The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global Sensitivity Analysis of environmental models: Convergence and validation
Open accessAbstract
We address two critical choices in Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA): the choice of the sample size and of the threshold for the identification of insensitive input factors. Guidance to assist users with those two choices is still insufficient. We aim at filling this gap. Firstly, we define criteria to quantify the convergence of sensitivity indices, of ranking and of screening, based on a bootstrap approach. Secondly, we investigate the screening threshold with a quantitative validation procedure for screening results. We apply the proposed methodologies to three hydrological models with varying complexity utilizing three widely-used GSA methods (RSA, Morris, Sobol’). We demonstrate that convergence of screening and ranking can be reached before sensitivity estimates stabilize. Convergence dynamics appear to be case-dependent, which suggests that “fit-for-all” rules for sample sizes should not be used. Other modellers can easily adopt our criteria and procedures for a wide range of GSA methods and cases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 · Cited by 23,674
System Identification: Theory for the User
Lennart Ljung, A. (1987) · Cited by 17,690
System identification—Theory for the user
Sinha, N. K. (1989) · Automatica · doi:10.1016/0005-1098(89)90019-8 · Cited by 9,184
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x · Cited by 7,945
Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments
Morris, M. D. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484804 · Cited by 4,943
Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. T. (2011) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · Cited by 3,980
Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology
Singh, V. P. (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,273
Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices
Saltelli, A. (2002) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(02)00280-1 · Cited by 2,228
Cited by
Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis
Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., & Kim, S. (2017) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006 · Cited by 1,456
Metadata
- Authors
- Sarrazin, F., Pianosi, F., & Wagener, T.
- Venue
- Environmental Modelling & Software
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 79
- Pages
- 135-152
- ISSN
- 1364-8152 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2341416175
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 30.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global Sensitivity Analysis of environmental models: Convergence and validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.005
- The paper
- Sarrazin, F., Pianosi, F., & Wagener, T. (2016). Global Sensitivity Analysis of environmental models: Convergence and validation. Environmental Modelling & Software. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.