World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Engineering and Technology

D-Index
49
Citations
16620
World Ranking
4209
National Ranking
1204

Jon C. Helton publication distribution in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Engineering and Technology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Jon C. Helton sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 20 scientists 48–57 publications: 35 scientists 58–67 publications: 96 scientists 68–77 publications: 135 scientists 78–87 publications: 190 scientists 88–97 publications: 259 scientists 98–107 publications: 283 scientists 108–117 publications: 369 scientists 118–127 publications: 341 scientists 128–137 publications: 386 scientists 138–147 publications: 372 scientists 148–157 publications: 457 scientists 158–167 publications: 415 scientists 168–177 publications: 407 scientists 178–187 publications: 421 scientists 188–197 publications: 378 scientists 198–207 publications: 403 scientists 208–217 publications: 317 scientists 218–227 publications: 346 scientists 228–237 publications: 321 scientists 238–247 publications: 260 scientists 248–257 publications: 280 scientists 258–267 publications: 240 scientists 268–277 publications: 214 scientists 278–287 publications: 242 scientists 288–297 publications: 203 scientists 298–307 publications: 166 scientists 308–317 publications: 154 scientists 318–327 publications: 175 scientists 328–337 publications: 159 scientists 338–347 publications: 99 scientists 348–357 publications: 131 scientists 358–367 publications: 106 scientists 368–377 publications: 118 scientists 378–387 publications: 97 scientists 388–397 publications: 108 scientists 398–407 publications: 82 scientists 408–417 publications: 71 scientists 418–427 publications: 64 scientists 428–437 publications: 55 scientists 438–447 publications: 54 scientists 448–457 publications: 60 scientists 458–467 publications: 47 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 30 scientists 488–497 publications: 29 scientists 498–507 publications: 38 scientists 508–517 publications: 40 scientists 518–527 publications: 32 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 28 scientists 548–557 publications: 23 scientists 558–567 publications: 19 scientists 568–577 publications: 16 scientists 578–587 publications: 17 scientists 588–597 publications: 18 scientists 598–607 publications: 22 scientists 608–617 publications: 15 scientists 618–627 publications: 9 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 21 scientists 648–657 publications: 12 scientists 658–667 publications: 9 scientists 668–677 publications: 11 scientists 678–687 publications: 9 scientists 688–697 publications: 6 scientists 698–707 publications: 14 scientists 708–717 publications: 7 scientists 718–727 publications: 8 scientists 728–737 publications: 10 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 5 scientists 758–767 publications: 5 scientists 768–777 publications: 11 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 2 scientists 798–803 publications: 4 scientists 804+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 804+

This scientist: 194 publications — 45th percentile

45% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 804 publications or more.

Jon C. Helton D-index placement in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Engineering and Technology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Jon C. Helton sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 59 scientists 31 D-Index: 114 scientists 32 D-Index: 129 scientists 33 D-Index: 189 scientists 34 D-Index: 200 scientists 35 D-Index: 262 scientists 36 D-Index: 311 scientists 37 D-Index: 312 scientists 38 D-Index: 350 scientists 39 D-Index: 385 scientists 40 D-Index: 348 scientists 41 D-Index: 362 scientists 42 D-Index: 426 scientists 43 D-Index: 380 scientists 44 D-Index: 310 scientists 45 D-Index: 341 scientists 46 D-Index: 301 scientists 47 D-Index: 306 scientists 48 D-Index: 271 scientists 49 D-Index: 246 scientists 50 D-Index: 210 scientists 51 D-Index: 253 scientists 52 D-Index: 213 scientists 53 D-Index: 221 scientists 54 D-Index: 195 scientists 55 D-Index: 186 scientists 56 D-Index: 170 scientists 57 D-Index: 167 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 144 scientists 60 D-Index: 152 scientists 61 D-Index: 141 scientists 62 D-Index: 138 scientists 63 D-Index: 131 scientists 64 D-Index: 118 scientists 65 D-Index: 114 scientists 66 D-Index: 119 scientists 67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68 D-Index: 87 scientists 69 D-Index: 77 scientists 70 D-Index: 89 scientists 71 D-Index: 69 scientists 72 D-Index: 54 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 55 scientists 75 D-Index: 54 scientists 76 D-Index: 49 scientists 77 D-Index: 53 scientists 78 D-Index: 46 scientists 79 D-Index: 28 scientists 80 D-Index: 39 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 24 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 36 scientists 85 D-Index: 18 scientists 86 D-Index: 25 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 26 scientists 89 D-Index: 27 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 15 scientists 92 D-Index: 12 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 15 scientists 95 D-Index: 10 scientists 96 D-Index: 13 scientists 97 D-Index: 13 scientists 98 D-Index: 9 scientists 99 D-Index: 7 scientists 100 D-Index: 7 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 7 scientists 103 D-Index: 7 scientists 104 D-Index: 9 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106 D-Index: 9 scientists 107+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 107+

