Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/114686
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorsaltelli, andrea-
dc.contributor.authorAleksankina, Ksenia-
dc.contributor.authorBecker, William-
dc.contributor.authorFennell, Pamela-
dc.contributor.authorFerretti, Federico-
dc.contributor.authorHolst, Niels-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Sushan-
dc.contributor.authorWu, Qiongli-
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Bergen-
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Edinburgh-
dc.contributor.otherUniversity College London (UCL)-
dc.contributor.otherAarhus University-
dc.contributor.otherTechnische Universität Darmstadt-
dc.contributor.otherWuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics-
dc.contributor.otherUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)-
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-25T10:13:34Z-
dc.date.available2020-05-25T10:13:34Z-
dc.date.issued2019-04-
dc.identifier.citationSaltelli, A., Aleksankina, K., Becker, W., Fennell, P., Ferretti, F., Holst, N., Li, S. & Wu, Q. (2019). Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: a systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environmental Modelling & Software, 114(), 29-39. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012-
dc.identifier.issn1364-8152MIAR
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10609/114686-
dc.description.abstractSensitivity analysis provides information on the relative importance of model input parameters and assumptions. It is distinct from uncertainty analysis, which addresses the question 'How uncertain is the prediction?' Uncertainty analysis needs to map what a model does when selected input assumptions and parameters are left free to vary over their range of existence, and this is equally true of a sensitivity analysis. Despite this, many uncertainty and sensitivity analyses still explore the input space moving along one-dimensional corridors leaving space of the input factors mostly unexplored. Our extensive systematic literature review shows that many highly cited papers (42% in the present analysis) fail the elementary requirement to properly explore the space of the input factors. The results, while discipline-dependent, point to a worrying lack of standards and recognized good practices. We end by exploring possible reasons for this problem, and suggest some guidelines for proper use of the methods.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherEnvironmental Modelling & Software-
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental Modelling & Software, 2019, 114()-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012-
dc.rightsCC BY-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/-
dc.subjectsensitivity analysisen
dc.subjectmethodsen
dc.subjectgood practicesen
dc.subjectanàlisi de sensibilitatca
dc.subjectanálisis de sensibilidades
dc.subjectmétodoses
dc.subjectmètodesca
dc.subjectbones pràctiquesca
dc.subjectbuenas prácticases
dc.subject.lcshMathematical modelsen
dc.titleWhy so many published sensitivity analyses are false: a systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.subject.lemacModels matemàticsca
dc.subject.lcshesModelos matemáticoses
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012-
dc.gir.idAR/0000006827-
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
Appears in Collections:Articles cientÍfics
Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Saltelli_EMS_Why_so_many.pdf1,53 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open