Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Feb;42(2):304-333.
doi: 10.1111/risa.13763. Epub 2021 Jun 19.

Global Sensitivity Analysis with Mixtures: A Generalized Functional ANOVA Approach

Affiliations

Global Sensitivity Analysis with Mixtures: A Generalized Functional ANOVA Approach

Emanuele Borgonovo et al. Risk Anal. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

This work investigates aspects of the global sensitivity analysis of computer codes when alternative plausible distributions for the model inputs are available to the analyst. Analysts may decide to explore results under each distribution or to aggregate the distributions, assigning, for instance, a mixture. In the first case, we lose uniqueness of the sensitivity measures, and in the second case, we lose independence even if the model inputs are independent under each of the assigned distributions. Removing the unique distribution assumption impacts the mathematical properties at the basis of variance-based sensitivity analysis and has consequences on result interpretation as well. We analyze in detail the technical aspects. From this investigation, we derive corresponding recommendations for the risk analyst. We show that an approach based on the generalized functional ANOVA expansion remains theoretically grounded in the presence of a mixture distribution. Numerically, we base the construction of the generalized function ANOVA effects on the diffeomorphic modulation under observable response preserving homotopy regression. Our application addresses the calculation of variance-based sensitivity measures for the well-known Nordhaus' DICE model, when its inputs are assigned a mixture distribution. A discussion of implications for the risk analyst and future research perspectives closes the work.

Keywords: D-MORPH regression; mixture distributions; risk analysis; uncertainty analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Upper panel: Ishigami output densities under FX1, FX2, FX3, PX. Lower panel: Corresponding variances: V1[G]=13.82, V2[G]=7.07, V3[G]=10.30, VPX[G]=11.42.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Variance decompositions (classical ANOVA) under FX1, FX2, FX3.
Fig 3
Fig 3
The comparison of the ANOVA effect functions of gzPX constructed from 8,000 points with the effect functions of gz.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Graph (a): BTi and STi; graph (b) corresponding input ranks.
Fig 5
Fig 5
The boxplots of Sia and the total sensitivity indices STia under PX obtained from 100 replicates.
Fig 6
Fig 6
Selection path for sensitivity analysis when the analyst is uncertain about the input distribution.

Similar articles

  • Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty.
    Antoniano-Villalobos I, Borgonovo E, Siriwardena S. Antoniano-Villalobos I, et al. Risk Anal. 2018 Nov;38(11):2459-2477. doi: 10.1111/risa.13125. Epub 2018 Jun 20. Risk Anal. 2018. PMID: 29924879
  • Personal exposure to mixtures of volatile organic compounds: modeling and further analysis of the RIOPA data.
    Batterman S, Su FC, Li S, Mukherjee B, Jia C; HEI Health Review Committee. Batterman S, et al. Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2014 Jun;(181):3-63. Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2014. PMID: 25145040 Free PMC article.
  • Early object relations into new objects.
    Downey TW. Downey TW. Psychoanal Study Child. 2001;56:39-67; discussion 68-75. doi: 10.1080/00797308.2001.11800664. Psychoanal Study Child. 2001. PMID: 12102023
  • The Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health.
    Landrigan PJ, Raps H, Cropper M, Bald C, Brunner M, Canonizado EM, Charles D, Chiles TC, Donohue MJ, Enck J, Fenichel P, Fleming LE, Ferrier-Pages C, Fordham R, Gozt A, Griffin C, Hahn ME, Haryanto B, Hixson R, Ianelli H, James BD, Kumar P, Laborde A, Law KL, Martin K, Mu J, Mulders Y, Mustapha A, Niu J, Pahl S, Park Y, Pedrotti ML, Pitt JA, Ruchirawat M, Seewoo BJ, Spring M, Stegeman JJ, Suk W, Symeonides C, Takada H, Thompson RC, Vicini A, Wang Z, Whitman E, Wirth D, Wolff M, Yousuf AK, Dunlop S. Landrigan PJ, et al. Ann Glob Health. 2023 Mar 21;89(1):23. doi: 10.5334/aogh.4056. eCollection 2023. Ann Glob Health. 2023. PMID: 36969097 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Dietary glycation compounds - implications for human health.
    Hellwig M, Diel P, Eisenbrand G, Grune T, Guth S, Henle T, Humpf HU, Joost HG, Marko D, Raupbach J, Roth A, Vieths S, Mally A. Hellwig M, et al. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2024 Sep;54(8):485-617. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2362985. Epub 2024 Aug 16. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2024. PMID: 39150724

Cited by

References

    1. Anderson, B. , Borgonovo, E. , Galeotti, M. , & Roson, R. (2014). Uncertainty in climate change modelling: Can global sensitivity analysis be of help? Risk Analysis, 34(2), 271–293. - PubMed
    1. Apostolakis, G. E. (1990). The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science, 250(4986), 1359–1364. - PubMed
    1. Apostolakis, G. E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis, 24(3), 515–520. - PubMed
    1. Aven, T. (2010). On the need for restricting the probabilistic analysis in risk assessments to variability. Risk Analysis, 30(3), 354–360. ISSN 1539‐6924. - PubMed
    1. Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 235–248.

LinkOut - more resources