Sensitivity Analysis on Interaction Effects of Policy-Augmented Bayesian Networks

Junkai Zhao; Jun Luo; Wei Xie; Zixuan Bai

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Sensitivity Analysis on Interaction Effects of Policy-Augmented Bayesian Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Shapley-Owen interaction effects in policy-augmented Bayesian networks can be estimated accurately under a fixed simulation budget by replacing nested simulation with a non-nested estimator and spending samples…

desk verdict Algorithm 2's adaptive allocation biases the permutation distribution, making the main estimator inconsistent; the paper's central claim does not survive a close look. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15566 v1 pith:WG3LFNCZ submitted 2024-11-23 stat.ME stat.CO

Junkai Zhao , Jun Luo , Wei Xie , Zixuan Bai This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MEstat.CO

keywords Shapley-Owenindexinteractioneffectsglobalsensitivityanalysispolicy-augmentedBayesiannetworknestedMonteCarlosequentialbudgetallocationquasi-Montebiomanufacturing

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

This paper addresses the cost of measuring interaction effects among random factors in policy-augmented Bayesian networks (PABN), a hybrid model used to describe biomanufacturing processes. The authors adopt the Shapley-Owen index, whose exact evaluation is exponentially expensive in the number of inputs, and propose replacing exact evaluation with sampling: a nested Monte Carlo estimator in Algorithm 1 and a non-nested estimator in Algorithm 2. Algorithm 2 also allocates a fixed simulation budget sequentially, giving each next replication to the interaction pair whose confidence interval is currently widest, and reusing shared value-function terms. In a linear Gaussian PABN where the true indices can be computed exactly, they report that Algorithm 2 has lower mean squared error than Algorithm 1 unless the budget is very small, and that quasi-Monte Carlo sampling further lowers error. If this holds, interaction quantification for PABN becomes practical under a fixed computation budget without manually choosing nested sample sizes, and the sign and magnitude of the indices can guide process understanding and control.

What carries the argument

Three pieces carry the argument. First, the Shapley-Owen index (1), a weighted average over subsets of the second-order finite difference $g(U\cup\{i,j\})-g(U\cup\{i\})-g(U\cup\{j\})+g(U)$, measures how much the variance explained by the pair exceeds the sum of the individual effects; its sign indicates synergy or antagonism. Second, the non-nested value-function estimator $\hat{g}_{nn}(U|\mathbf{w})=y^{(1)}(y^{(2)}-y^{(3)})$ rests on the identity $\mathrm{Var}[E(Y|X)]=E[Y^{(1)}(Y^{(2)}-Y^{(3)})]$, so the value function is estimated without the inner simulation layer of the nested estimator. Third, the sequential allocation rule computes the gradient of the confidence-interval half-width, $gHL_{i,j}=z_{\alpha/2}\hat{\sigma}_{i,j}/(2N_{i,j}^{3/2})$, treats this as the benefit of one additional sample for pair $\{i,j\}$, and allocates the next replication to the largest such gradient among the group of pairs sharing a reusable quantity; recorded value-function evaluations are reused to cut computation.

What would settle it

Re-run the linear Gaussian experiment of Section 5.1 with Algorithm 2's sample standard deviation replaced by the correct unbiased form $dSh^2_{i,j}-(\hat{Sh}_{i,j})^2/N_0$ divided by $N_0-1$, and compare the mean squared error curves with Algorithm 1; if the corrected allocation no longer beats equal allocation except at very small budgets, the reported advantage is not robust. A second check would compare the greedy allocation against an oracle that allocates the same total budget in proportion to the true per-pair variances.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a PABN the Shapley-Owen interaction index $Sh_{i,j}$ can be estimated accurately and efficiently by sampling random model parameters and random permutations, evaluating the alternating value-function sum $\hat{g}(P_{i,j}(\pi)\cup\{i,j\})-\hat{g}(P_{i,j}(\pi)\cup\{i\})-\hat{g}(P_{i,j}(\pi)\cup\{j\})+\hat{g}(P_{i,j}(\pi))$, and using the identity $\mathrm{Var}[E(Y|X)]=E[Y^{(1)}(Y^{(2)}-Y^{(3)})]$ to avoid an inner simulation loop. The paper states that the resulting non-nested estimator enables error analysis without choosing the multilevel sample sizes, and that the sequential budget allocation of Algorithm 2, which at each step sends a replication to the pair with the largest $gHL_{i,j}=z_{\alpha/2}\hat{\sigma}_{i,j}/(2N_{i,j}^{3/2})$, estimates the indices more accurately than the equal-allocation nested Algorithm 1 under the same budget, except when the budget is very limited. Numerical evidence comes from a six-factor linear Gaussian PABN with analytic value function, where true Shapley-Owen indices are available, and from a nonlinear mature cell-progenitor negative-feedback PABN, where the indices track known interaction structure and correlation dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one extra simulation should always go to the interaction pair with the largest value of a simple uncertainty-gradient formula, and that this greedy choice improves overall accuracy; the paper asserts the rule without a proof, and the formula as printed in Algorithm 2 uses a plus sign where an unbiased variance estimate needs a minus sign.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Practitioners can quantify pair interactions among the random factors of a PABN under a fixed computational budget without predetermining four nested sample sizes, because the non-nested estimator removes the inner simulation loop.
The sign and magnitude of estimated Shapley-Owen indices can classify interactions as synergistic or antagonistic, informing whether a pair deserves a full design-of-experiments study, a univariate study, or none.
Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling of parameters and permutations reduces estimation error for the same algorithm, so low-discrepancy sequences provide a cheap additional variance reduction.
Because the method samples permutations instead of enumerating subsets, the cost no longer grows exponentially in the number of inputs, making interaction measurement feasible for larger factor sets.
The nonlinear cell-progenitor experiment indicates that early-stage interactions can amplify and accumulate through the process, so estimated indices can suggest when intervention or control is most valuable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the greedy allocation rule is a heuristic with no optimality proof; a direct test against an oracle allocation that knows the true per-pair variances would show whether the sequential rule is actually near-optimal.
The sign error in the printed standard-deviation update could change which pair receives the next sample, so the reported MSE advantage of Algorithm 2 should be re-verified under the corrected estimator.
The same non-nested identity and sequential allocation idea could transfer to main-effect Shapley values or higher-order interactions in other expensive simulation models, though the shared-calculation reuse pattern would need to be reconstructed.
Because the real PABN experiments have no ground-truth interaction indices, a practical rollout would need calibrated confidence intervals alongside the point estimates; the paper constructs intervals but does not formally validate their coverage.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The headline: this paper's central claim about Algorithm 2 does not hold up. The sequential allocation scheme in Stage 2 conditions on the sampled permutation in a way that biases the Shapley-Owen estimator, so the estimator is not consistent. A simple three-input example shows the bias: with g(∅)=0, g({1})=10, g({3})=10, g({1,3})=15, g({1,2})=50, g({2,3})=50, g({1,2,3})=100, g({2})=0, the true Sh_{1,3} is -2.5, but if {1,2} is the permanent argmax, Algorithm 2 samples pair {1,3} only for permutations where 1 precedes both 2 and 3, and the conditional mean of the increment is -5. That is not a small-sample artifact; it persists as N grows.

What is actually new: the application of Shapley-Owen interaction indices to policy-augmented Bayesian networks, and the attempt to combine a non-nested estimator with adaptive budget allocation. The linear Gaussian test provides analytic ground truth, which is a good check and gives the paper some empirical credibility. The reuse of common terms across pairs is also sensible.

The soft spots are not just the sign error in the sample variance formula (plus instead of minus in Algorithm 2) and the unproven greedy allocation heuristic; the selection bias is the load-bearing problem. The non-nested estimator itself is unbiased when samples are i.i.d., as Cheng and Zhang showed, but Algorithm 2 does not feed it i.i.d. samples from the target permutation distribution. Proposition 1 is stated for a fixed sample size and does not apply to the adaptive scheme. The numerical experiments are too narrow to expose the bias: one linear model with six factors and one nonlinear case without ground truth. The MSE comparisons may still favor Algorithm 2 because variance reduction can outweigh bias in small samples, but the estimator is not consistent.

Who gets value: readers working on Shapley-Owen estimation might learn from the setup and the pitfalls, but the paper does not deliver a reliable method as written. It deserves a serious referee to catch this subtle issue rather than a desk reject, because fixing the allocation (e.g., reweighting selected samples or sampling without conditioning on the permutation) might salvage the idea. As is, it needs major revision.

Recommendation: send to peer review, expect heavy revision; the bias and the variance formula error must be addressed. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes simulation-based estimation of Shapley-Owen interaction indices for policy-augmented Bayesian network (PABN) models used in biomanufacturing. It presents a nested Monte Carlo algorithm (Algorithm 1) that samples model parameters and permutations, and a non-nested algorithm (Algorithm 2) that combines the non-nested estimator of Cheng and Zhang (2021) with a sequential budget allocation rule driven by confidence-interval half-length gradients. Numerical experiments on a linear Gaussian PABN (with analytic ground truth) and a nonlinear cell-progenitor feedback model are used to support the claim that Algorithm 2 is more accurate than Algorithm 1 under a fixed computation budget.

Significance. If the methods were sound, the paper would offer a practical way to quantify interaction effects in a class of stochastic simulation models that are relevant to bioprocess risk assessment. The analytic linear-Gaussian test in Section 5.1 is a useful validation design, and the reuse of intermediate value-function calculations in Algorithm 1 is a sensible efficiency idea. However, the central contribution, Algorithm 2, suffers from a selection bias that makes the estimator inconsistent; this is a load-bearing flaw that invalidates the paper's main accuracy claim. The non-nested estimator itself is grounded in prior literature, but its unbiasedness does not carry over to the sequentially allocated samples.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Algorithm 2, Stage 2] The sequential allocation scheme conditions the set of pairs updated on the relative order of the elements of the argmax pair. The instruction "Find {i*,j*} = argmax_{i,j} gHL_{i,j} and i* that is the leftmost element of {i*,j*} in pi(n); Construct the group G_m(i*, pi(n))" means that a pair {i,j} is updated only when the element of that pair that appears earlier in the permutation is the leftmost element of the currently selected argmax pair. Consequently, the permutation distribution used for each pair is not uniform over Pi(I), but is conditioned on a relative-order event. The Shapley-Owen index in Eq. (1) is an expectation over uniform permutations, so averaging the marginal contributions over this conditional distribution does not converge to Sh_{i,j} in general. For a concrete counterexample, let I={1,2,3} with g(empty)=0, g({1})=10, g({3})=10, g({1,3})=15, g({1,2})=50, g({2,3})=50, g({1,2,3})=100, g({2})=0. Then Sh_{1,3}=-5/2. If pair {1,2} is the argmax at every iteration and m=2, pair {1,3} is updated only in permutations where 1 precedes both 2 and 3; among those permutations, Delta_{1,3}(pi)=-5 for every such pi, so the conditional mean is -5, not -5/2. The estimator is therefore asymptotically biased, and the bias does not vanish as the budget grows.
[Section 4, Algorithm 2, Stage 1] The sample standard deviation formula in Stage 1 is incorrect. The algorithm sets dSh2_{i,j} = dSh2_{i,j} + (Delta)^2 and Sh_{i,j} = Sh_{i,j} + Delta, then computes sigma_hat_{i,j} = sqrt( (dSh2_{i,j} + (Sh_{i,j})^2/N0) / (N0-1) ). Since dSh2 is the sum of squares and Sh is the sum, the correct sample variance is (sum Delta^2 - (sum Delta)^2/N0)/(N0-1), which requires a minus sign, not a plus sign. The printed formula overestimates the variance and distorts the gHL scores that drive the sequential allocation, as well as the confidence interval in Proposition 1.
[Section 4, Algorithm 2, Stage 2] The variance estimates sigma_hat computed in Stage 1 are never updated in Stage 2. The pseudo-code updates N_{i,j} and Sh_{i,j} for the selected group, but not dSh2 or sigma_hat. Thus the allocation scores gHL_{i,j} remain based on the initial pilot variance estimates, which become increasingly stale as the sample sizes grow. This contradicts the stated goal of dynamically allocating budget to interactions with high uncertainty and means the algorithm does not actually track the evolution of estimation uncertainty.
[Section 4, leading to Section 5.1] The greedy allocation rule is asserted to improve accuracy, but no optimality or finite-sample guarantee is provided for the choice of gHL_{i,j} = z_{alpha/2} sigma_hat_{i,j}/(2 N_{i,j}^{3/2}) as the metric for allocating one additional sample. The derivative of the confidence-interval half-length with respect to N treats sigma_hat as constant and ignores the fact that samples are shared among pairs in the group G_m. The numerical claim in Section 5.1 that "the performance of Algorithm 2 is superior over Algorithm 1" is therefore not supported by theory, and the MSE comparison cannot separate the bias identified in the first comment from variance reduction.

minor comments (6)

[Equation (1)] The summation set is written as "U in I / {i,j})"; it should be "U subset of I \ {i,j}".
[Algorithm 1] The loop header "for all set {i,j} subseteq I" should be "for all {i,j} subseteq I".
[Table 2] The caption says "with 90% confidence interval" but the numbers in parentheses are not labeled as a half-width or standard error; the reporting format is ambiguous.
[Section 5.1] The ground-truth Shapley-Owen values are said to be computed from Eq. (2) with "a large number of model parameter samples," but the actual number of samples used for the ground truth is not reported.
[Section 5.2] The nonlinear PABN experiment reports only point estimates of the Shapley-Owen indices, without standard errors or replications, so qualitative statements such as "the interaction effects diminish as time proceeds" are not statistically supported.
[References] Some reference entries contain formatting errors, such as double commas in the author lists of Aijaz et al. (2018) and Liu et al. (2015).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Shapley-Owen target and estimators are externally defined, and Algorithm 2's sequential allocation is an efficiency heuristic validated against an analytic benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The Shapley-Owen index (Eq. 1) is defined via the standard formula from Rabitti and Borgonovo (2019), an external reference, and the permutation-based reformulation is a known equivalent representation. The nested value-function estimator is taken from Sun et al. (2011), and the non-nested unbiased estimator is taken from Cheng and Zhang (2021), both external. Algorithm 1 is a straightforward Monte Carlo application of the permutation formula, and Algorithm 2 adds a sequential budget-allocation heuristic (Section 4) that is not derived from the target quantity itself. The numerical study validates against an analytically computed value function (Eq. 2) for the linear Gaussian PABN, so the benchmark Shapley-Owen values are computed independently of the proposed estimators. The self-citations to Zheng et al. (2023) and Zhao et al. (2023) supply the PABN modeling context and the posterior sampling setup, but they do not justify the estimator's validity or enter the estimation claims. One correctness issue is visible in the Stage-1 sample standard deviation formula of Algorithm 2, where the numerator should use a minus sign rather than a plus sign; however, this is an implementation/derivation error in the variance estimator, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Overall, no step reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard sensitivity-analysis definitions and external estimators. The only hand-chosen quantities are the budget allocation ratio for Algorithm 1 and two tuning constants for Algorithm 2. The key unproven premise is the greedy allocation rule based on the asymptotic confidence-interval gradient.

free parameters (3)

Algorithm 1 budget ratio K:M:NO:NI = 6:3:6:1
Selected by grid search over {1,...,6} per level to minimize MSE on the linear Gaussian test problem (Section 5.1); the comparison against Algorithm 2 uses this tuned ratio.
Algorithm 2 pilot fraction N0 = 0.02N
Set as 2% of total budget with no sensitivity analysis reported (Algorithm 2 input).
Algorithm 2 group size m = 2
Number of top-gradient interactions allocated per iteration; chosen ad hoc in Section 5.1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Value function g(U) = Var[E[Y|X_U]] is the correct sensitivity measure for interaction effects
Used in Section 3 to define the Shapley-Owen index; standard in global sensitivity analysis.
standard math Nested estimator from Sun et al. (2011) and non-nested estimator from Cheng and Zhang (2021) are unbiased for g(U) under finite second moments
Adopted without proof in Sections 3 and 4; requires ability to sample Y conditional on X_U and finite variances.
standard math Asymptotic normality of the Shapley interaction effect estimator
Proposition 1 states the CLT-based confidence interval without proof; needs i.i.d. finite-variance samples.
ad hoc to paper Greedy allocation according to the gradient of the confidence interval half-length minimizes MSE under a fixed budget
Section 4 asserts gHL measures the benefit of one extra sample and that sequential allocation to the largest gHL improves accuracy; no optimality proof is supplied.
domain assumption PABN residual vector follows a multivariate Gaussian distribution with known posterior p(w|D)
Taken from Zheng et al. (2023), used throughout to sample w from the posterior.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity Analysis on Interaction Effects of Policy-Augmented Bayesian Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WG3LFNCZ

@misc{pith2026241115566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity Analysis on Interaction Effects of Policy-Augmented Bayesian Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WG3LFNCZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15566}
}

read the original abstract

Biomanufacturing plays an important role in supporting public health and the growth of the bioeconomy. Modeling and studying the interaction effects among various input variables is very critical for obtaining a scientific understanding and process specification in biomanufacturing. In this paper, we use the ShapleyOwen indices to measure the interaction effects for the policy-augmented Bayesian network (PABN) model, which characterizes the risk- and science-based understanding of production bioprocess mechanisms. In order to facilitate efficient interaction effect quantification, we propose a sampling-based simulation estimation framework. In addition, to further improve the computational efficiency, we develop a non-nested simulation algorithm with sequential sampling, which can dynamically allocate the simulation budget to the interactions with high uncertainty and therefore estimate the interaction effects more accurately under a total fixed budget setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15566 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** MSE of Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2 where Shi, j is the real Shapley-Owen value estimated by using a large number of model parameter samples and calculating the value function with Equation (2), Shˆ i, j is obtained from Algorithm 1. We first conduct ablation study to determine the sample size for each level of simulation given a fixed computational budget, i.e., to decide K, M, NO and NI . As we cannot find any lite… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Shapley interaction effects for mature cell-progenitor negative feedback model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Biomanufacturing for clinically advanced cell therapies

Aijaz, A., M. Li, D. Smith, D. Khong, C. LeBlon, O. S. Fenton, , , et al. 2018. “Biomanufacturing for clinically advanced cell therapies”. Nature Biomedical Engineering 2(6):362–376

work page 2018
[2]

Non-nested estimators for the central moments of a conditional expectation and their convergence properties

Cheng, H.-F. and K. Zhang. 2021. “Non-nested estimators for the central moments of a conditional expectation and their convergence properties”. Operations Research Letters 49(5):625–632

work page 2021
[3]

Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases

Cordell, H. J. 2009. “Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases”. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(6):392–404

work page 2009
[4]

Computation of the conditions for anti- angiogenesis and gene therapy synergistic effects: Sensitivity analysis and robustness of target solutions

Diouf, A., H. Mokrani, E. Afenya, and B. I. Camara. 2021. “Computation of the conditions for anti- angiogenesis and gene therapy synergistic effects: Sensitivity analysis and robustness of target solutions”. Journal of Theoretical Biology 528:110850

work page 2021
[5]

Global sensitivity analysis for statistical model parameters

Hart, J. L., J. Bessac, and E. M. Constantinescu. 2019. “Global sensitivity analysis for statistical model parameters”. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 7(1):67–92. Ł ˛ acki, K. M., J. Joseph, and K. O. Eriksson. 2018. “Downstream process design, scale-up principles, and process modeling”. In Biopharmaceutical Processing, 637–674. Elsevier

work page 2019
[6]

Lemieux, C. 2009. Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Sampling . 1 ed. Springer Series in Statistics,. Springer New York

work page 2009
[7]

Butanol production from hydrothermolysis-pretreated switchgrass: quantification of inhibitors and detoxification of hydrolyzate

Liu, K., H. K. Atiyeh, O. Pardo-Planas, T. C. Ezeji, V . Ujor, J. C. Overton, , et al . 2015. “Butanol production from hydrothermolysis-pretreated switchgrass: quantification of inhibitors and detoxification of hydrolyzate”. Bioresource Technology 189:292–301

work page 2015
[8]

Variations in culture pH affect the cloning efficiency and differentiation of progenitor cells in ex vivo haemopoiesis

McAdams, T. A., W. M. Miller, and E. T. Papoutsakis. 1997. “Variations in culture pH affect the cloning efficiency and differentiation of progenitor cells in ex vivo haemopoiesis”. British Journal of Haema- tology 97(4):889–895

work page 1997

Show all 18 references

[9]

Sampling permutations for shapley value estimation

Mitchell, R., J. Cooper, E. Frank, and G. Holmes. 2022. “Sampling permutations for shapley value estimation”. Journal of Machine Learning Research 23(43):1–46

2022
[10]

Sobol’indices and Shapley value

Owen, A. B. 2014. “Sobol’indices and Shapley value”. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantifica- tion 2(1):245–251

2014
[11]

A Shapley–Owen index for interaction quantification

Rabitti, G. and E. Borgonovo. 2019. “A Shapley–Owen index for interaction quantification”. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 7(3):1060–1075

2019
[12]

Is mortality or interest rate the most important risk in annuity models? A comparison of sensitivity analysis methods

Rabitti, G. and E. Borgonovo. 2020. “Is mortality or interest rate the most important risk in annuity models? A comparison of sensitivity analysis methods”. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 95:48–58. Sobo´l, I. 1993. “Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models...

2020
[13]

Shapley effects for global sensitivity analysis: Theory and computation

Song, E., B. L. Nelson, and J. Staum. 2016. “Shapley effects for global sensitivity analysis: Theory and computation”. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 4(1):1060–1083

2016
[14]

Experimentally integrated dynamic modelling for intuitive optimisation of cell based processes and manufacture

Stacey, A. J., E. A. Cheeseman, K. E. Glen, R. L. Moore and R. J. Thomas. 2018. “Experimentally integrated dynamic modelling for intuitive optimisation of cell based processes and manufacture”. Biochemical Engineering Journal 132:130–138

2018
[15]

Efficient nested simulation for estimating the variance of a conditional expectation

Sun, Y ., D. W. Apley, and J. Staum. 2011. “Efficient nested simulation for estimating the variance of a conditional expectation”. Operations Research 59(4):998–1007

2011
[16]

Stochastic simulation uncertainty analy- sis to accelerate flexible biomanufacturing process development

Xie, W., R. R. Barton, B. L. Nelson, and K. Wang. 2023. “Stochastic simulation uncertainty analy- sis to accelerate flexible biomanufacturing process development”. European Journal of Operational Research 310(1):238–248

2023
[17]

Policy-Augmented Bayesian Network Optimization with Global Convergence

Zhao, J., J. Luo, and W. Xie. 2023. “Policy-Augmented Bayesian Network Optimization with Global Convergence”. In 2023 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) , 3553–3564. IEEE

2023
[18]

Policy Optimization in Dynamic Bayesian Network Hybrid Models of Biomanufacturing Processes

Zheng, H., W. Xie, I. O. Ryzhov, and D. Xie. 2023. “Policy Optimization in Dynamic Bayesian Network Hybrid Models of Biomanufacturing Processes”. INFORMS Journal on Computing 35(1):66–82. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES JUNKAI ZHAOis a Ph.D. student in the Antai College of Economics and Ma...

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Biomanufacturing for clinically advanced cell therapies

Aijaz, A., M. Li, D. Smith, D. Khong, C. LeBlon, O. S. Fenton, , , et al. 2018. “Biomanufacturing for clinically advanced cell therapies”. Nature Biomedical Engineering 2(6):362–376

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Non-nested estimators for the central moments of a conditional expectation and their convergence properties

Cheng, H.-F. and K. Zhang. 2021. “Non-nested estimators for the central moments of a conditional expectation and their convergence properties”. Operations Research Letters 49(5):625–632

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases

Cordell, H. J. 2009. “Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases”. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(6):392–404

work page 2009

[4] [4]

Computation of the conditions for anti- angiogenesis and gene therapy synergistic effects: Sensitivity analysis and robustness of target solutions

Diouf, A., H. Mokrani, E. Afenya, and B. I. Camara. 2021. “Computation of the conditions for anti- angiogenesis and gene therapy synergistic effects: Sensitivity analysis and robustness of target solutions”. Journal of Theoretical Biology 528:110850

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Global sensitivity analysis for statistical model parameters

Hart, J. L., J. Bessac, and E. M. Constantinescu. 2019. “Global sensitivity analysis for statistical model parameters”. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 7(1):67–92. Ł ˛ acki, K. M., J. Joseph, and K. O. Eriksson. 2018. “Downstream process design, scale-up principles, and process modeling”. In Biopharmaceutical Processing, 637–674. Elsevier

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Lemieux, C. 2009. Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Sampling . 1 ed. Springer Series in Statistics,. Springer New York

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Butanol production from hydrothermolysis-pretreated switchgrass: quantification of inhibitors and detoxification of hydrolyzate

Liu, K., H. K. Atiyeh, O. Pardo-Planas, T. C. Ezeji, V . Ujor, J. C. Overton, , et al . 2015. “Butanol production from hydrothermolysis-pretreated switchgrass: quantification of inhibitors and detoxification of hydrolyzate”. Bioresource Technology 189:292–301

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Variations in culture pH affect the cloning efficiency and differentiation of progenitor cells in ex vivo haemopoiesis

McAdams, T. A., W. M. Miller, and E. T. Papoutsakis. 1997. “Variations in culture pH affect the cloning efficiency and differentiation of progenitor cells in ex vivo haemopoiesis”. British Journal of Haema- tology 97(4):889–895

work page 1997