Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 135–154 | Cite as

A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models

  • D. M. Hamby

Abstract

Mathematical models are utilized to approximate various highly complex engineering, physical, environmental, social, and economic phenomena. Model parameters exerting the most influence on model results are identified through a ‘sensitivity analysis’. A comprehensive review is presented of more than a dozen sensitivity analysis methods. This review is intended for those not intimately familiar with statistics or the techniques utilized for sensitivity analysis of computer models. The most fundamental of sensitivity techniques utilizes partial differentiation whereas the simplest approach requires varying parameter values one-at-a-time. Correlation analysis is used to determine relationships between independent and dependent variables. Regression analysis provides the most comprehensive sensitivity measure and is commonly utilized to build response surfaces that approximate complex models.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atherton, R.W., Schainker, R.B., and Ducot, E.R.: 1975, ‘On the Statistical Sensitivity Analysis of Models for Chemical Kinetics’, AIChE. 21, 441–448.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, L.R., and Hamby, D.M.: 1991, ‘Relative Sensitivities of Existing and Novel Model Parameters in Atmospheric Tritium Dose Estimates’, Rad. Prot. Dosimetry. 37, 253–260.Google Scholar
  3. Bellman, R., and Astrom, K.J.: 1970, ‘On Structural Identifiability’, Math. Biosci. 7, 329–339.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J.S.: 1978. Statistics for Experimenters: an Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. John Wiley & Sons. New York.Google Scholar
  5. Breshears, D.D.: 1987, Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of simulated concentrations of radionuclides in milk. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, MS Thesis, pp. 1–69.Google Scholar
  6. Cacuci, D.G., Weber, C.F., Oblow, E.M., and Marable, J.H.: 1980. ‘Sensitivity Theory for General systems of Nonlinear Equations’, Nuc. Sci. and Eng. 75, 88–110.Google Scholar
  7. Cacuci, D.G., Maudlin, P.J., and Parks, C.V.: 1983, ‘Adjoint Sensitivity Analysis of Extremum-Type Responses in Reactor Safety’, Nuc. Sci. and Eng. 83, 112–135.Google Scholar
  8. Cobelli, C., and Romanin-Jacur, G.: 1976, ‘Controllability, Observability and Structural Identifiability of Multi Input and Multi Output Biological Compartmental Systems’, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 23, 93.Google Scholar
  9. Cobelli, C., and DiStefano, J.J.: 1980, ‘Parameter and Structural Identifiability Concepts and Ambiguities: A critical Review and Analysis’, Amer. J. Physiol. 239, R7-R24.Google Scholar
  10. Conover, W.J.: 1980, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Cox, N.D.: 1977, ‘Comparison of Two Uncertainty Analysis Methods’, Nuc. Sci. and Eng. 64, 258–265.Google Scholar
  12. Crick, M.J., Hill, M.D. and Charles, D.: 1987, ‘The Role of Sensitivity Analysis in Assessing Uncertainty. In: Proceedings of an NEA Workshop on Uncertainty Analysis for Performance Assessments of Radioactive Waste Disposal Systems, Paris, OECD, pp. 1–258.Google Scholar
  13. Cukier, R.I., Fortuin, C.M., Shuler, K.E., Petschek, A.G. and Schaibly, J.H.: 1973, ‘Study of the Sensitivity of Coupled Reaction Systems to Uncertainties in Rate Coefficients. I. Theory J. Chem. Phys. 59, 3873–3878.Google Scholar
  14. Cukier, R.I., Levine, H.B. and Schuler, K.E.: 1978, ‘Nonlinear Sensitivity Analysis of Multiparameter Model Systems’, J. Computational Phys. 26, 1–42.Google Scholar
  15. Cukier, R.I., Schaibly, J.H. and Shuler, K.E.: 1975, ‘Study of the Sensitivity of Coupled Reaction Systems to Uncertainties in Rate Coefficients. III. Analysis of the Approximations’, J. Chem. Phys. 63, 1140–1149.Google Scholar
  16. Cunningham, M.E., Hann, C.R., and Olsen, A.R.: 1980, ‘Uncertainty Analysis and Thermal Stored Energy Calculations in Nuclear Fuel Rods’, Nuc. Technol. 47, 457–467.Google Scholar
  17. Dalrymple, G.J., and Broyd, T.W.: 1987, ‘The Development and Use of Parametric Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic Risk Assessment. IAEA-SR-111/54P’, In: Implications of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (M.C. Cullingford, S.M. Shah, and J.H. Gittus eds.), Elsevier, London, pp. 171–186.Google Scholar
  18. Demiralp, M., and Rabitz, H.: 1981, ‘Chemical Kinetic Functional Sensitivity Analysis: Elementary Sensitivities’, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 3362–3375.Google Scholar
  19. Dickinson R.P., and Gelinas, R.J.: 1976, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of Ordinary Differential Equation Systems — A Direct Method’, J. Computational Phys. 21, 123–143.Google Scholar
  20. Downing, D.J., Gardner, R.H., and Hoffman, F.O.: 1985, ‘An Examination of Response-Surface Methodologies for Uncertainty Analysis in Assessment Models’, Technometrics. 27, 151–163. (See also Letter to the Editor, by R.G. Easterling and a rebuttal, Technometrics 28, 91–93, 1986.)Google Scholar
  21. Dunker, A.M.: 1981, ‘Efficient Calculation of Sensitivity Coefficients for Complex Atmospheric Models’, Atmospheric Environment 15, 1155–1161.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, R.H.: Huff, D.D., O'Neill, R.V., Mankin, J.B., Carney, J. and Jones, J.: 1980, ‘Application of Error Analysis to a Marsh Hydrology Model’, Water Resources Res. 16, 659–664.Google Scholar
  23. Gardner, R.H., O'Neill, R.V., Mankin, J.B. and Carney, J.H.: 1981, ‘A Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis and Error Analysis Based on a Stream Ecosystem Model’, Ecol. Modelling. 12, 173–190.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, M.C.G., Cacuci, D.G., Schlesinger, M.E.: 1982, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of a Radiative-Convective Model by the Adjoint Method’, J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 2038–2050.Google Scholar
  25. Hamby, D.M.: 1993, ‘A Probabilistic Estimation of Atmospheric tritium Dose’, Health Phys. 65, 33–40.Google Scholar
  26. Hamby, D.M. 1995, ‘A Numerical Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Techniques’, scheduled to appear in Health Phys. 68.Google Scholar
  27. Helton, J.C., Garner, J.W., Marietta, M.G., Rechard, R.P., Rudeen, D.K. and Swift, P.N.: 1993. ‘Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Results Obtained in a Preliminary Performance assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Nuc. Sci. and Eng. 114, 286–331.Google Scholar
  28. Helton, J.C., Garner, J.W., McCurley, R.D. and Rudeen, D.K.: 1991, Sensitivity analysis techniques and results for performance assessment at the waste isolation pilot plant. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratory; Report No. SAND90-7103.Google Scholar
  29. Helton, J.C. and Iman, R.L.: 1982, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of a Model for the Environmental Movement of Radionuclides’, Health Phys. 42, 565–584.Google Scholar
  30. Helton, J.C., Iman, R.L. and Brown, J.B.: 1985, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of the Asymptotic Behavior of a Model for the Environmental Movement of Radionuclides, Ecol. Modelling. 28, 243–278.Google Scholar
  31. Helton, J.C., Iman, R.L., Johnson, J.D., and Leigh, C.D.: 1986, ‘Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of a Model for Multicomponent Aerosol Dynamics, Nuc. Technol. 73, 320–342.Google Scholar
  32. Hoffman, F.O. and Gardner, R.H.: 1983, ‘Evaluation of Uncertainties in Environmental Radiological Assessment Models’, in: Till, J.E.; Meyer, H.R. (eds) Radiological Assessments: a Textbook on Environmental Dose Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Report No. NUREG/CR-3332.Google Scholar
  33. Horwedel, J.E., Worley, B.A., Oblow, E.M., Pin, F.G. and Wright, R.Q.: 1988, GRESS version 0.0 user's manual. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Report No. ORNL/TM-10835.Google Scholar
  34. Iman, R.L.: 1987, ‘A Matrix-Based Approach to Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis for Fault Trees’, Risk Analysis. 7, 21–33.Google Scholar
  35. Iman, R.L. and Conover, W.J.: 1979, ‘The Use of the Rank Transform in Regression’, Technometrics. 21, 499–509.Google Scholar
  36. Iman, R.L. and Conover, W.J.: 1980 ‘Small Sample Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for Computer Models, With an Application to Risk Assessment’, Commun. Stats. — Theor. and Meth. A9, 1749–1842.Google Scholar
  37. Iman, R.L. and Conover, W.J.: 1982, Sensitivity-analysis techniques: self-teaching curriculum. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; Report No. NUREG/CR-2350.Google Scholar
  38. Iman, R.L. and Helton, J.C.: 1985, A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratory; Report No. NUREG/CR-3904.Google Scholar
  39. Iman, R.L., and Helton, J.C. 1988, ‘An Investigation of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for Computer Models’, Risk Analysis. 8, 71–90.Google Scholar
  40. Iman, R.L., and Helton, J.C., 1991; ‘The Repeatability of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses for Complex Probabilistic Risk Assessments’, Risk Analysis. 11, 591–606.Google Scholar
  41. Iman, R.L. Helton, J.C. and Campbell, J.E. 1978, Risk methodology for geologic disposal of radioactive waste: sensitivity analysis techniques. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories; Report No. NUREG/CR-0390.Google Scholar
  42. Iman, R.L. Helton, J.C. and Campbell, J.E.: 1981a, ‘An Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Computer Models: Part I — Introduction, Input Variable Selection and Preliminary Assessment’, J. Qual. Technol., 13, 174–183.Google Scholar
  43. Iman, R.L. Helton, J.C. and Campbell, J.E.: 1981b, ‘An Approach to sensitivity Analysis of Computer Models: Part II — Ranking of Input Variables, Response Surface Validation, Distribution Effect and Technique Synopsis’, J. Qual. Technol. 13, 232–240.Google Scholar
  44. Iman, R.L. and Shortencarier, M.J.: 1984, A FORTRAN 77 program and user's guide for the generation of Latin hypercube and random samples for use with computer models. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratory; Report No. NUREG/CR-3624.Google Scholar
  45. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ‘1989, Evaluating the reliability of predictions made using environmental transfer models. Vienna: Safety Series No. 100. Report No. STI/PUB/835; 1–106.Google Scholar
  46. Kim, T.W., Chang, S.H. and Lee, B.H., 1988 ‘Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses in Evaluating Risk of High Level Waste Repository’, Rad. Waste Management and the Nuc. Fuel Cycle. 10, 321–356.Google Scholar
  47. Kleijnen, J.P.C., van Ham, G., and Rotmans, J., 1992, ‘Techniques for Sensitivity Analysis of Simulation Models: A Case Study of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect’, Simulation. 58, 410.Google Scholar
  48. Koda, M., Dogru, A.H., and Seinfeld, J.H.: 1979 ‘Sensitivity Analysis of Partial Differential Equations with Application to Reaction and Diffusion Processes’. J. Computational Phys. 30, 259–282. Koda, M. 1982, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of the Atmospheric Diffusion Equation’, Atmos. Environment, 16, 2595–2601.Google Scholar
  49. Krieger, T.J., Durston, C., and Albright, D.C.: 1977 Statistical Determination of Effective Variables in Sensitivity Analysis’, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc. 28, 515–516.Google Scholar
  50. Liepmann, D., and Stephanopoulos, G., 1985, ‘Development and Global Sensitivity Analysis of a Closed Ecosystem Model,’ Ecol. Modelling. 30, 13–47.Google Scholar
  51. Margulies, T., Lancaster, L., and Kornasiewicz, R.A.: 1991, ‘Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of Environmental Transport Models for Risk Assessment’, In: Engineering Applications of Risk Analysis, Atlanta, GA: ASME, 11–19.Google Scholar
  52. McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J. and Conover, W.J.: 1979, ‘A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, Technometrics. 21, 239–245.Google Scholar
  53. Morisawa, S., and Inoue, Y. 1974, ‘On the Selection of a Ground Disposal Site by Sensitivity Analysis’, Health Phys. 26, 251–261.Google Scholar
  54. Oblow, E.M.: 1978, ‘Sensitivity Theory for General Nonlinear Algebraic Equations with Constraints’, Nuc. Sci. and Eng. 65, 187–191.Google Scholar
  55. O'Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H., and Mankin, J.B. 1980, ‘Analysis of Parameter Error in a Nonlinear Model’, Ecol. Modelling. 8, 297–311.Google Scholar
  56. Otis, M.D.: 1983, ‘Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of the PATHWAY Radionuclide Transport Model’, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, PhD Dissertation, pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
  57. Reed, K.L., Rose, K.A., and Whitmore, R.C. 1984, ‘Latin Hypercube Analysis of Parameter Sensitivity in a Large Model of Outdoor Recreation Demand, Ecol. Modelling. 24, 159–169.Google Scholar
  58. Rose, K.A.: 1983, ‘A Simulation Comparison and Evaluation of Parameter Sensitivity Methods Applicable to Large Models, in: Analysis of Ecological Systems: State-of-the-art in Ecological Modelling (Lauenroth, G.V. Skogerboe, M. Flug eds.), Proceedings of a meeting at Colorado State Universtiy, May 24–28, 1982 Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Schaibly, J.H., and Shuler, K.E. 1973, ‘Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. II. Applications’, J. Chem. Phys. 59, 3879–3888.Google Scholar
  60. Stein, M.: 1987, ‘Large Sample Properties of Simulations Using Latin Hypercube Sampling’, Technometrics. 29, 143–151.Google Scholar
  61. Summers, J.K., and McKellar, H.N.: 1981, ‘A sensitivity analysis of an Ecosystem Model of Estuarine Carbon Flow,’ Ecol. Modelling. 13; 283–301.Google Scholar
  62. Whicker, F.W., and Kirchner, T.B.: 1987, ‘PATHWAY: A dynamic food-chain model to predict radionuclide ingestion after fallout deposition,’ Health Phys. 52; 717–737.Google Scholar
  63. Whicker, F.W., Kirchner, T.B., Breshears, D.D., and Otis, M.D. 1990, ‘Estimation of radionuclide ingestion: the “Pathway” model’, Health Phys. 59; 645–657.Google Scholar
  64. Worley, B.A., and Horwedel, J.E.: 1986. A waste package performance assessment code with automated sensitivity-calculation capability. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Report No. ORNL/TM-9976.Google Scholar
  65. Yu, C., Cheng, J-J., and Zielen, A-J.: 1991, ‘Sensitivity Analysis of the RESRAD, a Dose Assessment Code,’ Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc. 64; 73–74.Google Scholar
  66. Zirnmerman, D.A., Hanson, R.T., and Davis, P.A.: 1991, A comparison of parameter estimation and sensitivity analysis techniques and their impaet on the uneertainty in ground water flow model predictions. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratory; Report No. NUREG/CR-5522.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Hamby
    • 1
  1. 1.Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Technology Center AikenUSA
  2. 2.2505 School of Public Health-IUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations