TY - GEN
T1 - A comparison of global sensitivity techniques and sampling method
AU - Sun, X.
AU - Roberts, S.
AU - Croke, B.
AU - Jakeman, A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Proceedings - 22nd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, MODSIM 2017. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Inspired by Tarantola et al. (2012), we extend their analysis to include the Latin hypercube and Random sampling methods. In their paper, they compared Sobol’ quasi-Monte Carlo and Latin supercube sampling methods by using a V-function and variance-based sensitivity analysis. In our case we compare the convergence rate and average error between Sobol’, Latin hypercube, and Random sampling methods from the Chaospy library, keeping everything else the same as in their paper. We added the Random sampling method to test if the other two sampling methods are indeed superior. The results from our code confirm the results of their paper, where Sobol’ has better performance than Latin hypercube sampling in most cases, whilst they both have higher efficiency than is achieved with Random sampling. In addition we compared the explicit forms of ‘Jansen 1999’ total effects estimator used in Tarantola et al. (2012) with the ‘Sobol’ 2007’ estimator, again keeping sample sizes and the test function the same. Results confirm that the ‘Jansen 1999’ estimator is more efficient than ‘Sobol’ 2007’. The presentation will also include the Morris sampling method and other test functions to further test efficiency among all the sampling methods on different cases.
AB - Inspired by Tarantola et al. (2012), we extend their analysis to include the Latin hypercube and Random sampling methods. In their paper, they compared Sobol’ quasi-Monte Carlo and Latin supercube sampling methods by using a V-function and variance-based sensitivity analysis. In our case we compare the convergence rate and average error between Sobol’, Latin hypercube, and Random sampling methods from the Chaospy library, keeping everything else the same as in their paper. We added the Random sampling method to test if the other two sampling methods are indeed superior. The results from our code confirm the results of their paper, where Sobol’ has better performance than Latin hypercube sampling in most cases, whilst they both have higher efficiency than is achieved with Random sampling. In addition we compared the explicit forms of ‘Jansen 1999’ total effects estimator used in Tarantola et al. (2012) with the ‘Sobol’ 2007’ estimator, again keeping sample sizes and the test function the same. Results confirm that the ‘Jansen 1999’ estimator is more efficient than ‘Sobol’ 2007’. The presentation will also include the Morris sampling method and other test functions to further test efficiency among all the sampling methods on different cases.
KW - Global sensitivity analysis
KW - Latin hypercube
KW - Random sampling
KW - Sobol’
KW - Total effects estimator
KW - Variance based
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85080905324&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.36334/modsim.2017.a1.sun
DO - 10.36334/modsim.2017.a1.sun
M3 - Conference contribution
SN - 9780987214379
T3 - Proceedings - 22nd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, MODSIM 2017
SP - 57
EP - 63
BT - Proceedings - 22nd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, MODSIM 2017
A2 - Syme, Geoff
A2 - MacDonald, Darla Hatton
A2 - Fulton, Beth
A2 - Piantadosi, Julia
PB - Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc (MSSANZ)
CY - Australia
T2 - 22nd International Congress on Modelling and Simulation: Managing Cumulative Risks through Model-Based Processes, MODSIM 2017 - Held jointly with the 25th National Conference of the Australian Society for Operations Research and the DST Group led Defence Operations Research Symposium, DORS 2017
Y2 - 3 December 2017 through 8 December 2017
ER -