Cited by 244Probabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceMathematical Approximation and Integration

Shapley Effects for Global Sensitivity Analysis: Theory and Computation

Song, Eunhye, Nelson, Barry L., Staum, Jeremy·2016·SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification

Abstract

Variance-based global sensitivity analysis decomposes the variance of the output of a computer model, resulting from uncertainty about the model's inputs, into variance components associated with each input's contribution. The two most common variance-based sensitivity measures, the first-order effects and the total effects, may fail to sum to the total variance. They are often used together in sensitivity analysis, because neither of them adequately deals with interactions in the way the inputs affect the output. Therefore Owen proposed an alternative sensitivity measure, based on the concept of the Shapley value in game theory, and showed it always sums to the correct total variance if inputs are independent. We analyze Owen's measure, which we call the Shapley effect, in the case of dependent inputs. We show empirically how the first-order and total effects, even when used together, may fail to appropriately measure how sensitive the output is to uncertainty in the inputs when there is probabilistic dependence or structural interaction among the inputs. Because they involve all subsets of the inputs, Shapley effects could be expensive to compute if the number of inputs is large. We propose a Monte Carlo algorithm that makes accurate approximation of Shapley effects computationally affordable, and we discuss efficient allocation of the computation budget in this algorithm.

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 · 10.1137/15m1048070

Cites

Statistics

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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 24 · Cited by 244

Authors
Song, E., Nelson, B. L., & Staum, J.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification
Published
2016-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
1060-1083
ISSN
2166-2525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2518039540
Cited by
244
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CMMI-1068473)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Numerical Analysis › Mathematical Approximation and Integration
Keywords
global sensitivity analysis, Shapley value, first-order effects, total effect, Monte Carlo approximation

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