Is a Transformed Low Discrepancy Design Also Low Discrepancy?

  • Yiou Li
  • Lulu Kang
  • Fred J. HickernellEmail author


Experimental designs intended to match arbitrary target distributions are typically constructed via a variable transformation of a uniform experimental design. The inverse distribution function is one such transformation. The discrepancy is a measure of how well the empirical distribution of any design matches its target distribution. This chapter addresses the question of whether a variable transformation of a low discrepancy uniform design yields a low discrepancy design for the desired target distribution. The answer depends on the two kernel functions used to define the respective discrepancies. If these kernels satisfy certain conditions, then the answer is yes. However, these conditions may be undesirable for practical reasons. In such a case, the transformation of a low discrepancy uniform design may yield a design with a large discrepancy. We illustrate how this may occur. We also suggest some remedies. One remedy is to ensure that the original uniform design has optimal one-dimensional projections, but this remedy works best if the design is dense, or in other words, the ratio of sample size divided by the dimension of the random variable is relatively large. Another remedy is to use the transformed design as the input to a coordinate-exchange algorithm that optimizes the desired discrepancy, and this works for both dense or sparse designs. The effectiveness of these two remedies is illustrated via simulation.


  1. 1.
    Aronszajn, N.: Theory of reproducing kernels. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 68, 337–404 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devroye, L.: Nonuniform Random Variate Generation. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, pp. 83–121 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dick, J., Kuo, F., Sloan, I.H.: High dimensional integration—the Quasi- Monte Carlo way. Acta Numer. 22, 133–288 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fang, K.T., Hickernell, F.J.: Uniform experimental design. Encyclopedia Stat. Qual. Reliab., 2037–2040 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fang, K.T., Li, R., Sudjianto, A.: Design and Modeling for Computer Experiments. Computer Science and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang, K.T., Liu, M.-Q., Qin, H., Zhou, Y.-D.: Theory and Application of Uniform Experimental Designs. Springer Nature (Singapore) and Science Press (Bejing), Mathematics Monograph Series (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fang, K.T., Ma, C.X.: Wrap-around l2-discrepancy of random sampling, latin hypercube and uniform designs. J. Complexity 17, 608–624 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang, K.T. , Ma, C.X.: Relationships Between Uniformity, Aberration and Correlation in Regular Fractions 3s-1. Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods 2000, pp. 213–231 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fang, K.T., Ma, C.X., Winker, P.: Centered l2-discrepancy of random sampling and latin hypercube design, and construction of uniform designs. Math. Comp. 71, 275–296 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fang, K.T., Mukerjee, R.: A connection between uniformity and aberration in regular fractions of two-level factorials. Biometrika 87, 193–198 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang, K.T., Wang, Y.: Number-Theoretic Methods in Statistics. Chapman and Hall, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fang, K.T., Lu, X., Winker, P.: Lower bounds for centered and wrap- around l2-discrepancies and construction of uniform designs by threshold accepting. J. Complex. 19(5), 692–711 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hickernell, F.J.: A generalized discrepancy and quadrature error bound. Math. Comp. 67, 299–322 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hickernell, F.J.: Goodness-of-fit statistics, discrepancies and robust designs. Statist. Probab. Lett. 44, 73–78 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hickernell, F.J.: The trio identity for Quasi-Monte Carlo error. In: MCQMC: International conference on Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods in Scientific Computing, pp. 3–27 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kang, L.: Stochastic coordinate-exchange optimal designs with complex constraints. Qual. Eng. 31(3), 401–416 (2019). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, R.K., Nachtsheim, C.J.: The coordinate-exchange algorithm for constructing exact optimal experimental designs. Technometrics 37(1), 60–69 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Overstall, A.M., Woods, D.C.: Bayesian design of experiments using approximate coordinate exchange. Technometrics 59(4), 458–470 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sall, J., Lehman, A., Stephens, M.L., Creighton, L.: JMP Start Statistics: a Guide to Statistics and Data Analysis Using JMP, 6th edn. SAS Institute (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sambo, F., Borrotti, M., Mylona, K.: A coordinate-exchange two-phase local search algorithm for the \(D\)-and \(I\)-optimal designs of split-plot experiments. Comput. Statist. Data Anal. 71, 1193–1207 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winker, P., Fang, K.T.: Application of threshold-accepting to the evaluation of the discrepancy of a set of points. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 34(5), 2028–2042 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Depaul UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Illinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations