Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review

Antoniadis, Anestis, Lambert-Lacroix, Sophie, Poggi, Jean-Michel·2021·Reliability Engineering & System Safety

Abstract

Abstract The understanding of many physical and engineering problems involves running complex computational models. Such models take as input a high number of numerical and physical explanatory variables. The information on these underlying input parameters is often limited or uncertain. It is therefore important, based on the relationships between the input variables and the output, to identify and prioritize the most influential inputs. One may use global sensitivity analysis (GSA) methods which aim at ranking input random variables according to their importance in the output uncertainty, or even quantify the global influence of a particular input on the output. Using sensitivity metrics to ignore less important parameters is a form of dimension reduction in the model’s input parameter space. This suggests the use of meta-modeling as a quantitative approach for nonparametric GSA, where the original input/output relation is first approximated using various statistical regression techniques. Subsequently, the main goal of our work is to provide a comprehensive review paper in the domain of sensitivity analysis focusing on some interesting connections between random forests and GSA. The idea is to use a random forests methodology as an efficient non-parametric approach for building meta-models that allow an efficient sensitivity analysis. Apart its easy applicability to regression problems, the random forests approach presents further strong advantages by its ability to implicitly deal with correlation and high dimensional data, to handle interactions between variables and to identify informative inputs using a permutation based RF variable importance index which is easy and fast to compute. We further review an adequate set of tools for quantifying variable importance which are then exploited to reduce the model’s dimension enabling otherwise infeasible sensibility analysis studies. Numerical results from several simulations and a data exploration on a real dataset are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of such an approach.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Antoniadis, A., Lambert-Lacroix, S., & Poggi, J.-M.
Venue
Reliability Engineering & System Safety
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
206
Pages
107312
ISSN
0951-8320 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3103897629
Cited by
363
References
72
FWCI
18.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312
The paper
Antoniadis, A., Lambert-Lacroix, S., & Poggi, J.-M. (2021). Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312

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.