The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 8 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? – Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract. Both the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE) are regularly employed in model evaluation studies. Willmott and Matsuura (2005) have suggested that the RMSE is not a good indicator of average model performance and might be a misleading indicator of average error, and thus the MAE would be a better metric for that purpose. While some concerns over using RMSE raised by Willmott and Matsuura (2005) and Willmott et al. (2009) are valid, the proposed avoidance of RMSE in favor of MAE is not the solution. Citing the aforementioned papers, many researchers chose MAE over RMSE to present their model evaluation statistics when presenting or adding the RMSE measures could be more beneficial. In this technical note, we demonstrate that the RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, contrary to what was claimed by Willmott et al. (2009). The RMSE is more appropriate to represent model performance than the MAE when the error distribution is expected to be Gaussian. In addition, we show that the RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality requirement for a distance metric, whereas Willmott et al. (2009) indicated that the sums-of-squares-based statistics do not satisfy this rule. In the end, we discussed some circumstances where using the RMSE will be more beneficial. However, we do not contend that the RMSE is superior over the MAE. Instead, a combination of metrics, including but certainly not limited to RMSEs and MAEs, are often required to assess model performance.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This technical note argues against the recommendation by Willmott and Matsuura (2005) and Willmott et al. (2009) to abandon RMSE in favor of MAE, showing that RMSE is not ambiguous in meaning and is more appropriate when errors are expected to be Gaussian. The authors also demonstrate that RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality required of a distance metric, contrary to the earlier claims, while concluding that a combination of metrics is often needed.
Key findings
- RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, contrary to Willmott et al. (2009); it is more appropriate than MAE when the error distribution is expected to be Gaussian, whereas MAE suits uniformly distributed errors.
- Using randomly generated zero-mean, unit-variance Gaussian pseudo-errors, RMSEs converge to the true standard deviation (SE = 1) once n ≥ 100, with standard deviation within 5% of truth; MAEs converge to 0.8, approximating the expectation of √(2/π). Neither metric is robust at n = 4 or n = 10.
- RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality required for a distance metric: the example in Willmott et al. (2009) (d(a,c)=4, d(a,b)=2, d(b,c)=3) actually represents the MSE, not the RMSE, and the L2-norm proof in Eqs. (5)–(7) shows RMSE does satisfy it.
- RMSE has practical advantages: it avoids absolute values (useful for gradients/sensitivities and data assimilation cost functions) and is generally better at discriminating among model results by weighting unfavorable conditions more heavily.
Methods
- Technical note / commentary design: no new observational dataset; the argument is analytical, using norm theory (L1- and L2-norms linked to MAE and RMSE) and a proof of the triangle inequality for the L2-norm.
- A Monte Carlo-style demonstration: five sets of pseudo-errors of size n = 4, 10, 100, 1000, 10 000, and 1000 000 drawn from a zero-mean, unit-variance Gaussian distribution with different random seeds, comparing RMSEs and MAEs (Table 1).
- Reference to prior empirical example: Chai et al. (2009) reported RMSE-to-MAE ratios of 1.63 to 2.29 for model NO2 column predictions versus SCIAMACHY satellite observations.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: the analysis assumes unbiased errors and does not consider uncertainties from observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations; all statistics are less useful with limited sample sizes (e.g., n = 4 or 10), where presenting the errors themselves may be more appropriate; for non-normal distributions, additional moments (mean, variance, skewness, flatness) are needed; outliers several orders larger than other samples may justifiably be removed when sample numbers are limited, and systematic errors may need removal before computing RMSEs.
