What do we mean by sensitivity analysis? The need for comprehensive characterization of “global” sensitivity in <scp>E</scp>arth and <scp>E</scp>nvironmental systems models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sensitivity analysis is an essential paradigm in Earth and Environmental Systems modeling. However, the term “sensitivity” has a clear definition, based in partial derivatives, only when specified locally around a particular point (e.g., optimal solution) in the problem space. Accordingly, no unique definition exists for “global sensitivity” across the problem space, when considering one or more model responses to different factors such as model parameters or forcings. A variety of approaches have been proposed for global sensitivity analysis, based on different philosophies and theories, and each of these formally characterizes a different “intuitive” understanding of sensitivity. These approaches focus on different properties of the model response at a fundamental level and may therefore lead to different (even conflicting) conclusions about the underlying sensitivities. Here we revisit the theoretical basis for sensitivity analysis, summarize and critically evaluate existing approaches in the literature, and demonstrate their flaws and shortcomings through conceptual examples. We also demonstrate the difficulty involved in interpreting “global” interaction effects, which may undermine the value of existing interpretive approaches. With this background, we identify several important properties of response surfaces that are associated with the understanding and interpretation of sensitivities in the context of Earth and Environmental System models. Finally, we highlight the need for a new, comprehensive framework for sensitivity analysis that effectively characterizes all of the important sensitivity‐related properties of model response surfaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".