma 3.4. The information matrix M = (Mi,j ) of the weighted polynomial design
(3.11) scaled such that M1,1 = 1 is given by
 k+1 

k+1

 Γ √2 Γ n − 2
(k is even),
M = (Mi,j ) = (mi+j−2 )1≤i,j≤n , mk =
πΓ n − 12

0
(k is odd).
For the proof, see Appendix A.1. When n = 3 and 4,




1 0 51 0
1
1 0 3
0 1 0 1 
5
5 ,
M = 0 31 0  , 
1
1


0
0
1
5
5
0
1
1
3
0 5 0 1

(3.12)

respectively.
The key transform connecting Fourier and polynomial regressions was the tangent
transform x = tan(πt). For the same purpose, generalized transforms x = q tan(π(t −
θ)) + r, q 6= 0, can be used. This is a composite map of the tangent transform and the
Möbius transform to be discussed below.

3.2

The Möbius group action on the moment cone

In this subsection, we introduce the Möbius group (transformation) acting on the set of
design measures and the set of information matrices in polynomial regression. We will
show that the Möbius group action reduces the dimension of the minimization problem
for the tube-volume criterion. For a recent paper in which the Möbius transformation
acts on polynomials, see Mackey, et al (2015).
The real Möbius transformation is defined on the extended real numbers R = R ∪
{±∞} as follows:
ax + b
(ad − bc 6= 0).
x 7→ ϕ(x; a, b, c, d) =
cx + d
Here, we assume that
a
d
±∞ 7→ , − 7→ ±∞.
c
c
10

This forms a group with product
ϕ(·; a′ a + b′ c, a′ b + b′ d, c′a + d′ c, c′ b + d′ d) = ϕ(·; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ) ◦ ϕ(·; a, b, c, d).

(3.13)

The inverse is ϕ−1 (·; a, b, c, d) = ϕ(·; d, −b, −c, a). The identity element is e = ϕ(·; a, 0, 0, a),
a 6= 0. This is a subgroup of the complex Möbius group referred to as projective general
linear group PGL(2, C).
Now, let fP (x) = (1, x, . . . , xn−1 )⊤ be the polynomial basis. We define an n × n matrix
A = A(a, b, c, d) as

fP ϕ(x; a, b, c, d) = λ(x; a, b, c, d)AfP (x),

λ(x; a, b, c, d) =

1
.
(cx + d)n−1

(3.14)

We write the factor λ as λ(x; a, b, c, d) instead of λ(x; c, d) to clarify that this is an invariant
function under the group action (3.13) in the sense that

λ ϕ(x; a, b, c, d); a′, b′ , c′ , d′ λ(x; a, b, c, d)
= λ(x; a′ a + b′ c, a′ b + b′ d, c′ a + d′ c, c′ b + d′ d).
(3.15)
Proposition 3.5. The (i, j) element of A = A(a, b, c, d) is
max(i−1,j−1)

(A)i,j =

X

l=max(0,i+j−n−1)




n−i
i−1
al bi−1−l c j−1−l d n+1−i−j+l.
j−1−l
l

The proof is straightforward and omitted. When n = 3 and n = 4,

 3

 2
d
3cd2
3c2 d
c3
2
d
2cd
c
bd2 2bcd + ad2 bc2 + 2acd ac2 

A = A(a, b, c, d) = bd bc + ad ac , 
b2 d b2 c + 2abd 2abc + a2 d a2 c , (3.16)
2
2
b
2ab
a
b3
3ab2
3a2 b
a3

respectively.
The set

A = {A(a, b, c, d) | ad − bc 6= 0}
is a representation of general linear group GL(2, R) and hence forms a group (Gross and Holman,
1980). The proof of the proposition below is straightforward and omitted.
Proposition 3.6. Set A forms a matrix algebraic group. The identity matrix is A(1, 0, 0,
1) = (−1)n−1 A(−1, 0, 0, −1) = In , and the inverse of A = A(a, b, c, d) is given by (ad −
bc)−(n−1) A(d, −b, −c, a).
Proposition 3.7. For A = A(a, b, c, d) ∈ A, det(A) = (ad − bc)n(n−1)/2 .

11

Proof. For different x1 , . . . , xn , we have
A(fP (x1 ), . . . , fP (xn )) = (fP (y1 ), . . . , fP (yn ))diag((cxi + d)n−1 ),
By taking determinants,
Y
det(A) × (−1)n
(xi − xj ) = (−1)n
1≤i<j≤n

Y

(yi − yj )

1≤i<j≤n

Y

yi =

axi + b
.
cxi + d

(cxi + d)n−1 .

(3.17)

1≤i≤n

Substituting
Y

Y  axi + b axj + b 
Y (ad − bc)(xi − xj )
=
−
cxi + d cxj + d
(cxi + d)(cxj + d)
1≤i<j≤n
1≤i<j≤n
Q
(xi − xj )
n(n−1)/2
Q 1≤i<j≤n
= (ad − bc)
n−1
1≤i≤n (cxi + d)

(yi − yj ) =

1≤i<j≤n

into (3.17) yields det(A) = (ad − bc)n(n−1)/2 .

Proposition 3.8. The Möbius group is reparameterized as
{ϕ(·; a, b, c, d) | ad − bc 6= 0} ={ϕ(·; q, r, 0, 1) ◦ ϕ(·; s, −t, t, s) | q 6= 0, s2 + t2 = 1}
⊔ {ϕ(·; q, r, 0, 1) ◦ ϕ(·; −s, t, t, s) | q 6= 0, s2 + t2 = 1},
where ⊔ is the disjoint union. Group A is reparameterized as
A ={kA(q, r, 0, 1)A(s, −t, t, s) | k > 0, q 6= 0, s2 + t2 = 1}
⊔ {kA(q, r, 0, 1)A(−s, t, t, s) | k > 0, q 6= 0, s2 + t2 = 1}.
det A(q, r, 0, 1) = q n(n−1)/2 and det A(±s, ∓t, t, s) = ±1 for s2 + t2 = 1.
Proof. We have the following relations:

and



ad − bc ac + bd
,
,
0,
1
ϕ(x; a, b, c, d) = ϕ ϕ(x; ±d, ∓c, c, d); ± 2
c + d 2 c2 + d 2
 ad − bc ac + bd
 A(±d, ∓c, c, d)
A(a, b, c, d) = (c2 + d2 )(n−1)/2 A ± 2
,
,
0,
1
.
c + d 2 c2 + d 2
(c2 + d2 )(n−1)/2

The results in the proposition follow by letting
k = (c2 + d2 )(n−1)/2 ,

q=

ad − bc
,
c2 + d 2

r=

ac + bd
,
c2 + d 2

12

s= √

c2

d
,
+ d2

t= √

c2

c
.
+ d2

The sets of transformations {ϕ(·; ±s, ∓t, t, s) | s2 + t2 = 1} and {ϕ(·; q, r, 0, 1) | q 6=
0} form subgroups of the Möbius group, which are isomorphic to the orthogonal group
O(2, R) and the affine group acting on R, respectively.
Theorem 3.9. Let A ∈ A and M ∈ MP be n × n matrices. Then, AMA⊤ ∈ MP .
Moreover,
AMP A⊤ = {AMA⊤ | M ∈ MP } = MP .

That is, group A acts on the moment cone MP .
P
⊤
Proof. Suppose that M =
i fP (xi )fP (xi ) wi . Let yi = ϕ(xi ; a, b, c, d). Note that
λ(y; d, −b, −c, a)λ(x; a, b, c, d) = (ad − bc)−(n−1) . Then,
X
AMA⊤ =
AfP (xi )(AfP (xi ))⊤ wi
i

=

X

fP (yi )fP (yi )⊤ λ(xi ; a, b, c, d)−2 wi

i

=

X
i

=

X
i

fP (yi )fP (yi )⊤ (ad − bc)2(n−1) λ(yi ; d, −b, −c, a)2 wi
fP (yi )fP (yi )⊤ vi ∈ MP ,

where
vi = λ(xi ; a, b, c, d)−2wi = (ad − bc)2(n−1) λ(yi ; d − b, −c, a)2 wi .

(3.18)

Therefore, AMP A⊤ ⊂ MP . Because A is a group, AMP A⊤ = MP .

The Möbius group action on the polynomial basis f (x) has been introduced by (3.14).
Similarly, we define the Möbius group action on the variance function σ 2 (x) = Q(x)n−1 .
This provides a parameterization for the variance function.
Using σP2 (x) = (1 + x2 )n−1 in (3.3), for ad − bc 6= 0, we define
σP2 (ϕ(x; a, b, c, d)) = σP2 (x; a, b, c, d)λ(x; a, b, c, d)2,
or


σP2 (x; a, b, c, d) = (b2 + d2 ) + 2(ab + cd)x + (a2 + c2 )x2

(3.19)
n−1

.

(3.20)

Note that σP2 (x) = σP2 (x; 1, 0, 0, 1). This is always positive because of ad − bc 6= 0. For
ϕ(·; a′, b′ , c′ , d′ ) = ϕ(·; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ) ◦ ϕ(·; a, b, c, d),
as well as (3.15), we have
σP2 (ϕ(x; a, b, c, d); a0, b0 , c0 , d0 ) = σP2 (x; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ )λ(x; a, b, c, d)2 .

(3.21)

The parameterization (3.20) with (a, b, c, d) is redundant, since Q(x) has only three
parameters. The lemma below shows that the stabilizer keeping the variance σP2 (·; a, b, c, d)
invariant is the orthogonal subgroup with dimension one.
13

Lemma 3.10. σP2 (·; a, b, c, d) = σP2 (·; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ) if and only if there exist s, t, s2 + t2 = 1
such that
ϕ(·; a′, b′ , c′ , d′) = ϕ(·; ±s, ∓t, t, s) ◦ ϕ(·; a, b, c, d).
Proof. By direct calculations,
σP2 (·; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0) = σP2 (·; 1, 0, 0, 1) ⇔ (a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ) = (±s, ∓t, t, s).
On the other hand, “σP2 (·; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ) = σP2 (·; 1, 0, 0, 1)” ⇔ “σP2 (ϕ(·; a, b, c, d); a0, b0 , c0 , d0)
= σP2 (ϕ(·; a, b, c, d); 1, 0, 0, 1)” ⇔ “σP2 (x; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′) = σP2 (x; a, b, c, d) with ϕ(·; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ) =
ϕ(·; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0) ◦ ϕ(·; a, b, c, d)” by (3.21).
Remark 3.11. When n = 2, |ad−bc|/{πσP2 (x; a, b, c, d)} is a probability density of Cauchy
distribution family on x ∈ R. Noting that ϕ̇(x; a, b, c, d) = (ad − bc)λ(x; a, b, c, d)2 , and
that a′ d′ − b′ c′ = (ad − bc)(a0 d0 − b0 c0 ), (3.21) reads
|a′ d′ − b′ c′ |
|a0 d0 − b0 c0 |
|ϕ̇(x; a, b, c, d)| dx =
dx.
πσP2 (ϕ(x; a, b, c, d); a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 )
πσP2 (x; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′)
This means that the Cauchy distribution family is closed under the Möbius transform
(McCullagh, 1996). See also Kato and McCullagh (2014) for Cauchy families in directional statistics.

3.3

Canonical parameterizations for information matrices

As we have shown in Section 2.1, the optimal design problem is optimization
with respect
R
⊤ 1
to matrix M over the set of information matrices M. Here, M = X f (x)f (x) σ2 (x) dρ(x) ∈
M and the design measure ρ ∈ P is one-to-many. For the sake of optimization, we need
to parameterize the set M.
We first consider MP in (3.8) for the polynomial regression, and then interpret the
results in terms of MF in (3.9) for the Fourier regression.
The structure of the moment cone MP is well-studied in the context of the classical
moment problem. One canonical parameterization for MP is given in Chapter II, Section
3 of Karlin and Studden (1966). The statement is summarized in Proposition 3.1 of
Kato and Kuriki (2013).
Proposition 3.12. M ∈ MP is uniquely represented with 2n−1 parameters (w0 , . . . , wn−1 ,
x1 , . . . , xn−1 ) as
M=

n−1
X

wi fP (xi )fP (xi )⊤ + w0 fP (±∞)fP (±∞)⊤ , wi > 0,

i=1

−∞ < x1 < · · · < xn−1 < ∞,

where we let fP (±∞) = (0, . . . , 0, 1)⊤ .
14

(3.22)

Note that fP (±∞) = limx→±∞ fP (x)/xn−1 = limx→±∞ fP (x)/(1 + x2 )(n−1)/2 .
Let x0 = ±∞. From the same argument of the proof of Theorem 3.9, by considering
the Möbius transform xi 7→ (axi + b)/(cxi + d), i = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1, we find that the fixed
point x0 = ±∞ in (3.22) can be moved to an arbitrary point in R.
Theorem 3.13. Let x0 ∈ R∪{±∞} be fixed arbitrarily. M ∈ MP is uniquely represented
with 2n − 1 parameters (w0 , . . . , wn−1 , x1 , . . . , xn−1 ) as
M=

n−1
X

wi fP (xi )fP (xi )⊤ + w0 fP (x0 )fP (x0 )⊤ , wi > 0,

i=1

xi 6= x0 , −∞ < x1 < · · · < xn−1 ≤ ∞,

where we assume that fP (±∞) = (0, . . . , 0, 1)⊤ .
The counterpart for the moment cone (3.9) for trigonometric functions is obtained
using Lemma 3.1.
Theorem 3.14. Let t0 ∈ (− 21 , 21 ] be fixed arbitrarily. M ∈ MF is uniquely represented
with 2n − 1 parameters (w0 , . . . , wn−1 , t1 , . . . , tn−1 ) as
M=

n−1
X

wi fF (ti )fF (ti )⊤ + w0 fF (t0 )fF (t0 ), wi > 0,

i=1

1
1
ti 6= t0 , − < t1 < · · · < tn−1 ≤ .
2
2

A square matrix M = (mi,j ) is said to be Hankel if mi,j = mk,l when i + j = k + l. For
example, matrices M in (3.12) and (4.1) are Hankel. Obviously, each M ∈ MP should
be an n × n positive definite Hankel matrix. It is known that the converse is also true.
Proposition 3.15. The moment cone MP in (3.8) is characterized as

MP = M ≻ 0 | M is Hankel .

For the proof, see (9.1) of Karlin and Studden (1966), p. 199. This also gives a unique
representation of MP with 2n − 1 parameters (m0 , m1 , . . . , m2n−2 ).
Theorem 3.9 combined with Proposition 3.15 implies that group A acts on the cone
of (positive definite) Hankel matrices. For the Möbius group action on Hankel matrices,
see also Heinig and Rost (1989, 2010).

3.4

Invariance under the Möbius group

In this subsection, we consider the polynomial regression. We formalized our optimal
experimental design problem to find the minimizer M ∈ MP of Vol1 (γM −1 ) in (2.6).
Theorem 3.16. For M ∈ MP and A ∈ A,
Vol1 (γM −1 ) = Vol1 (γ(AM A⊤ )−1 ).
15

Theorem 3.16 and Theorem 3.9 imply that the minimizer of Vol1 (γM −1 ) with respect
to M ∈ MP forms an orbit (or a union of orbits) on MP .
Proof. Let y = ϕ(x) = ϕ(x; a, b, c, d) = (ax + b)/(cx + d). Then, fP (y) = fP (ϕ(x)) =
AfP (x)λ(x), where A = A(a, b, c, d), λ(x) = λ(x; a, b, c, d). Taking derivatives with respect
to x,
ad − bc
gP (y)ϕ̇(x) = AfP (x)λ̇(x) + AgP (x)λ(x), ϕ̇(x) =
.
(cx + d)2
Therefore,

and




λ̇(x)

 λ(x) ϕ̇(x) 

fP (y), gP (y) = A fP (x), gP (x) 

λ(x) 
0
ϕ̇(x)

1

 2
fP (y)⊤
−1
M
fP (y), gP (y)
det
gP (y)⊤

1

 2 λ(x)2
fP (x)⊤
−1
−1 ⊤ −1
(A M(A ) ) fP (x), gP (x)
= det
.
gP (x)⊤
ϕ̇(x)

By combining this with

fP (y)⊤ M −1 fP (y) = fP (x)⊤ (A−1 M(A−1 )⊤ )−1 fP (x)λ(x)2
and dy = ϕ̇(x)dx, we have

 12

fP (y)⊤
Z ∞ det
M −1 fP (y), gP (y)
gP (y)⊤
dy
Vol1 (γM −1 ) = 2
fP (y)⊤ M −1 fP (y)
−∞
1


 2
fP (x)⊤
−1
−1 ⊤ −1
Z ∞ det
(A M(A ) ) fP (x), gP (x)
gP (x)⊤
dx
=2
fP (x)⊤ (A−1 M(A−1 )⊤ )−1 fP (x)
−∞
= Vol1 (γA−1 M (A−1 )⊤ ).


 
xi
with variTheorem 3.17. The volumes of the weighted polynomial design
pi 1≤i≤N
 
yi
ance σP2 (x; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0), and the design
, y = ϕ(xi ; a, b, c, d) with variance
pi 1≤i≤N i
σP2 (y; a′, b′ , c′ , d′ ) are the same, where (a′ , b′ , c′ , d′ ) is determined by
ϕ(·; a′, b′ , c′ , d′) = ϕ(·; a0, b0 , c0 , d0 ) ◦ ϕ−1 (·; a, b, c, d).
16

Proof. In (3.18) of the proof of Theorem 3.9, let wi = pi /σP2 (xi ; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ). Then, by
(3.21),
1
pi
pi
vi =
= 2
.
2
2
λ(xi ; a, b, c, d) σP (xi ; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 )
σP (yi ; a′ , b′ , c′ , d′)
This means that information matrices M1 and M2 of the two designs satisfy M1 = AM2 A⊤
and hence have the same volume by Theorem 3.16.

3.5

D-optimal design for weighted polynomial regression

We characterize the D-optimal design for the weighted polynomial regression as an orbit
of the Möbius group action. We start from the fact that in the Fourier regression, the
uniform design is D-optimal.
Proposition 3.18 (Guest (1958)). In the Fourier regression with the basis (3.1), among
the n-point discrete design, only the uniform design
0

i
n+1
ti − θ
, t0i = −
,
(3.23)
1
n
2n
n
1≤i≤n

1
1
is D-optimal, where θ ∈ − 2n
, 2n
is an arbitrary constant. The information matrix at
the optimal point is the identity In .
 
t
Let MF be an information matrix of a Fourier design i
. By making a change
pi 1≤i≤n
of variables yi = tan(πti ) and yi = ϕ(xi ; a, b, c, d), we have from (3.4), (3.14), and (3.19)
that
X
MF =
fF (ti )fF (ti )⊤ pi
i


1
pi B ⊤
=B
fP (yi )fP (yi ) 2
σ
(y
)
i
P
iX

λ(xi ; a, b, c, d)2
⊤
=BA
fP (xi )fP (xi ) 2
p A⊤ B ⊤
2 i
σ
(x
;
a,
b,
c,
d)λ(x
;
a,
b,
c,
d)
i
i
P
i
X

⊤

=BAMP A⊤ B ⊤ ,

where
MP =

X

fP (xi )fP (xi )⊤

i

1

pi
σP2 (xi ; a, b, c, d)

 
xi
is the information matrix of the design
for the weighted polynomial regression
pi 1≤i≤n
with variance function σP2 (x; a, b, c, d). Because det(MF ) = det(AB)2 det(MP ), the Doptimal problem for searching optimal ti and pi in the Fourier regression are equivalent to
searching for optimal xi and pi in the weighted polynomial regression. Hence, Proposition
3.18 is translated into the weighted polynomial regression as follows.
17

Theorem 3.19. In the weighted polynomial regression of degree n − 1 with
 variance
x
σP2 (x; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0), among the n-point discrete design, only the design 1i
with
n

1≤i≤n

xi = ϕ−1 (ϕ(tan(πt0i ); s, −t, t, s); a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 )) is D-optimal, where t0i is given in (3.23),
and s, t are arbitrary numbers such that s2 + t2 = 1. The information matrix at the D⊤
−1
⊤ −1
⊤
−1
optimal point is A−1
is given
0 (B B) (A0 ) , where A0 = A(a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ), and (B B)
in (3.7).
Proof. Note that
yi = tan(π(t0i − θ)) =

cos(πθ) tan(πt0i ) − sin(πθ)
= ϕ(tan(πt0i ); s, −t, t, s),
sin(πθ) tan(πt0i ) + cos(πθ)

where s = cos(πθ), t = sin(πθ). xi = ϕ−1 (yi ; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0).
When (a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ) = (1, 0, 0, 1), Theorem 3.19 reduces to Theorem 3.3 of Dette, et al.
(1999).

4

Tube-volume optimal design for n = 3

In the previous section, we discussed the Fourier regression and the polynomial regression
having the basis of (3.1) and (3.2), respectively, of a general dimension n. In this section,
we treat the case n = 3. This is the simplest non-trivial case, because when n = 2,
Vol1 (γM −1 ) = 2π irrespective of M.
When n = 3, the problem is reduced to the minimization of

 12



1 0
2
1 x x
M −1  x 1 
det 
Z ∞
0 1 2x
x2 2x
 
Vol1 (γM −1 ) = 2
dx
1
−∞

1 x x2 M −1  x 
x2
Z ∞ p
h1 (x)
=2
dx,
−∞ h0 (x)
where
h1 (x) =m4 (−m0 m23 + m0 m2 m4 + 2m1 m2 m3 − m21 m4 − m32 )
+ 4m3 (−m0 m2 m4 + m0 m23 − 2m1 m2 m3 + m21 m4 + m32 )x
+ 6m2 (m0 m2 m4 − m0 m23 + 2m1 m2 m3 − m21 m4 − m32 )x2
+ 4m1 (m0 m23 − m0 m4 m2 − 2m1 m2 m3 + m21 m4 + m32 )x3
+ m0 (m0 m2 m4 − m0 m23 + 2m1 m2 m3 − m21 m4 − m32 )x4 ,
h0 (x) =m2 m4 − m23 + 2(−m1 m4 + m2 m3 )x + (m0 m4 + 2m1 m3 − 3m22 )x2
+ 2(−m0 m3 + m1 m2 )x3 + (m0 m2 − m21 )x4 ,
18

with respect to



m0 m1 m2
M = m1 m2 m3  ≻ 0.
m2 m3 m4

(4.1)

The volume becomes an elliptic integral, which does not have an explicit expression in
general. Moreover,
the number of parameters to be optimized is four. (Note that the
p
integrand h1 (x)/h0 (x) is a homogeneous function in m0 , . . . , m4 ). We will solve this
minimization problem using the Möbius invariance.

4.1

Orbital decomposition

The Möbius group action defines an equivalent class on the moment cone MP . We define
M0 ∼ M1 for M0 , M1 ∈ MP if M1 = AM0 A⊤ for some A ∈ A. The orbit passing through
M is denoted by
A(M) = {AMA⊤ | A ∈ A} = {M1 | M1 ∼ M}.
The goal of this subsection is to prove the orbital decomposition of the polynomial moment
cone MP . Let


1 0 v
Mv = 0 v 0 .
(4.2)
v 0 1

Theorem 4.1.

MP =

G

v∈(0, 13 ]

A(Mv ) =

G

v∈[ 13 ,1)

A(Mv ),

where ⊔ is the disjoint union.
Proof. This is a consequence of Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3 below.
Lemma 4.2. For any M ∈ MP and 0 < v < 1, there exists A ∈ A such that AMA⊤ =
Mv . That is, M ∼ Mv .
Lemma 4.3. Mv′ ∼ Mv if and only if v ′ = v or v ′ = (1 − v)/(1 + 3v).
The proofs of Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3 are given in Appendix A.2 and A.3, respectively.
Note that the map
1−v
v 7→
1 + 3v
defines a one-to-one correspondence between (1, 1/3) and (1/3, 1), and v = 1/3 is the
fixed point of this map.
The stabilizer of A at M ∈ MP is defined as
AM = {A ∈ A | AMA⊤ = M}.
This is a subgroup of A.
19

Theorem 4.4. When v 6= 1/3,
A Mv


 

0 0 1 
 1 0 0
= {A(±1, 0, 0, ±1), A(0, ±1, ±1, 0)} = 0 ±1 0 , 0 ±1 0 ,


0 0 1
1 0 0

and when v = 1/3,

AMv = {A(s, −t, t, s) | s2 + t2 = 1} ⊔ {A(−s, t, t, s) | s2 + t2 = 1}.
In particular,
dim AMv =

(

0 (v ∈ (0, 31 ) ∪ ( 13 , 1)),
1 (v = 13 ).

Proof. The proof follows from the proof of Lemma 4.3. The details are omitted.
Theorem 4.5. The dimension of orbit A(Mv ) passing through Mv is
(
4 (v ∈ (0, 13 ) ∪ ( 13 , 1)),
dim A(Mv ) =
3 (v = 31 ).
f = (m
Proof. Let M = (mi+j−2 )i,j=1,2,3 and M
e i+j−2 )i,j=1,2,3 be 3 × 3 Hankel matrices, and
f = AMA⊤ . Picking up the
let A = A(a, b, c, d) (3 × 3 matrix in (3.16)). Assume that M
(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 3), and (3, 3) elements and rearranging them, we have m
e = F m,
⊤
⊤
where m = (m0 , m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 ) , m
e = (m
e 0, m
e 1, m
e 2, m
e 3, m
e 4 ) , and

 4
d
4cd3
6c2 d2
4c3 d
c4
3
2
 bd3
3bdc2 + 3ad2 c
bc3 + 3adc2
ac3 

 2 2 ad 2+ 3bcd 2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2 2
b
d
2cdb
+
2ad
b
b
c
+
4abdc
+
a
d
2cda
+
2bc
a
a
c
F = F (a, b, c, d) = 
.
 3
b d
cb3 + 3adb2
3bda2 + 3b2 ca
da3 + 3bca2
a3 c 
b4
4ab3
6a2 b2
4a3 b
a4

Let mv = (1, 0, v, 0, 1)⊤. The tangent space of the orbit at
column vectors of

0 0

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ 
0 1
F (1, 0, 0, 1)mv = 
, , ,
2v 0
∂a ∂b ∂c ∂d
 0 3v
4 0

Mv is spanned by the four

0 4
3v 0 

0 2v 
.
1 0
0 0

The rank of this matrix is 4 when v 6= 1/3 and 3 when v = 1/3.

From Theorems 4.4 and 4.5, we see that dim AMv + dim A(Mv ) = 4 = dim A as
expected (e.g., Kawakubo (1992)).
20

4.2

Minimization over cross-section

From the orbital decomposition (Theorem 4.1) and the invariance of the volume on
an orbit (Theorem 3.16), the optimization problem is reduced to the minimization of
Vol1 (γMv−1 ) with respect to v, where Mv is defined in (4.2). The range of v is taken to be
(0, 13 ] or [ 13 , 1). We write Vol1 (γMv−1 ) = len(v) shortly. From the definition (2.6),
Z ∞
len(v) = Vol1 (γMv−1 ) = 2
s(x; v)dx,
−∞

where
s(x; v) =

q

1−v2
v

√

1 + 6vx2 + x4

1 + ( v1 − 3v)x2 + x4

.

Note that len(v) is an elliptic integral. The following is the main theorem of this section.
Theorem 4.6. The minimizer of Vol1 (γM −1 ) in (2.6) over M ∈ MP is given if and only
if M is in the orbit


1 0 13
M ∼ M1/3 = 0 13 0  .
1
0 1
3
p
The minimum volume is 4π 2/3.
Proof. Because of Theorem 4.1, it is enough to take the range v ∈ (0, 31 ]. We use the
inequality
z
1
√
≥ 1 − , |z| < 1.
(4.3)
2
1+z
The equality holds iff z = 0. Noting that
1
1
(1 − 3v)x2 
1 
√
q
=
1+
,
≥
2
1 + x2
(1 + x2 )2
1 + 6vx2 + x4
(1 + x2 ) 1 − 2(1−3v)x
2
2
(1+x )
s(x; v) is bounded below by
s(x; v) =

q

(1 +

1−v2
(1 + 6vx2 + x4 )
v
( v1 − 3v)x2 + x4 )(1 +



(1 − 3v)x2 
1+
.
(1 + x2 )2
x2 )

Therefore, len(v) is bounded below by
len(v) = 2

Z

∞

s(x; v)dx.

−∞

This integral can be evaluated by counting the residues. When v < 1/3, the poles are
r
r

(1 − v)(1 + 3v)
(1 + v)(1 − 3v)
i
,
−
±ix1 = ±
2
v
v
21

i
±ix2 = ±
2

r

(1 − v)(1 + 3v)
+
v

r


(1 + v)(1 − 3v)
,
v

and ±ix0 = ±i.
Denote the residues for +ix1 , +ix2 , and +ix0 by Res(+ix1 ), Res(+ix2 ), and Res(+ix0 ),
respectively. Then, the integral is evaluated as
len(v) = 2 × 2πi(Res(+ix1 ) + Res(+ix2 ) + Res(+ix0 ))
q
q


v(1+3v)
1−v2
3
2
2π
3v + 6v − 5v + 8
v
1−v
=
.
2
4(1 + v)
The derivative is
2

3

4

5 − 38v + 14v + 18v + 9v + 48v
d
p
len(v) = −2π
dv
8(1 + v)2 v(1 − v 2 )

q

v(1−v)
1+3v

.

(4.4)

By applying inequality (4.3),
r
3
n
o
v(1 − v)
v(1 − v)
19
3
2
=q
v(1 − v)(1 + 3v) − 1
≥ v(1 − v) 1 −
1 + 3v
2
2 4
9
v(1 − v)(1 + 3v)
4

(the equality holds iff v = 1/3), the numerator of (4.4) is bounded below by

n
o
19
3
v(1 − v)(1 + 3v) − 1
5 − 38v + 14v 2 + 18v 3 + 9v 4 + 48v v(1 − v) 1 −
2
2 4
2
3
4
= (1 − 3v)(5 − 23v + 53v − 12v − 108v + 81v 5 ),
which is positive for 0 < v < 1/3. Therefore,
has the unique minimum at v = 1/3.
Since s(x; v) ≥ s(x; v),

d
len(v)
dv

< 0 for 0 < v < 1/3, and len(v)

min len(v) ≥ min len(v) = len(1/3).

v∈(0,1/3]

v∈(0,1/3]

Moreover, since s(x; v) = s(x; v) at v = 1/3,
min len(v) ≤ len(1/3) = len(1/3).

v∈(0,1/3]

Therefore,
min len(v) = len(1/3) = 4π

v∈(0,1/3]

p
2/3.

