The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparing Simulated and Measured Values Using Mean Squared Deviation and its Components
Abstract
When output (x) of a mechanistic model is compared with measurement (y), it is common practice to calculate the correlation coefficient between x and y, and to regress y on x. There are, however, problems in this approach. The assumption of the regression, that y is linearly related to x, is not guaranteed and is unnecessary for the x–y comparison. The correlation and regression coefficients are not explicitly related to other commonly used statistics [e.g., root mean squared deviation (RMSD)]. We present an approach based on the mean squared deviation (MSD = RMSD 2) and show that it is better suited to the x–y comparison than regression. Mean squared deviation is the sum of three components: squared bias (SB), squared difference between standard deviations (SDSD), and lack of correlation weighted by the standard deviations (LCS). To show examples, the MSD‐based analysis was applied to simulation vs. measurement comparisons in literature, and the results were compared with those from regression analysis. The analysis of MSD clearly identified the simulation vs. measurement contrasts with larger deviation than others; the correlation–regression approach tended to focus on the contrasts with lower correlation and regression line far from the equality line. It was also shown that results of the MSD‐based analysis were easier to interpret than those of regression analysis. This is because the three MSD components are simply additive and all constituents of the MSD components are explicit. This approach will be useful to quantify the deviation of calculated values obtained with this model from measurements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How to evaluate models: Observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed?
Piñeiro, G., Perelman, S., Guerschman, J. P., & Paruelo, J. M. (2008) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.05.006 · Cited by 891
Yang, J. M., Yang, J. Y., Liu, S., & Hoogenboom, G. (2014) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.01.008 · Cited by 355
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., Ferrise, R., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Nendel, C., et al. (2012) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.016 · Cited by 349
Model Evaluation by Comparison of Model‐Based Predictions and Measured Values
Gauch, H. G., Hwang, J. T. G., & Fick, G. W. (2003) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2003.1442 · Cited by 317
Description and evaluation of the rice growth model ORYZA2000 under nitrogen-limited conditions
Bouman, B. A. M., & van Laar, H. H. (2006) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2004.09.011 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Kobayashi, K., & Salam, M. U.
- Venue
- Agronomy Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 345-352
- ISSN
- 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0645
- OpenAlex
- W1987874405
- Cited by
- 591
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Simulated and Measured Values Using Mean Squared Deviation and its Components. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/agronj2000.922345x
- The paper
- Kobayashi, K., & Salam, M. U. (2000). Comparing Simulated and Measured Values Using Mean Squared Deviation and its Components. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.922345x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.