This scientist: 49 D-Index — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 107 D-Index or more.

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Statistics
  • Regression analysis
  • Mechanical engineering

Jon C. Helton mostly deals with Uncertainty analysis, Uncertainty quantification, Sensitivity analysis, Statistics and Latin hypercube sampling. His research in Uncertainty analysis intersects with topics in Sampling, Regression analysis, Artificial intelligence and Sensitivity. His Sampling research incorporates themes from Variance decomposition of forecast errors, Sobol sequence, Stratified sampling and Space.

He focuses mostly in the field of Sensitivity, narrowing it down to topics relating to Data mining and, in certain cases, Distribution and Ranking. Jon C. Helton has included themes like Representation, Probability theory, Econometrics and Management science in his Uncertainty quantification study. His study looks at the relationship between Latin hypercube sampling and topics such as Stability, which overlap with Sample size determination, Hypercube, Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance, Statistic and Type I and type II errors.

His most cited work include:

  • Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems (1424 citations)
  • Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis (886 citations)
  • Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal (573 citations)

What are the main themes of his work throughout his whole career to date?

Radioactive waste, Uncertainty quantification, Uncertainty analysis, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and Waste management are his primary areas of study. Jon C. Helton interconnects Waste disposal and Civil engineering in the investigation of issues within Radioactive waste. His study looks at the relationship between Uncertainty quantification and fields such as Representation, as well as how they intersect with chemical problems.

Jon C. Helton has researched Uncertainty analysis in several fields, including Latin hypercube sampling, Mathematical optimization and Operations research. His work carried out in the field of Latin hypercube sampling brings together such families of science as Sampling, Probabilistic risk assessment, Theoretical computer science and Sensitivity. The various areas that he examines in his Waste Isolation Pilot Plant study include Environmental engineering, Transuranic waste and Drilling.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Radioactive waste (30.68%)
  • Uncertainty quantification (27.27%)
  • Uncertainty analysis (27.27%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2011-2021)?

  • High-level waste (12.50%)
  • Uncertainty quantification (27.27%)
  • Uncertainty analysis (27.27%)

In recent papers he was focusing on the following fields of study:

Jon C. Helton focuses on High-level waste, Uncertainty quantification, Uncertainty analysis, Radioactive waste and Reliability engineering. Jon C. Helton combines subjects such as Latin hypercube sampling and Sensitivity with his study of Uncertainty quantification. His Latin hypercube sampling study frequently links to related topics such as Operations research.

The concepts of his Sensitivity study are interwoven with issues in Sampling and Statistics. By researching both Uncertainty analysis and Metamodeling, Jon C. Helton produces research that crosses academic boundaries. His studies in Radioactive waste integrate themes in fields like System safety and Spent nuclear fuel.

Between 2011 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in performance assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (29 citations)
  • Use of replicated Latin hypercube sampling to estimate sampling variance in uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste (29 citations)
  • Analysis of computationally demanding models with continuous and categorical inputs (27 citations)

In his most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Statistics
  • Mathematical analysis
  • Mechanical engineering

His scientific interests lie mostly in Uncertainty analysis, High-level waste, Radioactive waste, Uncertainty quantification and Civil engineering. His Uncertainty analysis research includes elements of Reliability engineering, Machine learning, Categorical variable, Surrogate model and Computational model. His studies link System safety with Radioactive waste.

His work deals with themes such as Latin hypercube sampling and Sensitivity, which intersect with Uncertainty quantification. His research on Latin hypercube sampling concerns the broader Statistics. The Sensitivity study combines topics in areas such as Econometrics, Sample size determination and Visual inspection.

Best Publications

  • Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems

    Jon C. Helton;F. J. Davis

  • Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis

    Jon C. Helton;Jay D. Johnson;Cédric J. Sallaberry;Curtis B. Storlie

  • Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal

    Jon C Helton

  • An Investigation of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for Computer Models

    Ronald L. Iman;Jon C. Helton

  • Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters

    William L. Oberkampf;Jon C. Helton;Cliff A. Joslyn;Steven F. Wojtkiewicz

  • An exploration of alternative approaches to the representation of uncertainty in model predictions

    Jon C. Helton;Jay D. Johnson;William Oberkampf

  • Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in the presence of stochastic and subjective uncertainty

    J.C. Helton

  • Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems

    Jon C. Helton

  • Illustration of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.

    J. C. Helton;F. J. Davis

  • Alternative representations of epistemic uncertainty

    Jon C. Helton;William Oberkampf

  • Implementation and evaluation of nonparametric regression procedures for sensitivity analysis of computationally demanding models

    Curtis B. Storlie;Laura Painton Swiler;Jon C. Helton;Cédric J. Sallaberry

  • A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis results obtained with random and Latin hypercube sampling

    Jon C. Helton;F. J. Davis;Jay D. Johnson

  • Mathematical representation of uncertainty

    William Oberkampf;Jon Helton;Kari Sentz

  • Guest editorial: treatment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems

    Jon C. Helton;David E. Burmaster

  • An Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Computer Models: Part II - Ranking of Input Variables, Response Surface Validation, Distribution Effect and Technique Synopsis

    Ronald L. Iman;Jon C. Helton;James E. Campbell

  • Summary from the epistemic uncertainty workshop: consensus amid diversity

    Scott Ferson;Cliff A. Joslyn;Jon C. Helton;William L. Oberkampf

  • Multiple predictor smoothing methods for sensitivity analysis: Description of techniques

    Curtis B. Storlie;Jon C. Helton

  • A sampling-based computational strategy for the representation of epistemic uncertainty in model predictions with evidence theory

    J.C. Helton;J.D. Johnson;W.L. Oberkampf;C.B. Storlie

  • Representation of analysis results involving aleatory and epistemic uncertainty

    Jon C. Helton;Jay D. Johnson;William L. Oberkampf;Cédric J. Sallaberry

  • Statistical Analyses of Scatterplots to Identify Important Factors in Large-Scale Simulations, 1: Review and Comparison of Techniques

    J.P.C. Kleijnen;J.C. Helton

  • An exploration of alternative approaches to the representation of uncertainty in model predictions.

    Jay Dean Johnson;William Louis Oberkampf;Jon Craig Helton

Frequent Co-Authors

William L. Oberkampf
William L. Oberkampf Sandia National Laboratories
Jack P. C. Kleijnen
Jack P. C. Kleijnen Tilburg University
Sam S. Yoon
Sam S. Yoon Korea University
Andrea Saltelli
Andrea Saltelli UPF Barcelona School of Management
Brian J. Reich
Brian J. Reich North Carolina State University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Best Scientists Citing Jon C. Helton

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles