Cited by 6,758Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesHydrological Forecasting Using AISoil Moisture and Remote Sensing

Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling

Open access
Gupta, Hoshin V., Kling, Harald, Yilmaz, Koray K., Martinez, Guillermo F.·2009·Journal of Hydrology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., & Martinez, G. F.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Kling, Harald
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
377
Issue
1-2
Pages
80-91
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138763184
Cited by
6,758
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 922 · 2025: 864 · 2024: 910 · 2023: 869 · 2022: 912 · 2021: 738 · 2020: 416 · 2019: 279 · 2018: 231 · 2017: 181 · 2016: 136 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 35
FWCI
30.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hydrology (publishedVersion)
  • NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenMETU (Middle East Technical University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Soil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Keywords
mean squared error, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, hydrological model calibration, model evaluation, calibration problem, alternative performance measures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review