- Evident from the text: the demonstration relies on synthetic Gaussian pseudo-errors rather than real model–observation comparisons, so the convergence results are conditional on the Gaussian assumption; the authors explicitly do not claim RMSE is superior to MAE, so the note offers guidance rather than a definitive metric selection rule.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 Own interpretation · 6 No basis given · 4 Supported · 3 Sources not found · 3 Own result · 1 No full text of the sources · 1 Not checked yet
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Using hypothetical sets of four errors, Willmott and Matsuura (2005) demonstrated that while keeping the MAE as a constant of 2.0, the RMSE varies from 2.0 to 4.0.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Willmott and Matsuura (2005) source
Table 1 identifies five hypothetical sets of four errors, and Section 3 says their RMSE increases as the error magnitudes become more variable. The paper gives the bounds as MAE ≤ RMSE ≤ √n × MAE; with four errors and an MAE of 2.0, those bounds are 2.0 and 4.0. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, we show that the RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality requirement for a distance metric, whereas Willmott et al. (2009) indicated that the sums-ofsquares-based statistics do not satisfy this rule.”
- Also stated in: § 3 Triangle inequality of a metric · boosted
“This proves that RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality required for a distance function metric.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · boosted
“In addition, we demonstrate that the RMSE satisfies the triangle inequality required for a distance function metric.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3 Triangle inequality of a metric · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the sample size reaches 100 or above, using the calculated RMSEs one can re-construct the error distribution close to its “truth” or “exact solution”, with its standard deviation within 5 % to its truth (i.e., SE = 1).”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 2 Interpretation of RMSE and MAE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The errors are unbiased and follow a normal distribution when presenting the RMSE.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The uncertainties brought in by observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations are not considered.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, Table 1 shows that neither the RMSEs nor the MAEs are robust when only 4 or 10 samples are used to calculate those values.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 2 Interpretation of RMSE and MAE
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The errors are unbiased and follow a normal distribution when presenting the RMSE.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The uncertainties brought in by observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations are not considered.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RMSE is more appropriate to represent model performance than the MAE when the error distribution is expected to be Gaussian.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“When the error distribution is expected to be Gaussian and there are enough samples, the RMSE has an advantage over the MAE to illustrate the error distribution.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
“We present that the RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, and it is more appropriate to use than the MAE when model errors follow a normal distribution.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Model errors are likely to have a normal distribution rather than a uniform distribution.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Giving higher weighting to the unfavorable conditions, the RMSE usually is better at revealing model performance differences.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 4 Summary and discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The L1-norm and L2-norm are closely related to the MAE and the RMSE, respectively, as shown in Eqs. ( 3) and ( 4): Horn and Johnson, 1990).”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 3 Triangle inequality of a metric
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Horn and Johnson, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In this technical note, we demonstrate that the RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, contrary to what was claimed by Willmott et al. (2009).”
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
“We present that the RMSE is not ambiguous in its meaning, and it is more appropriate to use than the MAE when model errors follow a normal distribution.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Willmott et al. (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One distinct advantage of RMSEs over MAEs is that RM-SEs avoid the use of absolute value, which is highly undesirable in many mathematical calculations.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 4 Summary and discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, one can readily show that, for several sets of errors with the same RMSE, the MAE would vary from set to set.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 2
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They summarized that the RMSE tends to become increasingly larger than the MAE (but not necessarily in a monotonic fashion) as the distribution of error magnitudes becomes more variable.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Willmott and Matsuura (2005) source
The Concluding Remarks state the attributed point directly, including the qualification that the increase need not be monotonic. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They concluded that the RMSE varies with the variability of the the error magnitudes and the total-error or averageerror magnitude (MAE), and the sample size n.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Willmott and Matsuura (2005) source
The Concluding Remarks state that RMSE depends on error-magnitude variability, MAE, and the square root of sample size. The claim says it varies with sample size n, which accurately conveys that dependence without asserting that the relationship is linear. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Willmott and Matsuura (2005) have simply proved that the RMSE is not equivalent to the MAE, and one cannot easily derive the MAE value from the RMSE (and vice versa).”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Willmott and Matsuura (2005) source
