Contents

Global Sensitivity AnalysisEdit

Global Sensitivity Analysis is a practical toolkit for understanding how uncertainties in inputs propagate to outputs in complex models. It is a discipline used across engineering, economics, environmental science, energy systems, and public policy to separate what matters from what does not, so that resources can be directed toward the levers that truly move results. In essence, it helps decision-makers avoid chasing noise and focus on robust design and informed risk management. For readers of this encyclopedia, it is useful to think of Global Sensitivity Analysis as a structured way to answer questions like: which variables drive the most variation in outcomes, how do variables interact, and where should we invest in better data or better models?

The field has grown from simple local analyses that look at one input at a time to a broad set of techniques that quantify influence across all inputs and their interactions. This shift matters in practice: in high-stakes decisions—such as engineering a bridge, designing a power system, or evaluating a climate-related policy—the goal is not to prove a single answer but to understand where uncertainty matters most. See how these ideas fit within the larger umbrella of uncertainty quantification and how they connect to the broader study of sensitivity analysis.

Core concepts

  • What is being analyzed
    • GSA examines how uncertainty in one or more input factors contributes to uncertainty in a model output. It is not a critique of a model’s structure per se but a diagnostic technique that reveals which inputs are most influential under uncertainty. See uncertainty and model.
  • Local vs global approaches
    • Local sensitivity analysis looks at how small changes in inputs around a nominal value affect the output, often using derivatives. Global sensitivity analysis, by contrast, samples across the full input space and accounts for nonlinearities and interactions. For a modern treatment, see global sensitivity analysis and local sensitivity analysis.
  • Key methods (with representative examples)
    • Morris method: a computationally light screening tool that identifies potentially influential inputs and interactions. See Morris method.
    • Sobol indices: variance-based measures that decompose output variance into contributions from each input and their combinations. Foundational concepts include first-order and total-order indices; see Sobol indices.
    • FAST and eFAST: fast algorithms to estimate Sobol-type metrics when models are expensive to run. See FAST (Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test) and eFAST.
    • Polynomial chaos expansions: represent the model response as a polynomial series in input uncertainties, enabling efficient sensitivity estimates; see Polynomial chaos.
    • Gaussian process surrogates (emulators): replace a costly model with a statistical surrogate to enable extensive sampling; see Gaussian process.
  • Screening versus quantification
    • Some methods are suited for quickly identifying a handful of influential inputs (screening), while others aim to precisely quantify each input’s contribution and interactions (quantification). See discussions of screening and global sensitivity analysis.
  • How inputs are modeled
    • Input uncertainty relies on probability distributions, independence assumptions, and correlation structures. The choice of distributions and sampling strategy (e.g., Monte Carlo) affects results; see Monte Carlo and uncertainty distributions.
  • Outputs and interpretation
    • GSA results point to which inputs explain most of the variability in outputs, where nonlinearities and interactions matter, and which variables may warrant better data or tighter control. They also illuminate where model improvements would yield diminishing returns.

Methodological considerations

  • Computational cost
    • Global methods can require many model evaluations. The rise of surrogate models and emulators helps manage cost, but practitioners must guard against overtrusting a surrogate that misses critical regime behavior. See surrogate model and Gaussian process.
  • Assumptions and data quality
    • Results depend on the assumed input distributions, correlation structure, and model fidelity. Sensitivity analyses should be viewed as part of a broader risk-management workflow, not as a final truth. See uncertainty quantification.
  • Screening versus deep dive
    • A practical workflow often starts with screening (e.g., via the Morris method) to identify a subset of inputs, then moves to deeper variance-based analyses on that subset. See Morris method and Sobol indices.
  • Applications and governance
    • In policy and engineering contexts, GSA informs design choices, regulatory planning, and resource allocation. It also supports transparent decision-making by making the influence of assumptions explicit. See risk assessment and robust decision making.

Applications in various domains

  • Engineering design and reliability
    • GSA helps engineers focus testing and validation on the most influential factors and interactions, improving reliability while controlling costs. See reliability engineering.
  • Energy and environmental modeling
    • In energy systems and environmental forecasting, GSA clarifies which parameters drive predicted variability, guiding data collection and policy evaluation. See energy systems and climate model.
  • Policy analysis and economics
  • Medicine and pharmacology
    • In dose-response studies or pharmacokinetic modeling, sensitivity analysis helps prioritize experiments and refine models before costly clinical trials. See pharmacokinetics.

Controversies and debates

  • Complexity versus transparency
    • Critics argue that some global sensitivity techniques can become bureaucratic or opaque, especially when using advanced emulators or high-dimensional input spaces. Proponents counter that transparency comes from documenting the assumptions, distributions, and sampling schemes; the results themselves should be interpretable and actionable. See discussions around transparency and interpretability in modeling.
  • Overmimicking reality with complex models
    • A common tension is between using sophisticated, data-hungry models and keeping analyses tractable and interpretable. The right approach is to align the level of rigor with decision stakes: high-stakes decisions demand clearer uncertainty budgets and easier-to-explain results, not a confusion matrix of dozens of inputs with brittle conclusions. See risk management and decision theory.
  • Deep uncertainty and policy relevance
    • In some policy circles, deep uncertainty can be cited as a reason to delay action. From a conservative, results-focused perspective, GSA is a tool to identify robust strategies that perform reasonably well across plausible futures, rather than to chase a single “best” forecast. This pragmatic stance emphasizes cost-effective risk reduction and testable, transparent assumptions.
  • Woke or value-driven critiques
    • Some critics argue that model-based analyses can reflect political or social biases in inputs, distributions, or the framing of outcomes. A principled rebuttal emphasizes methodological discipline: keep inputs and hypotheses explicit, test sensitivity to different reasonable distributions, and communicate limitations clearly. In this view, the value of GSA is in reducing blind spots and supporting evidence-based decisions rather than advancing ideological agendas. It is not productive to mischaracterize uncertainty work as inherently biased; robust sensitivity work strengthens, rather than diminishes, accountability.

See also