Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 105 references

High-dimensional reliability-oriented Shapley effect estimation with Normalizing Flows

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Target Shapley effects for high-dimensional correlated inputs can be estimated from one sample of failure points by rewriting closed Sobol indices as density ratios and learning those densities with normalizing flows.

desk verdict Solid methods paper that removes a real dimensionality barrier for reliability-oriented Shapley effects; the NF accuracy caveat is real but already shown and does not sink the contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.26826 v2 pith:O4M3J2CT submitted 2026-06-25 stat.ME

Lucas Monteiro , Jérôme Morio , Julien Demange-Chryst , François Bachoc This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62G0762P3065C0590B25
keywords targetShapleyeffectsreliability-orientedsensitivityanalysisnormalizingflowsclosedSobolindiceshigh-dimensionaldensityestimationfailuresamplesuncertaintyquantification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

When a black-box model can fail, engineers need to know which uncertain inputs drive the failure. Target Shapley effects answer that question even when the inputs are correlated, but existing estimators break down above roughly ten dimensions or demand many extra model runs. This paper shows that the closed target Sobol indices that underlie the Shapley effects can be rewritten as a simple function of the failure probability and an expectation of a density ratio under the conditional distribution of the inputs given failure. Those high-dimensional conditional densities are then estimated by normalizing flows trained on a single existing sample of failure points. The same sample also supplies a resampling-based error bar. The result is a complete estimation-plus-uncertainty pipeline that re-uses the rare-event sample already collected for reliability analysis and therefore requires no further calls to the expensive model.

What carries the argument

The density-ratio identity T-S^c_u = (p_t/(1-p_t))(E_{X_u|F_t}[f_{X_u|F_t}(X_u)/f_{X_u}(X_u)]-1), estimated by splitting the failure sample between a normalizing-flow density estimator and a Monte-Carlo average of the ratio, then aggregated via ApproShapley-style permutation sampling.

What would settle it

On a known high-dimensional Gaussian-linear model, replace the normalizing-flow density estimator by a deliberately under-parameterized architecture (or by a deliberately misspecified base measure) and check whether the recovered Shapley vector systematically deviates from the closed-form reference values while the reported error bars fail to cover them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single N-sample of failure points, together with an estimate of the failure probability, is sufficient to recover the full vector of target Shapley effects in dimensions greater than ten: rewrite every closed target Sobol index as (p_t/(1-p_t)) times (E[f_{X_u|F_t}/f_{X_u}]-1), estimate the conditional densities with normalizing flows, aggregate the indices by Monte-Carlo over permutations, and quantify the three sources of error by resampling that same failure sample.

Load-bearing premise

A normalizing-flow architecture trained on roughly half the failure points produces density estimates accurate enough that every required ratio expectation yields a usable closed Sobol index, even though the paper itself notes the lack of consistency guarantees and shows that under-powered flows can converge to wrong values.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme to estimate reliability-oriented (target) Shapley effects for models with d ≳ 10 correlated inputs from a single N-sample of failing points obtained in a prior reliability analysis. It rewrites the closed target Sobol indices as T-S^c_u = (p_t/(1-p_t))(E_{X_u|F_t}[f_{X_u|F_t}(X_u)/f_{X_u}(X_u)]-1) (Eq. 13), estimates the (possibly high-dimensional) conditional densities with Normalizing Flows (NICE architecture), aggregates the indices via permutation sampling (ApproShapley), and quantifies estimation error from the same failing sample via nested resampling and a Gaussian-mixture approximation (Algorithms 1–4). The approach is illustrated on a 15-dimensional Gaussian-linear model with known closed-form targets and a 10-dimensional fire-spread model, with comparisons to KDE and GMM density estimators.

Significance. If the numerical performance generalizes, the method fills a genuine gap: existing target-Shapley estimators (MC or importance-sampling nearest-neighbor) become unreliable beyond roughly 8–9 dimensions, while industrial reliability models routinely exceed that size. The algebraic rewriting is clean and proved (Appendix A), the single-sample error procedure is a practical contribution that avoids extra model evaluations, and the accompanying code repository supports reproducibility. The work therefore has clear applied value for ROSA, even though it remains an empirical density-estimation pipeline rather than a fully analyzed estimator.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2–4.3, Fig. 1] §4.2–4.3 and Fig. 1(c): the central claim that NFs yield usable closed indices for every required u rests on an unproved premise. The paper itself states that consistency guarantees are lacking and shows that an under-powered architecture (K=5 layers, N=20 000) converges to a systematically wrong value for a high-order index while a richer architecture recovers the truth. Because ApproShapley aggregates many such high-order terms, a systematic density bias can shift the final Shapley vector; the manuscript needs either a more systematic study of architecture adequacy versus |u| or an adaptive selection rule before the high-d claim can be considered established.
  2. [§5, Algorithms 2–4] §5, Algorithms 2–4 and Fig. 2: the proposed error quantification re-uses the same finite failing sample and the same fixed NF architecture. Consequently it cannot detect model-misspecification bias of the flow. The comparison with 60 fully independent repetitions already indicates that the Gaussian-mixture intervals tend to understate the true variability; this limitation should be stated more prominently and, if possible, mitigated (e.g., by architecture perturbation or hold-out density diagnostics).
  3. [§6, Appendix D] §6 and Appendix D: the numerical evidence is limited to two examples. The Gaussian-linear case is favorable (conditional densities remain close to Gaussian), while the fire-spread case has only d=10. Appendix D further shows that good low-order pair-plots do not guarantee accurate high-order marginals—the very densities needed for |u| near d. Additional experiments with non-Gaussian failure regions and d>15, or quantitative diagnostics of high-order marginal fidelity, are required to support the “high-dimensional” claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C] The early-stopping criterion (Appendix C) is described only qualitatively; the precise patience and validation-loss threshold used for all reported runs should be stated so that the experiments are fully reproducible.
  2. [§4.3] Notation for the split proportion α is introduced in Algorithm 1 but never justified beyond the default 1/2; a short sensitivity check would be helpful.
  3. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 caption and surrounding text mix “theoretical Sobol values” with “NF+MC estimates” without clearly indicating that both share the same permutation sample; a clarifying sentence would avoid confusion.
  4. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “sensivity” for “sensitivity”, occasional missing spaces around operators); a careful proof-reading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the closed-index rewriting is an identity derived from Bayes and change-of-measure, NF density estimates are trained and then evaluated against independent closed-form or large-budget references, and self-citations only supply the prior low-d ROSA-Shapley setting.

full rationale

The central derivation chain begins with the algebraic identity (11)–(13) that rewrites every closed target Sobol index T-S^c_u as a Monte-Carlo expectation of a density ratio under the failure-conditional law; the short proof in Appendix A uses only the definition of conditional probability, Bayes’ rule and the fact that 1_{F_t} is Bernoulli, none of which presuppose the numerical value of the index. The subsequent estimation steps (Algorithm 1) replace the unknown conditional density by a normalizing-flow approximant trained on a split of the given failure sample and evaluate the ratio on the held-out half; the resulting numbers are compared, in Section 6, to reference values obtained either from closed-form Gaussian formulae or from a double-Monte-Carlo estimator that uses a far larger independent budget. Those references are therefore external to the NF fit. The permutation aggregation (ApproShapley) and the resampling error procedure (Algorithms 2–4) are likewise standard Monte-Carlo devices applied to the already-computed indices; they do not redefine the target quantities. Self-citations to earlier ROSA-Shapley papers supply only the problem formulation and the low-dimensional baselines that the present work improves upon; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems that force the NF architecture or the rewriting. Consequently the claimed high-dimensional estimator does not reduce by construction to its own inputs, and the circularity score remains at the minor-self-citation level.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard measure-theoretic identities for conditional densities and Shapley values, the change-of-variables formula for diffeomorphisms, and the empirical premise that a sufficiently flexible NF trained on a few thousand failure points approximates the required high-dimensional conditionals well enough for the Monte-Carlo ratios to be useful. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual neural-architecture and resampling hyperparameters.

free parameters (3)
  • NF architecture (K layers, NICE vs RealNVP, neurons, early-stopping patience)
    Chosen by hand; K=5 vs K=10 and early stopping materially affect bias/variance of high-order Sobol indices (Fig. 1, Appendix C).
  • sample split proportion α
    Fixed at 1/2; controls trade-off between density estimation and Monte-Carlo evaluation of the ratio expectation.
  • number of permutations M and resampling loops J,L,P
    Set to M=300, J=5, L=5, P=40; directly determine the width of the reported Gaussian-mixture uncertainty bands.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Change-of-variables formula for C1 diffeomorphisms yields an exact density for any invertible transport of a base Gaussian (Eq. 14–15).
    Invoked throughout §4.2 to justify that an NF can represent f_{X_u|F_t}.
  • standard math Closed target Sobol indices admit the density-ratio representation T-S^c_u = (p_t/(1-p_t))(E[f_{X_u|F_t}/f_{X_u}]-1) (Eq. 13).
    Proved in Appendix A from Bayes and the Bernoulli variance of the failure indicator; used as the estimation target.
  • domain assumption A finite sample of failure points drawn from f_{X|F_t} is already available from a prior reliability analysis, and f_X (hence its marginals) is known.
    Stated in §2.2 and §4; without it the whole pipeline cannot start.
  • ad hoc to paper NICE (or similar) flows with a modest number of layers are flexible enough to approximate the conditional densities that arise in the failure domain of the models considered.
    No universal approximation theorem is invoked for the finite-sample, finite-architecture regime actually used; performance is demonstrated only empirically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-dimensional reliability-oriented Shapley effect estimation with Normalizing Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4M3J2CT

@misc{pith2026260626826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-dimensional reliability-oriented Shapley effect estimation with Normalizing Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4M3J2CT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.26826}
}
read the original abstract

This article presents a new estimation scheme for the reliability-oriented Shapley effects when there is a large number of correlated input variables in the model, using a unique sample of failure points. To do so, we first propose a new writing of the reliability-oriented closed Sobol indices involving the marginal densities conditionally to the failure, which may be high-dimensional. Then, we propose to estimate these densities with the available failing samples using Normalizing Flows, powerful tools from generative modeling that enable the estimation of complex high-dimensional densities. In addition, we provide an error estimation procedure relying on the same sample of failing points, which constitutes a new contribution for the estimation of target Shapley effects. Finally, we illustrate our methodology on numerical use-cases, discuss insightful features of our approach and provide prospects for the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The boxplots correspond the application of 50 repetitions of Algorithm 1 for three closed target Sobol indices. For each index, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The boxplots correspond the application of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaussian Linear case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects in three settings : with theoretical values of Sobol indices, with estimations of Sobol indices with NF+MC, with 60 independent repetitions of the estimation scheme in Section 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gaussian Linear case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects in three settings : with theoretical values of Sobol indices, with estimations of Sobol indices with NF+MC, with 60 independent repetitions of the estimation scheme in Section 4. be…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gaussian Linear case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects with Normalizing Flows (+ our error estimation), with KDE (+ our error estimation), and with GMM (+ our error estimation). n° Input variable Symbol (unit) Distribution 1 Fuel depth …
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gaussian Linear case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects with Normalizing Flows (+ our error estimation), with KDE (+ our error estimation), and with GMM (+ our error estimation). approaches and to discriminate the best one. However, it d…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fire-spread case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects with Normalizing Flows (+ our error estimation), with KDE (+ our error estimation), and with GMM (+ our error estimation). 7. Conclusion In this article, we tackled the challenge of est…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fire-spread case results. Reference values vs. estimation of target Shapley effects with Normalizing Flows (+ our error estimation), with KDE (+ our error estimation), and with GMM (+ our error estimation). reliability analysis. This is a major contribution for the pra…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Estimating wildfire behavior and effects

    Albini, F.A., 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-30. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 92 p

    1976

  2. [2]

    Probabilistic failure analysis by importance sampling Markov chain simulation

    Au., S.K., 2004. Probabilistic failure analysis by importance sampling Markov chain simulation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 303 – 311

    2004

  3. [3]

    Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation

    Au, S.K., Beck, J.L., 2001. Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 16, 263–277

    2001

  4. [4]

    Sensitivity analysis to unobserved confounding with copula-based normalizing flows

    Balgi, S., Braun, M., Peña, J.M., Daoud, A., 2025. Sensitivity analysis to unobserved confounding with copula-based normalizing flows. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 187, 109531

    2025

  5. [5]

    An approximation theory framework for measure-transport sampling algorithms

    Baptista, R., Hosseini, B., Kovachki, N., Marzouk, Y., Sagiv, A., 2025. An approximation theory framework for measure-transport sampling algorithms. Mathematics of Computation 94, 1863–1909

    2025

  6. [6]

    SHAFF: Fast and consistent SHApley eFfect estimates via random Forests, in: Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR

    Bénard, C., Biau, G., Da Veiga, S., Scornet, E., 2022. SHAFF: Fast and consistent SHApley eFfect estimates via random Forests, in: Proceedings of The 25th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR. pp. 5563–5582. 25

    2022

  7. [7]

    Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with dependent inputs: bootstrap and kriging-based algorithms

    Benoumechiara, N., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, K., 2019. Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with dependent inputs: bootstrap and kriging-based algorithms. ESAIM: ProcS 65, 266–293

    2019

  8. [8]

    Triangular transformations of measures

    Bogachev, V.I., Kolesnikov, A.V., Medvedev, K.V., 2005. Triangular transformations of measures. Sbornik: Mathematics 196, 309–335

    2005

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    A new uncertainty importance measure

    Borgonovo, E., 2007. A new uncertainty importance measure. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92, 771–784

    2007

  2. [10]

    ImportancesamplingforSobol’indicesestimation

    Boucharif, H., Morio, J., Rochet, P., 2026. ImportancesamplingforSobol’indicesestimation. Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05958

    2026

  3. [11]

    Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals

    Breitung, K., 1984. Asymptotic approximations for multinormal integrals. Journal of Engineering Mechanics-asce 110, 357–366

    1984

  4. [12]

    Block-diagonal covariance estimation and application to the Shapley effects in sensitivity analysis

    Broto, B., Bachoc, F., Clouvel, L., Martinez, J.M., 2022. Block-diagonal covariance estimation and application to the Shapley effects in sensitivity analysis. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quan- tification 10, 379–403

    2022

  5. [13]

    Variance reduction for estimation of Shapley effects and adaptation to unknown input distribution

    Broto, B., Bachoc, F., Depecker, M., 2020. Variance reduction for estimation of Shapley effects and adaptation to unknown input distribution. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 8, 693–716

    2020

  6. [14]

    Gaussian linear approximation for the estimation of the Shapley effects

    Broto, B., Bachoc, F., Depecker, M., Martinez, J.M., 2021. Gaussian linear approximation for the estimation of the Shapley effects. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 9, 1132–1151

    2021

  7. [15]

    Introduction to Rare Event Simulation

    Bucklew, J., 2010. Introduction to Rare Event Simulation. 1st ed., Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2010

  8. [16]

    PolynomialcalculationoftheShapleyvaluebasedonsampling

    Castro, J., Gómez, D., Tejada, J., 2009. PolynomialcalculationoftheShapleyvaluebasedonsampling. Computers & Operations Research 36, 1726–1730

    2009

  9. [17]

    Modelling moisture damping for fire spread in a mixture of live and dead fuels

    Catchpole, E.A., Catchpole, W.R., 1991. Modelling moisture damping for fire spread in a mixture of live and dead fuels. International Journal of Wildland Fire 1, 101–106

    1991

  10. [18]

    Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis under probabilistic model uncertainty – Application to aerospace systems

    Chabridon, V., 2018. Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis under probabilistic model uncertainty – Application to aerospace systems. Ph.D. thesis. Université Clermont Auvergne

    2018

  11. [19]

    Generalized Sobol sensitivity indices for dependent variables: numerical methods

    Chastaing, G., Gamboa, F., Prieur, C., 2015. Generalized Sobol sensitivity indices for dependent variables: numerical methods. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 85, 1306–1333

    2015

  12. [20]

    Gaussianization, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, MIT Press

    Chen, S., Gopinath, R., 2000. Gaussianization, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, MIT Press. p. 423–429

    2000

  13. [21]

    Sensitivity analysis of a fire spread model in chaparral landscape

    Clark, R., Hope, A., Tarantola, S., Gatelli, D., Dennison, P., Moritz, M., 2008. Sensitivity analysis of a fire spread model in chaparral landscape. Fire Ecology 4, 1–13

    2008

  14. [22]

    Comparison of affine and rational quadratic spline coupling and autoregressive flows through robust statistical tests

    Coccaro, A., Letizia, M., Reyes-González, H., Torre, R., 2024. Comparison of affine and rational quadratic spline coupling and autoregressive flows through robust statistical tests. Symmetry 16, 942

    2024

  15. [23]

    Adaptive multilevel splitting for rare event analysis

    Cérou, F., Guyader, A., 2007. Adaptive multilevel splitting for rare event analysis. Stochastic Analysis and Applications 25, 417–443

    2007

  16. [24]

    Sequential Monte Carlo for rare event estimation

    Cérou, F., del Moral, P., Furon, T., Guyader, A., 2012. Sequential Monte Carlo for rare event estimation. Statistics and Computing 22, 795–808

    2012

  17. [25]

    Global sensitivity analysis with dependence measures

    Da Veiga, S., 2015. Global sensitivity analysis with dependence measures. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 85, 1283–1305. 26

    2015

  18. [26]

    Efficient estimation of Sobol’ indices of any order from a single input/output sample

    Da Veiga, S., Gamboa, F., Lagnoux, A., Klein, T., Prieur, C., 2024. Efficient estimation of Sobol’ indices of any order from a single input/output sample. Preprint:https://hal.science/ hal-04052837

    2024

  19. [27]

    REIN: Reliability estimation via importance sampling with nor- malizing flows

    Dasgupta, A., Johnson, E.A., 2024. REIN: Reliability estimation via importance sampling with nor- malizing flows. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 242, 109729

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rare event modeling with self-regularized normalizing flows: what can we learn from a single failure? Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.21110

    Dawson, C., Tran, V., Li, M.Z., Fan, C., 2025. Rare event modeling with self-regularized normalizing flows: what can we learn from a single failure? Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.21110

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Nouvelles méthodes d’estimation par échantillonnage préférentiel pour l’analyse de sensibilité et l’estimation d’évènements rares

    Demange-Chryst, J., 2024. Nouvelles méthodes d’estimation par échantillonnage préférentiel pour l’analyse de sensibilité et l’estimation d’évènements rares. Ph.D. thesis. Université de Toulouse

    2024

  22. [30]

    Shapley effect estimation in reliability-oriented sen- sitivity analysis with correlated inputs by importance sampling

    Demange-Chryst, J., Bachoc, F., Morio, J., 2023. Shapley effect estimation in reliability-oriented sen- sitivity analysis with correlated inputs by importance sampling. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification 13, 1–37

    2023

  23. [31]

    Variational autoencoder with weighted samples for high-dimensional non-parametric adaptive importance sampling

    Demange-Chryst, J., Bachoc, F., Morio, J., Krauth, T., 2024. Variational autoencoder with weighted samples for high-dimensional non-parametric adaptive importance sampling. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Mesures de sensibilité de Borgonovo : estimation des indices d’ordre un et supérieur, et application à l’analyse de fiabilité

    Derennes, P., 2019. Mesures de sensibilité de Borgonovo : estimation des indices d’ordre un et supérieur, et application à l’analyse de fiabilité. Ph.D. thesis. Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier (UT3 Paul Sabatier)

    2019

  25. [33]

    An introduction to variational autoencoders

    Diederik, P.K., Max, W., 2019. An introduction to variational autoencoders. Foundations and Trends®in Machine Learning 12, 307–392

    2019

  26. [34]

    NICE: Non-linear independent components estimation, in: ICLR 2015, Workshop Track Proceedings

    Dinh, L., Krueger, D., Bengio, Y., 2015. NICE: Non-linear independent components estimation, in: ICLR 2015, Workshop Track Proceedings

    2015

  27. [35]

    Density estimation using Real NVP, in: International Conference on Learning Representations

    Dinh, L., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Bengio, S., 2017. Density estimation using Real NVP, in: International Conference on Learning Representations

    2017

  28. [36]

    AK-MCS: An active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation

    Echard, B., Gayton, N., Lemaire, M., 2011. AK-MCS: An active learning reliability method combining Kriging and Monte Carlo simulation. Structural Safety 33, 145–154

    2011

  29. [37]

    A combined importance sampling and kriging reliability method for small failure probabilities with time-demanding numerical models

    Echard, B., Gayton, N., Lemaire, M., Relun, N., 2013. A combined importance sampling and kriging reliability method for small failure probabilities with time-demanding numerical models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 111, 232–240

    2013

  30. [38]

    Variance-based reliability sensitivity with dependent inputs using failure samples

    Ehre, M., Papaioannou, I., Straub, D., 2024. Variance-based reliability sensitivity with dependent inputs using failure samples. Structural Safety 106, 102396

    2024

  31. [39]

    Multivariate Bernoulli Ho- effding Decomposition: From Theory to Sensitivity Analysis

    Ferrere, B., Bousquet, N., Gamboa, F., Loubes, J.M., Muré, J., 2025. Multivariate Bernoulli Ho- effding Decomposition: From Theory to Sensitivity Analysis. Preprint:https://hal.science/ hal-05301780

    2025

  32. [40]

    Shapley effects and proportional marginal effects for global sensitivity analysis: application to computed tomography scan organ dose estimation

    Foucault, A., Il Idrissi, M., Iooss, B., Ancelet, S., 2023. Shapley effects and proportional marginal effects for global sensitivity analysis: application to computed tomography scan organ dose estimation. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01353

    2023

  33. [41]

    Rare event probability learning by normalizing flows

    Gao, Z., Zhang, D., Daniel, L., Boning, D.S., 2023. Rare event probability learning by normalizing flows. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19167

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification

    Ghanem, R., Higdon, D., Owhadi, H., 2017. Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification. Springer Cham. 27

    2017

  35. [43]

    A simple algorithm for global sensitivity analysis with Shapley effects

    Goda, T., 2021. A simple algorithm for global sensitivity analysis with Shapley effects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 213, 107702

    2021

  36. [44]

    Generative adversarial nets, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, p

    Goodfellow, I.J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y., 2014. Generative adversarial nets, in: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, p. 2672–2680

    2014

  37. [45]

    Exact and invariant second-moment code format

    Hasofer, A.M., Lind, N.C., 1974. Exact and invariant second-moment code format. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 100, 111–121

    1974

  38. [46]

    Proportional marginal effects for global sensitivity analysis

    Herin, M., Il Idrissi, M., Chabridon, V., Iooss, B., 2024. Proportional marginal effects for global sensitivity analysis. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 12, 667–692

    2024

  39. [47]

    A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution

    Hoeffding, W., 1948. A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. Annals of Mathe- matical Statistics 19, 308–334

    1948

  40. [48]

    Manifold-based Shapley explanations for high dimen- sional correlated features

    Hu, X., Zhu, M., Feng, Z., Stanković, L., 2024. Manifold-based Shapley explanations for high dimen- sional correlated features. Neural Networks 180, 106634

    2024

  41. [49]

    Neural autoregressive flows, in: Proceed- ings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR

    Huang, C.W., Krueger, D., Lacoste, A., Courville, A., 2018. Neural autoregressive flows, in: Proceed- ings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR. pp. 2078–2087

    2018

  42. [50]

    Assessing small failure probabilities by AK–SS: An active learning method combining kriging and subset simulation

    Huang, X., Chen, J., Zhu, H., 2016. Assessing small failure probabilities by AK–SS: An active learning method combining kriging and subset simulation. Structural Safety 59, 86–95

    2016

  43. [51]

    Hoeffding decomposition of functions of random dependent variables

    Il Idrissi, M., Bousquet, N., Gamboa, F., Iooss, B., Loubes, J.M., 2025. Hoeffding decomposition of functions of random dependent variables. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 208, 105444

    2025

  44. [52]

    Developments and applications of Shapley effects to reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis with correlated inputs

    Il Idrissi, M., Chabridon, V., Iooss, B., 2021. Developments and applications of Shapley effects to reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis with correlated inputs. Environmental Modelling & Software 143, 105115

    2021

  45. [53]

    Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with correlated inputs: Comparisons with Sobol’ indices, numerical estimation and applications

    Iooss, B., Prieur, C., 2019. Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with correlated inputs: Comparisons with Sobol’ indices, numerical estimation and applications. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification 9, 493–514

    2019

  46. [54]

    Variational diffusion models, in: Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., Liang, P., Vaughan, J

    Kingma, D., Salimans, T., Poole, B., Ho, J., 2021. Variational diffusion models, in: Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., Liang, P., Vaughan, J. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pp. 21696–21707

    2021

  47. [55]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J., 2017. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. Preprint:https://arxiv. org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Normalizing flows: An introduction and review of current methods

    Kobyzev, I., Prince, S., Brubaker, M.A., 2020. Normalizing flows: An introduction and review of current methods. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43, 3964–3979

    2020

  49. [57]

    The expressive power of a class of normalizing flow models, in: Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR

    Kong, Z., Chaudhuri, K., 2020. The expressive power of a class of normalizing flow models, in: Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR. pp. 3599–3609

    2020

  50. [58]

    The neural autoregressive distribution estimator, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp

    Larochelle, H., Murray, I., 2011. The neural autoregressive distribution estimator, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 29–37

    2011

  51. [59]

    Data-driven sensitivity indices for models with dependent inputs using polynomial chaos expansions

    Liu, Z., Choe, Y., 2021. Data-driven sensitivity indices for models with dependent inputs using polynomial chaos expansions. Structural Safety 88, 101984

    2021

  52. [60]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, in: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, p

    Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.I., 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, in: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, p. 4768–4777. 28

    2017

  53. [61]

    Bounding the estimation error of sampling-based Shapley value approximation with/without stratifying

    Maleki, S., Tran-Thanh, L., Hines, G., Rahwan, T., Rogers, A., 2014. Bounding the estimation error of sampling-based Shapley value approximation with/without stratifying. Preprint:https: //arxiv.org/abs/1306.4265

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Variance-based sensitivity indices for models with dependent inputs

    Mara, T., Tarantola, S., 2012. Variance-based sensitivity indices for models with dependent inputs. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 107, 115–121

    2012

  55. [63]

    Non-parametric methods for global sensitivity analysis of model output with dependent inputs

    Mara, T.A., Tarantola, S., Annoni, P., 2015. Non-parametric methods for global sensitivity analysis of model output with dependent inputs. Environmental Modelling & Software 72, 173–183

    2015

  56. [64]

    Uncertainty quantification for deep regression using contextualised normalizing flows

    Marco, A., Kirwan, J.D., Toumpa, A., Gerasimou, S., 2025. Uncertainty quantification for deep regression using contextualised normalizing flows. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00835

    2025

  57. [65]

    Statistical developments for target and conditional sensitivity anal- ysis: Application on safety studies for nuclear reactor

    Marrel, A., Chabridon, V., 2021. Statistical developments for target and conditional sensitivity anal- ysis: Application on safety studies for nuclear reactor. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 214, 107711

    2021

  58. [66]

    Randomized numerical linear algebra: Foundations & algorithms

    Martinsson, P.G., Tropp, J., 2021. Randomized numerical linear algebra: Foundations & algorithms. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01387

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sampling via Measure Transport: An Introduction

    Marzouk, Y., Moselhy, T., Parno, M., Spantini, A., 2016. Sampling via Measure Transport: An Introduction. Springer International Publishing. p. 1–41

    2016

  60. [68]

    A review of uncertainty quantification for density estimation

    McDonald, S., Campbell, D., 2021. A review of uncertainty quantification for density estimation. Statistics Surveys 15

    2021

  61. [69]

    Sampling permutations for Shapley value estimation

    Mitchell, R., Cooper, J., Frank, E., Holmes, G., 2022. Sampling permutations for Shapley value estimation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 23, 1–46

    2022

  62. [70]

    Estimation of Rare Event Probabilities in Complex Aerospace and Other Systems

    Morio, J., Balesdent, M., 2015. Estimation of Rare Event Probabilities in Complex Aerospace and Other Systems. Woodhead Publishing

    2015

  63. [71]

    ProvablyaccurateShapleyvalueestimationvialeveragescoresampling, in: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025

    Musco, C., Witter, R.T., 2025. ProvablyaccurateShapleyvalueestimationvialeveragescoresampling, in: The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025

    2025

  64. [72]

    Improving the weighting strategy in KernelSHAP, in: Explainable Artificial Intelligence, Springer Nature Switzerland

    Olsen, L.H.B., Jullum, M., 2026. Improving the weighting strategy in KernelSHAP, in: Explainable Artificial Intelligence, Springer Nature Switzerland. pp. 194–218

    2026

  65. [73]

    Sobol’indicesandShapleyvalue

    Owen, A.B., 2014. Sobol’indicesandShapleyvalue. SIAM/ASAJournalonUncertaintyQuantification 2, 245–251

    2014

  66. [74]

    On Shapley value for measuring importance of dependent inputs

    Owen, A.B., Prieur, C., 2017. On Shapley value for measuring importance of dependent inputs. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 5, 986–1002

    2017

  67. [75]

    Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis using Shapley additive explanations and polynomial chaos expansion

    Palar, P., Renganathan, A., 2024. Reliability-oriented sensitivity analysis using Shapley additive explanations and polynomial chaos expansion. AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum

    2024

  68. [76]

    Variance-based reliability sensitivity analysis and the FORMα- factors

    Papaioannou, I., Straub, D., 2021. Variance-based reliability sensitivity analysis and the FORMα- factors. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 210, 107496

    2021

  69. [77]

    FORM-based global reliability sensitivity analysis of systems with multiple failure modes

    Papaioannou, I., Straub, D., 2025. FORM-based global reliability sensitivity analysis of systems with multiple failure modes. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 260, 110974

    2025

  70. [78]

    Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference

    Papamakarios, G., Eric Nalisnick, E., Rezende, D.J., Mohamed, S., Lakshminarayanan, B., 2021. Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22, 1–64. 29

    2021

  71. [79]

    Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, p

    Papamakarios, G., Pavlakou, T., Murray, I., 2017. Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, p. 2338–2347

    2017

  72. [80]

    Efficient evaluation of reliability-oriented sensitivity indices

    Perrin, G., Defaux, G., 2019. Efficient evaluation of reliability-oriented sensitivity indices. Journal of Scientific Computing 79, 1433–1455

    2019

  73. [81]

    Local reliability based sensitivity analysis with the moving particles method

    Proppe, C., 2021. Local reliability based sensitivity analysis with the moving particles method. Reli- ability Engineering & System Safety 207, 107269

    2021

  74. [82]

    Target and conditional sensitivity analysis with emphasis on dependence measures

    Raguet, H., Marrel, A., 2018. Target and conditional sensitivity analysis with emphasis on dependence measures. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10047

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Robust normalizing flows using Bernstein- type polynomials, in: British Machine Vision Conference

    Ramasinghe, S., Fernando, K., Khan, S., Barnes, N., 2022. Robust normalizing flows using Bernstein- type polynomials, in: British Machine Vision Conference

    2022

  76. [84]

    Emulating compact binary population synthesis simulations with uncertainty quantifi- cation and model comparison using Bayesian normalizing flows

    Ray, A., 2025. Emulating compact binary population synthesis simulations with uncertainty quantifi- cation and model comparison using Bayesian normalizing flows. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.05657

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Testing the boundaries: Normalizing flows for higher dimensional data sets

    Reyes-González, H., Torre, R., 2023. Testing the boundaries: Normalizing flows for higher dimensional data sets. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2438, 012155

    2023

  78. [86]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR

    Rezende, D., Mohamed, S., 2015. Variational inference with normalizing flows, in: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR. pp. 1530–1538

    2015

  79. [87]

    High-dimensional probability estimation with deep density models

    Rippel, O., Adams, R.P., 2013. High-dimensional probability estimation with deep density models. Preprint:https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5125

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    (Ed.), 2005

    Roth, A.E. (Ed.), 2005. The Shapley Value : Essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. Cambridge University Press

    2005

  81. [89]

    A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels

    Rothermel, R.C., 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p

    1972

  82. [90]

    Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer

    Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., 2008. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley

    2008

  83. [91]

    Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models

    Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., 2004. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models. Wiley

    2004

  84. [92]

    Global sensitivity analysis and scale effects of a fire propagation model used over Mediterranean shrublands

    Salvador, R., Piñol, J., Tarantola, S., Pla, E., 2001. Global sensitivity analysis and scale effects of a fire propagation model used over Mediterranean shrublands. Ecological Modelling 136, 175–189

    2001

  85. [93]

    A Value for n-Person Games

    Shapley, L.S., 1953. A Value for n-Person Games. Princeton University Press, Princeton. pp. 307–318

    1953

  86. [94]

    Multidimensional Quadrature Formulas and Haar Functions

    Sobol, I.M., 1969. Multidimensional Quadrature Formulas and Haar Functions. Izdat. “Nauka”, Moscow

    1969

  87. [95]

    Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models

    Sobol, I.M., 1993. Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Mathematical modelling and computational experiment 2, 97–111

    1993

  88. [96]

    Shapley effects for global sensitivity analysis: Theory and computation

    Song, E., Nelson, B.L., Staum, J., 2016. Shapley effects for global sensitivity analysis: Theory and computation. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 4, 1060–1083

    2016

  89. [97]

    Introduction to uncertainty quantification

    Sullivan, T.J., 2015. Introduction to uncertainty quantification. Texts in applied mathematics, Springer. 30

    2015

  90. [98]

    A family of nonparametric density estimation algorithms

    Tabak, E., Turner, C.V., 2013. A family of nonparametric density estimation algorithms. Communi- cations on Pure and Applied Mathematics 66, 145–164

    2013

  91. [99]

    Variance-based sensitivity indices of computer models with dependent inputs: The Fourier amplitude sensitivity test

    Tarantola, S., Mara, T.A., 2017. Variance-based sensitivity indices of computer models with dependent inputs: The Fourier amplitude sensitivity test. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification 7, 511–523

    2017

  92. [100]

    Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation

    Tsybakov, A.B., 2009. Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation. Springer New York, NY

    2009

  93. [101]

    Neural autoregressive distribution estimation

    Uria, B., Côté, M.A., Gregor, K., Murray, I., Larochelle, H., 2016. Neural autoregressive distribution estimation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 1–37

    2016

  94. [102]

    Efficient sampling methods for global reliability sensitivity analysis

    Wei, P., Lu, Z., Hao, W., Feng, J., Wang, B., 2012. Efficient sampling methods for global reliability sensitivity analysis. Computer Physics Communications 183, 1728–1743

    2012

  95. [103]

    Structural reliability sensitivity analysis based on classification of model output

    Xiao, S., Lu, Z., 2017. Structural reliability sensitivity analysis based on classification of model output. Aerospace Science and Technology 71, 52–61

    2017

  96. [104]

    Data-driven global sensitivity analysis for group of random variables through knowledge-enhanced machine learning with normalizing flows

    Xiong, Z., Jia, G., 2025. Data-driven global sensitivity analysis for group of random variables through knowledge-enhanced machine learning with normalizing flows. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 260, 111007

    2025

  97. [105]

    An efficient global reliability sensitivity analysis algorithm based on classification of model output and subset simulation

    Yun, W., Lu, Z., Zhang, Y., Jiang, X., 2018. An efficient global reliability sensitivity analysis algorithm based on classification of model output and subset simulation. Structural Safety 74, 49–57. 31

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.