The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. The evaluation of hydrologic model behaviour and performance is commonly made and reported through comparisons of simulated and observed variables. Frequently, comparisons are made between simulated and measured streamflow at the catchment outlet. In distributed hydrological modelling approaches, additional comparisons of simulated and observed measurements for multi-response validation may be integrated into the evaluation procedure to assess overall modelling performance. In both approaches, single and multi-response, efficiency criteria are commonly used by hydrologists to provide an objective assessment of the "closeness" of the simulated behaviour to the observed measurements. While there are a few efficiency criteria such as the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, coefficient of determination, and index of agreement that are frequently used in hydrologic modeling studies and reported in the literature, there are a large number of other efficiency criteria to choose from. The selection and use of specific efficiency criteria and the interpretation of the results can be a challenge for even the most experienced hydrologist since each criterion may place different emphasis on different types of simulated and observed behaviours. In this paper, the utility of several efficiency criteria is investigated in three examples using a simple observed streamflow hydrograph.
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
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., & Martinez, G. F. (2009) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003 · Cited by 6,758
SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., van Griensven, A., Liew, M. W. V., et al. (2012) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.42256 · Cited by 3,450
Gassman, P. W., Reyes, M. R., Green, C. H., & Arnold, J. G. (2007) · Transactions of the ASABE · doi:10.13031/2013.23637 · Cited by 3,040
Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., & Kløve, B. (2015) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027 · Cited by 1,833
Characterising performance of environmental models
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., et al. (2013) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011 · Cited by 1,536
Metadata
- Authors
- Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., & Bäse, F.
- Venue
- Advances in Geosciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2005-12-16
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 89-97
- ISSN
- 1680-7340 (ISSN-L)
- 1680-7359
- OpenAlex
- W2147746661
- Cited by
- 2,809
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005
- The paper
- Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., & Bäse, F. (2005). Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005
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.