Point v = 1/3 is the unique minimizer, because this is the unique minimizer of len(v).
Figure 4.1 depicts the objective function len(v) and its lower bound len(v) for v ≤
1/3.
22

Figure 4.1: len(v) (solid line) and its lower bound len(v) for v ≤ 1/3 (dashed line).
As shown in (3.12), the information matrix M1/3 is the counterpart of the information
matrix for the uniform design in the Fourier regression.
Recall the decomposition of A(a, b, c, d) in Proposition 3.8. We already know from
Theorem 4.4 that, for s2 + t2 = 1,
A(s, −t, t, s)M1/3 A(s, −t, t, s)⊤ = A(−s, t, t, s)M1/3 A(−s, t, t, s)⊤ = M1/3 .
Moreover,



A(q, r, 0, 1)M1/3 A(q, r, 0, 1)⊤ = 

q2
3


q2
2
1
r
+
r
3

q2
2
2
r
+
r
r(q
+ r 2 ) .
3
+ r 2 r(q 2 + r 2 ) (q 2 + r 2 )2

Theorem 4.6 can be written in the following form.

Theorem 4.7. The minimizer of Vol1 (γM −1 ) in (2.6) over M ∈ MP is given when and
only when M is of the form:


q2
2
1
r
+
r
3


q2
2
2
M = k r
+
r
r(q
+ r 2 ) , q 6= 0, k > 0.
3
q2
+ r 2 r(q 2 + r 2 ) (q 2 + r 2 )2
3

Remark 4.8. The minimum tube-volume M ∈ MP is attained when and only when the
curve

1
1
(γM −1 )+ = ψM −1 (x) = M − 2 f (x)/kM − 2 f (x)k | x ∈ X = (−∞, ∞)
p
forms a circle. Moreover, in that case, the circle length is 2π 2/3.
Finally, we characterize the tube-volume optimal design as a three-point design. The
polynomial design corresponding to the Fourier uniform design is given in (3.12). The

23

tube-volume optimal design is obtained as an orbit of the transformation passing through
the design in (3.12). In the following, let
 0
 1

ti
− 3 0 13
=
,
(4.5)
1
1
1
1
3

3

i=1,2,3

3

3

a three-point uniform design in the Fourier regression.
2
Theorem 4.9. In the weighted polynomial regression
 with
 variance function σP (x; a0 , b0 , c0 ,
xi
d0 ), the three-point tube-volume optimal design is
, where
pi i=1,2,3

xi = ϕ−1 (tan(πt0i ); a, b, c, d),

pi = k

σP2 (xi ; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 )
.
σP2 (xi ; a, b, c, d)

(4.6)

Here, t0i is defined in P
(4.5), a, b, c, d are arbitrarily given so that ad − bc 6= 0, and k > 0
is a constant so that
pi = 1. The tube-volume optimal design includes the D-optimal
designs as special cases where
ϕ(·; a, b, c, d) = ϕ(·; s, −t, t, s) ◦ ϕ(·; a0, b0 , c0 , d0 )
holds for some s2 + t2 = 1.
Proof. The
 optimal design is the orbit of the Möbius group passing through the deyi
, yi = tan(πt0i ), with variance function σP2 (y; 1, 0, 0, 1). By Theorem
sign 1
3 i=1,2,3
 
x
′ ′ ′ ′
is an optimal design under
3.17 with (a , b , c , d ) = (1, 0, 0, 1), we see that 1i
3

i=1,2,3

variance function σP2 (x; a, b, c, d). By Lemma 2.3 with σ12 (x) = σP (x; a, b, c, d), σ22 (x) =
σP (x; a0 , b0 , c0 , d0), we have pi in (4.6). The results for D-optimality is proved in Theorem
3.19.

Theorem 4.10. In the Fourier regression, the three-point tube-volume optimal design is
given as
)
(1
 
−1
0
tan
(q
tan(π(t
−
θ))
+
r)
i
π
ti
2

,
(4.7)
=
1+(q tan(π(t0i −θ))+r)2
pi i=1,2,3
k
0
2
1+tan (π(t −θ))
i

where k is a normalizing constant so that

P

i=1,2,3

pi = 1, q 6= 0,and r,θ are arbitrarily
t0i − θ
given. In particular, the uniform design (D-optimal design)
is a tube1
i

3

volume optimal design.

i=1,2,3

Proof. Let xi and pi be given in (4.6) when (a0 , b0 , c0 , d0 ) = (1, 0, 0, 1).
σP2 (x; a0 , b0 , c0 ,

 Then,
t
d0 ) = σP2 (x), and from Theorem 3.3, the optimal design is given by i , ti = π1 tan−1 (xi ).
pi
24

Let (a, b, c, d) be chosen such that ϕ−1 (·; a, b, c, d) = ϕ(·; q, r, 0, 1) ◦ ϕ(·; s, −t, t, s) with
s = cos(πθ), t = sin(πθ). Then, ϕ(tan(πt0i ); s, −t, t, s) = tan(π(t0i − θ)) and xi =
q tan(π(t0i − θ)) + r, and we have ti = π1 tan−1 (xi ) in (4.7).

On the other hand, since ϕ(·; a, b, c, d) = ϕ(·; s, −t, t, s)◦ϕ ·; 1q , − rq , 0, 1 , σP2 (xi ; a, b, c, d)

2
= σP2 xi ; 1q , − qr , 0, 1 = 1 + q12 (xi − r)2 . Therefore,
pi = k

(1 + x2i )2
σP2 (xi ; 1, 0, 0, 1)
=
k
2 ,
σP2 (xi ; a, b, c, d)
1 + q12 (xi − r)2

which is equivalent to pi in (4.7). The uniform design corresponds to the case (q, r) =
(1, 0).

4.3

Numerical comparisons

Here we conduct a small numerical experiment to see the difference of the width of the
simultaneous confidence band under optimal
and non-optimal
designs. The model we
√
√
use is the Fourier regression f (x) = (1, 2 sin(2πx), 2 cos(2πx))⊤ , x ∈ X = (−1/2, 1/2]
with the variance function σ 2 (x) = 1. Three designs

 1

 1
 1
1 
−√4
0√
− 4 0 41
− 3 0 31
, D2 =
, D3 = 1+ 3 2− 3 1+4√3
D1 =
1
1
2
1
1
1
3

3

3

6

3

6

6

3

6

 
xi
, the information matrix is given by Σ−1 =
are compared. For each design
pi i=1,2,3
P3
⊤
2
i=1 pi f (xi )f (xi ) /σ (xi ).
Design D1 is the
pD-optimal and tube-volume (TV-) optimal design with det(Σ) = 1
and Vol1 (γΣ ) = 4π 2/3 = 10.260. Design D2 is TV-optimal, but is not D-optimal with
det(Σ) = 27/8 = 3.375. Design D3 is considered so that the value of det(Σ) is equal to
that of D2 , and is neither D-optimal nor TV-optimal. The value of D-criterion det(Σ),
the tube-volume criterion Vol1 (γΣ ), and the width wα (α = 0.1, 0.05, 0.01) of 100(1 − α)%
simultaneous confidence bands are listed in Table 4.3. wα is estimated by the upper
α quantile of the random variable maxx∈X |bb⊤ f (x) − b⊤ f (x)| by simulation with 10,000
replications.
Table 4.1: Comparisons of optimal/non-optimal designs.
design
D1
D2
D3

D-opt TV-opt det(Σ)
✓
✓
1.000
✗
✓
3.375
✗
✗
3.375

Vol1 (γΣ ) w0.1 w0.05 w0.01
10.260
6.99 7.94 9.55
10.260 19.86 23.15 30.59
11.262 26.06 30.58 40.35

As the theorems state, design D1 has the shortest simultaneous confidence band. By
comparing designs D2 and D3 having the same value of det(Σ), we see how the design
affects the width of the simulations confidence bands.
25

4.4

Summary and remaining problems

In this paper, we have proposed the tube-volume (TV) criterion Vol1 (γΣ ) in (2.6) in
experimental design. If a design is tube-volume optimal and simultaneously, D-optimal
minimizing maxx∈X f (x)⊤ Σ−1 f (x), the design is optimal that attains the minimum bandwidth of simultaneous confidence bands.
Then, the proposed criterion was applied to Fourier regression model that is a standard
model in linear optimal design theory, and weighted polynomial regression model that is
mathematically equivalent to the Fourier regression model. The Möbius group keeps the
tube-volume criterion invariant, whereas the subgroup O(2, R) of the Möbius group keeps
the D-criterion invariant.
Using the Möbius invariance, when n = 3, we found that the tube-volume optimal
designs in the Fourier regression and the weighted polynomial regression form an orbit of
the Möbius group. The tube-volume optimal designs contain D-optimal designs as special
cases. This means that in the Fourier regression, the uniform design is a universal optimal
design minimizing both tube-volume criterion and D-criterion.
We conjecture that for all n, the tube-volume optimal design is characterized as an
orbit of the Möbius group containing D-optimal designs. One supporting observation is
that for small n (n ≤ 6), tube-volume local optimality at the D-optimal designs can be
proved by direct calculations. That is, the Hessian matrix of the tube-volume criterion
evaluated at the D-optimal design is positive semi-definite, and the null space of the
Hessian matrix corresponds to the tangent space of the orbit of Möbius group action.
However, the proof for general n remains outstanding.
Throughout the paper, we just dealt with the case where the explanatory variable is
one-dimensional. However, the volume-of-tube method works for the construction of the
simultaneous confidence bands for regression with multidimensional explanatory variables
except for the conservativeness (ii) of Proposition 2.1, and the volume-optimality is welldefined. For example, we can discuss the volume-optimality of the p-variate polynomial
regression model with the basis vector
f (x) = 1, (xi )1≤i≤p , (xi xj )1≤i≤j≤p , . . . , (xi1 · · · xid )1≤i1 ≤···≤id ≤p

⊤

∈ R[x1 , . . . , xp ](

).

p+d
d

By the same argument as the univariate case, we can prove that the multivariate Möbius
p
p
transform ϕ : R → R defined by


Ax + b
A b
⊤
x = (x1 , . . . , xp ) 7→ ϕ(x; A, b, c, d) = ⊤
6= 0
, det ⊤
c d
c x+d
where A ∈ Rp×p , b, c ∈ Rp×1, d ∈ R (e.g., Kato and McCullagh (2014)) remains the
invariance (volume preserving property) Volp (γM −1 ) = Volp (γ(AM A⊤ )−1 ) of Theorem 3.16.
However, the treatment of the multidimensional case (see, e.g., Lasserre (2009) for the
moment cone) remains a future topic of research.

26

A

Appendix: Proofs

A.1

Proof of Lemma 3.4

Proof. Let tk = k/n − (n + 1)/(2n) and xk = tan(πtk ). The (i, j) element of M is
n

mi,j

n

1 X (i−1)+(j−1)
1
1 X i+j−2
=
xk
sin
(πtk ) cosn−i−j (πtk ).
=
n k=1
(1 + x2k )2(n−1)
n k=1

Then, apply Lemma A.1 below.
Lemma A.1. Let ti = i/n − d, i = 1, . . . , n, where d is a constant. Then,
n

Γ(k + 12 )Γ(n − k − 21 )
1 X 2k
sin (πti ) cos2n−2k−2 (πti ) =
.
n i=1
πΓ(n)
Proof. From the duplication formula for the gamma function, it suffices to show that
n

1 X 2k
(2k)!(2n − 2k − 2)! −2n+2
2
.
sin (πtj ) cos2n−2k−2 (πtj ) =
n j=1
k!(n − k − 1)!(n − 1)!
Let ω = eiπ/n , c = e−iπd . The left-hand side times (2i)2k 22n−2k−2 = 22n−2 (−1)k is
n

1X j
(cω − c−1 w −j )2k (cω j + c−1 w −j )2n−2k−2
n j=1
 
n
1 X X 2k
(−1)s cs ω sj c−(2k−s) ω −(2k−s)j
=
n j=1 0≤s≤2k s


X
2n − 2k − 2 t tj −(2n−2k−2−t) −(2n−2k−2−t)j
cω c
ω
.
×
t

(A.1)

0≤t≤2n−2k−2

Here, the contribution of the summation with respect to j is
(
n
1 (s + t = n − 1),
1 X (−2n+2+2s+2t)j
ω
=
n j=1
0 (otherwise).
Hence, (A.1) is equal to
X

(−1)

max(0,2k−n+1)≤s≤min(2k,n−1)

s



2k
s



(2k)!(2n − 2k − 2)!
2n − 2k − 2
= (−1)k
.
n−1−s
k!(n − k − 1)!(n − 1)!

The last equality follows from (1.41) of Gould (2010).

27

A.2

Proof of Lemma 4.2

The proof of Lemma 4.2 is divided into three parts (lemmas).
Lemma A.2. For M ∈ MP , there exist u, w > 1 such that


u 1 1
M ∼ 1 1 1  .
1 1 w
Lemma A.3. For u, w > 1, there

u
1
1

√
exist ũ, ṽ, w̃ > 0, ṽ < ũw̃ such that
 

1 1
ũ 0 ṽ
1 1  ∼  0 ṽ 0  .
1 w
ṽ 0 w̃

√
Lemma A.4. For ũ, ṽ, w̃ > 0, ṽ < ũw̃,

ũ 0
0 ṽ
ṽ 0

there exist v ∈ (0, 1) such that

ṽ
0  ∼ Mv .
w̃

Proof of Lemma A.2. We start from a canonical form in (3.22):

M = w1 fP (x1 )fP (x1 )⊤ + w2 fP (x2 )fP (x2 )⊤ + w0 fP (±∞)fP (±∞)⊤ ,
1/4

where fP (x) = (1, x, x2 )⊤ , fP (±∞) = (0, 0, 1)⊤ . For A = A(a, b, c, d) with a = w2 (x1 −
1/4
1/4
x2 ), b = −w2 x1 , c = 0, d = −w2 , we have


u 1 1
A 1 1 1  A⊤ = M, u = w1 d−4 + 1, w = w0 a−4 + 1.
1 1 w
Proof of Lemma A.3. Let


u 1 1
M =  1 1 1 ,
1 1 v



ũ 0 ṽ
f =  0 ṽ 0  ,
M
ṽ 0 w̃


d2
2cd
c2
A = bd bc + ad ac .
b2
2ab
a2


f has a solution (a, b, c, d) such that ad − bc 6= 0. It
We confirm that equation AMA⊤ = M
is enough to show that under the assumption a, d 6= 0, a solution (a, b, c, d) satisfies
(AMA⊤ )1,2 = 0, (AMA⊤ )2,3 = 0, ad − bc 6= 0.
28

(A.2)

Solving (AMA⊤ )1,2 = 0 with respect to b yields
b = −a

c3 v + 3c2 d + 3cd2 + d3
,
d3 f1 (c/d; u)

(A.3)

where
f1 (c; u) = (c + 1)3 + (u − 1)

if f1 (c/d; u) 6= 0. Substituting (A.3) into (AMA⊤ )2,3 , we have
0 = (AMA⊤ )2,3 =

a{(v − 1)c4 + (u − 1)d4 + (c + d)4 }d6 f (c/d; u, v)
,
{d3 f1 (c/d; u)}3

(A.4)

where
f (c; u, v) =c6 (−2 + 3v − v 2 ) + c5 (−6 + 7v − uv 2 ) + c4 (−10 + 15v − 5uv)
+ c3 (−10u + 10v) + c2 (10 − 15u + 5uv) + c(6 − 7u + u2 v) + (2 − 3u + u2 ).
Substituting (A.3) into ad − bc, we have
d4 f2 (c/d; u, v)
,
0 6= ad − bc = a 3
d f1 (c/d; u)

f2 (c; u, v) = 4c + 6c2 + 4c3 + u + c4 v.

In the numerator of (A.4), if (v − 1)c4 + (u − 1)d4 + (c + d)4 = 0, then c = d = 0, and
hence, ad − bc = 0.
Now, we examine whether for all u, v > 1, there is a real x such that
f (x; u, v) = 0,

f1 (x; u) 6= 0,

f2 (x; u) 6= 0.

(A.5)

Once a solution x = x∗ is obtained, we have a solution that a, d 6= 0 are given arbitrarily,
c = dx∗ , and b is determined from (a, c, d) in (A.3).
Write f (·) = f (·; u, v) shortly. It is easily shown that when u, v > 1, neither
f (0) =(u − 2)(u − 1) > 0,
f (−1) = − (u − v)(u − 1)(v − 1) > 0,
f (±∞) = − (v − 2)(v − 1) > 0
nor
f (0) < 0, f (−1) < 0, f (±∞) < 0
is true, where f (±∞) = limc→±∞ c−6 f (c). This means that f (x; u, v) = 0 has a real
solution x = x∗ .
In order to check f1 (x∗ ; u) 6= 0 and f2 (x∗ ; u, v) 6= 0, we need to check whether f and
f1 (or f2 ) have a common factor. For this purpose, we calculate the resultants R(f, f1 )
and R(f, f2 ):
R(f, f1 ) = (u − 2)(u − 1)h(u, v)2,
29

R(f, f2 ) = h(u, v),

where
h(u, v) = −28 + 54u − 27u2 + 54v − 105uv + 54u2v − 27v 2 + 54uv 2 − 30u2v 2 + u3 v 3 . (A.6)
(For resultant, see, e.g., Prasolov (2004). Applications in statistics can be found in
Drton, et al. (2009).) As shown in Lemma A.5 later, in the region u, v > 1, h(u, n) = 0
iff u = 2. Therefore, when u 6= 2, we have established that x = x∗ satisfying (A.5) exists,
and hence, a solution (a, b, c, d) satisfying (A.2) exists.
When u = 2, (A.4) is reduced to
0=

f (c; 2, v)
(2 − v)c(−2 − 4c − 3c2 − c3 − c4 + c4 v)
=
f1 (c; 2)3
(2 + c)2 (1 + c + c2 )3

and c = 0 is a solution. From (A.3), b = −a/2, and a 6= 0, d 6= 0 are arbitrarily given. In
fact, for A = A(a, −a/2, 0, d),




2 1 1
2d4
0
a2 d2 /2
.
a2 d2 /2
0
A 1 1 1 A⊤ =  0
2 2
4
1 1 v
a d /2
0
a (v − 7/8)
Lemma A.5. Let h(u, v) be defined in (A.6). When u, v > 1, h(u, v) ≥ 0, and the
equality holds iff u = v = 2.
Proof. Fix u and consider h(u, v) as a function of v. Note that h(u, 1) = (u − 1)3 > 0.
∂
h(u, v)
∂v
= 54 − 105u + 54u2 + (−54 + 108u − 60u2 )v + 3u3 v 2 .

hv (u, v) =

hv (u, 1) = 3u(u − 1)2 > 0. It is easy to see that hv (u, v) = 0 has a real solution iff
3/2 ≤ u ≤ 3. Therefore, when u ≤ 3/2 or u ≥ 3, hv (u, v) is always positive. Combined
with h(u, 1) > 0, this means that h(u, v) > 0.
Consider the case 3/2 < u < 3. The largest zero of hv (u, v) is
p
9 − 18u + 10u2 + 3 (u − 1)3 (3 − u)(2u − 3)
v∗ (u) =
> 1.
u3
At this point, the function h(u, v) takes a local minimum

27
h(u, v∗ (u)) = 6 (u − 1)4 (−54 + 108u − 72u2 + 18u3 − u4 )
u
p
− 2(3 − u)(2u − 3) (u − 1)(3 − u)(2u − 3)

=27(u − 1)4 (u − 2)2 (−54 + 108u − 72u2 + 18u3 − u4 )
p
−1
+ 2(3 − u)(2u − 3) (u − 1)(3 − u)(2u − 3)
.

It is easy to check that −54 + 108u − 72u2 + 18u3 − u4 > 0 for 3/2 < u < 3. Hence,
h(u, v∗ (u)) ≥ 0 for 3/2 < u < 3 and the equality holds when u = 2. When u = 2,
v∗ (2) = 2.
30

Proof of Lemma A.4. For A = A(a, b, c, d) with b = c = 0,


 4

ũ 0 ṽ
d ũ
0
a2 d2 ṽ
a2 d2 ṽ
0 .
A 0 ṽ 0  A⊤ =  0
ṽ 0 w̃
a2 d2 ṽ
0
a4 w̃
√
By letting a = w̃ −1/4 , d = ũ−1/4 , v = a2 d2 ṽ = ṽ/ ũw̃, we obtain the result.

√
Remark
A.6. In the proof of Lemma A.4, by letting d = ũ−1/4 , a = ṽ −1/2 / 3d =
√
ũ1/4 / 3ṽ 1/2 , w = a4 w̃ = ũw̃/9ṽ 2 , we have another representative group element


1 0 31
0 1 0  , w > 1 .
3
9
1
0 w
3

A.3

Proof of Lemma 4.3

Proof. The (1, 1), (2, 1), (3, 2), (3, 3) components of the equation Mv′ = AMv A⊤ are
(AMv A⊤ )1,1 = c4 + d4 + 6vc2 d2 ,
(AMv A⊤ )2,1 = ac3 + bd3 + 3vcd(bc + ad),
(AMv A⊤ )3,2 = a3 c + b3 d + 3vab(bc + ad),
(AMv A⊤ )3,3 = a4 + b4 + 6va2 b2 ,
respectively. By solving (AMv A⊤ )2,1 = 0, we have
b=−

ac(c2 + 3d2 v)
d(d2 + 3c2 v)

when d 6= 0. (c and d cannot be 0 simultaneously because ad − bc 6= 0.) Suppose first
that d 6= 0. Substituting this into (AMv A⊤ )3,2 , we have
(AMv A⊤ )3,2 =

a3 c(c4 − d4 )(c4 + d4 + 6c2 d2 v)(−1 + 9v 2 )
.
d2 (d2 + 3c2 v)3

This becomes 0 when (i) c = 0, (ii) c = ±d, or (iii) v = 1/3. We try to solve the equation
(AMv A⊤ )1,1 = (AMv A⊤ )3,3 = 1 in each case. Note that a = 0 cannot be a solution,
because b becomes 0 and ad − bc = 0.
(i) If c = 0, then b becomes 0 and (AMv A⊤ )1,1 = d4 , (AMv A⊤ )3,3 = a4 . Hence,
(a, b, c, d) = (±1, 0, 0, ±1) (four ways) are the solutions. In each case,
v ′ = (AMv A⊤ )3,1 = v.

(ii) If c = ±d, then b = ∓a, (AMv A⊤ )1,1 = 2c4 (1 + 3v) = 1 = (AMv A⊤ )3,3 =
2a (1 + 3v), and hence, c = ±a. Therefore,

(1, −1, 1, 1),



(1,
−1, −1, −1),
(a, b, c, d) = 1/(2 + 6v)1/4 ×
(−1, 1, 1, 1),



(−1, 1, −1, −1)
4

31

are solutions. In each case,
v ′ = (AMv A⊤ )3,1 =

1−v
.
1 + 3v

(iii) When v = 1/3 and d 6= 0, we have b = −ac/d and
(AMv A⊤ )1,1 = (c2 + d2 )2 = 1,

(AMv A⊤ )3,3 = (a2 + b2 )2 =

a4 (c2 + d2 )
a4
=
= 1.
d4
d4

√
√
2 . When d = a, c = −b = ∓ 1 − a2 . When d = −a, c = b =
1
−
a
Hence,
b
=
±
√
± 1 − a2 . In summary,
√
√
√
√


(a, b, c, d) = a, 1 − a2 , − 1 − a2 , a ,
a, − 1 − a2 , 1 − a2 , a ,
√
√
√
√


a, 1 − a2 , 1 − a2 , −a ,
a, − 1 − a2 , − 1 − a2 , −a .

In each case,

1
= v.
3
(iii’) When v = 1/3 and d = 0, (AMv A⊤ )2,1 = ac3 = 0. Because ad − bc 6= 0, c =
6 0,
⊤
⊤
4
⊤
4
and a = 0. In this case, (AMv A )3,2 = 0, (AMv A )1,1 = c = 1, (AMv A )3,3 = b = 1.
Hence, (a, b, c, d) = (0, ±1, ±1, 0) (four ways) are the solutions. In each case,
v ′ = (AMv A⊤ )3,1 =

v ′ = (AMv A⊤ )3,1 =

1
= v.
3

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Yasuhiro Omori for his helpful comments.

References
Adler, R. J. and Taylor, J. E. (2007). Random Fields and Geometry, Springer.
Dette, H., Haines, L. M. and Imhof, L. (1999). Optimal designs for rational models and
weighted polynomial regression, The Annals of Statistics, 27 (4), 1272–1293.
Dette, H. and Melas, V. B. (2003). Optimal designs for estimating individual coefficients
in Fourier regression models, The Annals of Statistics, 31 (5), 1669–1692.
Drton, M., Sturmfels, B. and Sullivant, S. (2009). Lectures on Algebraic Statistics, Oberwolfach Seminars 39, Springer.
van Dyk, D. A. (2014). The role of statistics in the discovery of a Higgs boson, Annual
Review of Statistics and Its Application, 1, 41–59.
32

Gould, H. W. (2010). Combinatorial Identities: Table I: Intermediate Techniques for Summing Finite Series: From the seven unpublished manuscripts of H. W. Gould Edited
and Compiled by Jocelyn Quaintance.
http://www.math.wvu.edu/~ gould/Vol.4.PDF
Gross, K. I. and Holman III, W. J. (1980). Matrix-valued special functions and representation theory of the conformal group, I: The generalized gamma function, Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society, 258 (2), 319–350.
Guest, P. G. (1958). The spacing of observations in polynomial regression, The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 29 (1), 294–299.
Heinig, G. and Rost, K. (1989). Matrices with displacement structure, generalized Bezoutians, and Möbius transformations, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications,
40, 203–230.
Heinig, G. and Rost, K. (2010). Introduction to Bezoutians, Operator Theory: Advances
and Applications, 199, 25–118.
Johansen, S. and Johnstone, I. M. (1990). Hotelling’s theorem on the volume of tubes:
Some illustrations in simultaneous inference and data analysis, The Annals of Statistics,
18 (2), 652–684.
Johnstone, I. and Siegmund, D. (1989). On Hotelling’s formula for the volume of tubes
and Naiman’s inequality, The Annals of Statistics, 17 (1), 184–194.
Karlin, S. and Studden, W. (1966). Tchebycheff Systems: With Applications in Analysis
and Statistics, Interscience Publishers, Wiley.
Kato, N. and Kuriki, S. (2013). Likelihood ratio tests for positivity in polynomial regressions, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 115, 334–346.
Kato, S. and McCullagh, P. (2014). A characterization of a Cauchy family on the complex
space, arXiv:1402.1905 [].
Kawakubo, K. (1992). The Theory of Transformation Groups, Oxford University Press.
Kiefer, J. and Wolfowitz, J. (1959). Optimum designs in regression problems, The Annals
of Mathematical Statistics, 30 (2), 271–294.
Kuriki, S. and Takemura, A. (2001). Tail probabilities of the maxima of multilinear forms
and their applications, The Annals of Statistics, 29 (2), 328–371.
Kuriki, S. and Takemura, A. (2009). Volume of tubes and the distribution of the maximum
of a Gaussian random field, Selected Papers on Probability and Statistics, American
Mathematical Society Translations Series 2, Vol. 227, No. 2, 25–48.

33

Lasserre, J. B. (2009). Moments, Positive Polynomials and Their Applications, Imperial
College Press.
Liu, W. (2010). Simultaneous Inference in Regression, Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Lu, X. and Kuriki, S. (2017). Simultaneous confidence bands for contrasts between several
nonlinear regression curves, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 155, 83–104.
Mackey, D. S., Mackey, N., Mehl, C. and Mehrmann, V. (2015). Möbius transformations
of matrix polynomials, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 470, 120–184.
McCullagh, P. (1996). Möbius transformation and Cauchy parameter estimation, The
Annals of Statististics, 24 (2), 787–808.
Moriguti, S., Udagawa, K. and Hitotumatu, S. (1957). Iwanami Sugaku Koshiki , II (in
Japanese), Iwanami.
Naiman, D. Q. (1986). Conservative confidence bands in curvilinear regression, The Annals
of Statistics, 14 (3), 896–906.
Prasolov, V. V. (2004). Polynomials, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics 11,
Springer.
Pukelsheim, F. (2006). Optimal Design of Experiments, Classics in Applied Mathematics
50, SIAM.
Scheffé, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance, Wiley.
Sun, J. (1993). Tail probabilities of the maxima of Gaussian random fields, The Annals
of Probability, 21 (1), 34–71.
Sun, J. and Loader, C. R. (1994). Simultaneous confidence bands for linear regression and
smoothing, The Annals of Probability, 22 (3), 1328–1345.
Takemura, A. and Kuriki, S. (2002). On the equivalence of the tube and Euler characteristic methods for the distribution of the maximum of Gaussian fields over piecewise
smooth domains, The Annals of Applied Probability, 12 (2), 768–796.
Working, H. and Hotelling, H. (1929). Applications of the theory of error to the interpretation of trends, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 24 (165), 73–85.
Wynn, H. P. (1985). Jack Kiefer’s contributions to experimental design, in Jack Carl
Kiefer Collected Papers III: Design of Experiments, L. D. Brown, O. Olkin, J. Sacks,
H, P. Wynn eds, Springer and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 1985, pages
xvii–xxiii.
Wynn, H. P. and Bloomfield, P. (1971). Simultaneous confidence bands in regression analysis (with discussions), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 33 (2), 202–221.
34

