turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- JMP User Community
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Disallowed combination troubleshoot in Jmp 8.0

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 24, 2012 5:02 PM
(3384 views)

Hello all,

I have created a custom design matrix: 4 factors with 4 levels, and 4 factors with 2 levels (all categorical). There are some combinations that I need to disallow; however, I can't seem to get this to work.

I am using Jmp 8.0 for the Mac, and the expression I use to specify my constraint is:

IS == 4 & ID == 2

I am using the ordinal value of the level instead of the name of the level, as the DoE Guide states.

When I then 'Make Table', the constraint is not incorporated. It doesn't work with the value label either, or using any other numaeric and boolean combinations.

I have attached an image of the procedre for clarity.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Christina

Solved! Go to Solution.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 26, 2012 10:37 AM
(6260 views)

Solution

If I dropped all of the two-way interactions that involve the two factors being dissallowed, namely IS and ID, from the model before attempting to generate the design then I found that no error message was generated and the design that results respects the desired dissallowed combinations.

Lou V

9 REPLIES

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 25, 2012 1:09 PM
(3130 views)

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 25, 2012 2:17 PM
(3130 views)

Hi - thanks very much for checking on this for me. I tried this design on another mac also running 8.02, and still couldn't get it to work. So it's something I'm doing wrong.

This is my sequence of steps:

I only specify 'disallowed combinations' once the design matrix has been built. If I try to do it before I click the 'Make Design' button, I get the error message: "Could not find a valid starting design. Please check your constraints for consistency."

1. After the design matrix is created, I click on the drop down menu Custom Design.

2. Under 'Disallowed Combinations' I enter my restrictions.

3. I then click the 'Make Table' button.

4. Both the matrix gets re-made, and a table is created, both still featuring the combination I wish to disallow.

I'm not certain where I am going wrong.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Christina

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 25, 2012 7:01 PM
(3130 views)

No problem.

On my Mac JMP 8.0.2

1.) I enter all of your factors, 4 X 4-level categorical ( None, Close, Far, Both) and 4 X 2 Level categorical factors (None and High)

2.) Then under the red triangle I choose disallowed combinations (IS==4 & ID==2) Click "OK"

3.) Click "Make Design"

4.) Click "Make Table"

Verify by Analyze Distribution of IS and ID that the disallowed combinations have been respected.

Not sure why you are getting the error message? I would re-enter the factors and try again from scratch.

Lou V

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 25, 2012 7:21 PM
(3130 views)

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 25, 2012 7:30 PM
(3130 views)

Hello again,

Thank you so very much for trying this out for me in more detail! I, too, get the same results as you when specifying main effects.

My problem was when I tried to disallow combinations when I specified 2nd order interactions - I suppose it is not something one can do when investigating higher-order interactions.

I apologize for not stating this in the original query. However, you have done a great deal to help me understand the entire process, and its verification.

Thanks again!

Christina

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 26, 2012 10:37 AM
(6261 views)

If I dropped all of the two-way interactions that involve the two factors being dissallowed, namely IS and ID, from the model before attempting to generate the design then I found that no error message was generated and the design that results respects the desired dissallowed combinations.

Lou V

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 26, 2012 12:52 PM
(3130 views)

Yes!! That works! Well done. Thank you!

Now: try 2 disallowed combinations with 2nd order interactions. For example:

IS==1 & ID==1 | SS==1 & SD==1

I've tried to drop the interactions like you suggest, but run into the same error. I am probably not dropping the right ones. I've tried different combinations but no luck.

Any thoughts? Although please don't feel the need to continue helping - you have already done so much!

Many thanks,

Christina

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 26, 2012 1:35 PM
(3130 views)

Great!

I was able to get 2 dissallowed combinations to work. I pulled out all 2nd order terms with IS, ID, SS & SD included.

And verification

Lou V

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Jan 30, 2012 8:57 AM
(3130 views)

Hello!

Excellent work. I can't thank you enough for your help.

Onwards and upwards, now!

Thanks again,

Christina