The D-efficiencies (%) of our designs as compared to OofA_OAs under the MCP and MPWO models
m . | s . | q . | Design . | MCP model . | MPWO model . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 94.10% | |
improved | 100.00% | 94.10% | |||
82.64% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 3 | 100.00% | 0.00% | |
improved | 100.00% | 0.00% | |||
60.34% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 83.62% | |
improved | 100.00% | 92.40% | |||
59.49% | 100.00% |
m . | s . | q . | Design . | MCP model . | MPWO model . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 94.10% | |
improved | 100.00% | 94.10% | |||
82.64% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 3 | 100.00% | 0.00% | |
improved | 100.00% | 0.00% | |||
60.34% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 83.62% | |
improved | 100.00% | 92.40% | |||
59.49% | 100.00% |
MPWO model: replacing the CP model in the MCP model with the linear PWO model.
The D-efficiencies (%) of our designs as compared to OofA_OAs under the MCP and MPWO models
m . | s . | q . | Design . | MCP model . | MPWO model . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 94.10% | |
improved | 100.00% | 94.10% | |||
82.64% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 3 | 100.00% | 0.00% | |
improved | 100.00% | 0.00% | |||
60.34% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 83.62% | |
improved | 100.00% | 92.40% | |||
59.49% | 100.00% |
m . | s . | q . | Design . | MCP model . | MPWO model . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 94.10% | |
improved | 100.00% | 94.10% | |||
82.64% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 3 | 100.00% | 0.00% | |
improved | 100.00% | 0.00% | |||
60.34% | 100.00% | ||||
5 | 2 | 4 | 100.00% | 83.62% | |
improved | 100.00% | 92.40% | |||
59.49% | 100.00% |
MPWO model: replacing the CP model in the MCP model with the linear PWO model.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.