Section 3 describes an inconsistent relationship between MAE and RMSE, including cases where RMSE changes with error-magnitude variance. Section 4 explains that RMSE depends on MAE, the distribution of error magnitudes, and the number of errors. This supports the claim that the measures are not equivalent and that one cannot generally derive either value from the other alone. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 shows that the MAEs converge to 0.8, an approximation to the expectation of 2 π .”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 2 Interpretation of RMSE and MAE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The errors are unbiased and follow a normal distribution when presenting the RMSE.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The uncertainties brought in by observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations are not considered.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When both metrics are calculated, the RMSE is by definition never smaller than the MAE.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MAE is suitable to describe uniformly distributed errors.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 2 Interpretation of RMSE and MAE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For other kinds of distributions, more statistical moments of model errors, such as mean, variance, skewness, and flatness, are needed to provide a complete picture of the model error variation.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 4 Summary and discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The ratio of RMSE to MAE ranged from 1.63 to 2.29 (see Table 1 of Chai et al., 2009).”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chai et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In many of the model sensitivity studies that use only RMSE, a detailed interpretation is not critical because variations of the same model will have similar error distributions.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 4 Summary and discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As every statistical measure condenses a large number of data into a single value, it only provides one projection of the model errors emphasizing a certain aspect of the error characteristics of the model performance.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
“As stated earlier, any single metric provides only one projection of the model errors and, therefore, only emphasizes a certain aspect of the error characteristics.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A combination of metrics, including but certainly not limited to RMSEs and MAEs, are often required to assess model performance.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
“A combination of metrics, including but certainly not limited to RMSEs and MAEs, are often required to assess model performance.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § 4 Summary and discussion · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the MAE gives the same weight to all errors, the RMSE penalizes variance as it gives errors with larger absolute values more weight than errors with smaller absolute values.”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The errors are unbiased and follow a normal distribution when presenting the RMSE.
“The underlying assumption when presenting the RMSE is that the errors are unbiased and follow a normal distribution.”
“We also assume the error sample set is unbiased.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Model errors are likely to have a normal distribution rather than a uniform distribution.
“Because model errors are likely to have a normal distribution rather than a uniform distribution, the RMSE is a better metric to present than the MAE for such a type of data.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The uncertainties brought in by observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations are not considered.
“The uncertainties brought in by observation errors or the method used to compare model and observations are not considered here.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are often hundreds of observations available to calculate model statistics.
“Fortunately, there are often hundreds of observations available to calculate model statistics, unlike the examples with n = 4 (Willmott and Matsuura, 2005) and n = 10 ( Willmott et al., 2009).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 4 Summary and discussion
“| 4 | 0.92, 0.65, 1.48, 1.02, 0.79 0.70, 0.57, 1.33, 1.16, 0.76 | |”
§ Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature > 1 Introduction
“When both metrics are calculated, the RMSE is by definition never smaller than the MAE.”
Citations
Cites
Horn, R. A., & Johnson, C. R. (1985) · Cited by 22,203
David, F. N., & Tukey, J. W. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529486 · Cited by 12,707
Willmott, C., & Matsuura, K. (2005) · Climate Research · doi:10.3354/cr030079 · Cited by 6,512 · cited 4×
“Further, Willmott et al. (2009) concluded that the sums-of-squaresbased error statistics such as the RMSE and the standard error have inherent ambiguities and recommended the use of alternates such as the MAE.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHuber, P. J., & Ronchetti, E. M. (2009) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470434697 · Cited by 1,823
Ambiguities inherent in sums-of-squares-based error statistics
Willmott, C. J., Matsuura, K., & Robeson, S. M. (2008) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.005 · Cited by 212 · cited 1×
“Fortunately, there are often hundreds of observations available to calculate model statistics, unlike the examples with n= 4 (Willmott and Matsuura, 2005) and n= 10 (Willmott et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMcKeen, S. A., Wilczak, J. M., Grell, G., et al. (2005) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2005jd005858 · Cited by 208
Savage, N., Agnew, P., Davis, L. S., Ordóñez, C., Thorpe, R., Johnson, C. E., O’Connor, F. M., & Dalvi, M. (2013) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-6-353-2013 · Cited by 128
Taylor, M. H., Lösch, M., Wenzel, M., et al. (2013) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-13-00089.1 · Cited by 93
Chai, T., Kim, H. C., Lee, P., et al. (2013) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-6-1831-2013 · Cited by 87
Self-citationA multi-physics ensemble of present-day climate regional simulations over the Iberian Peninsula
Jerez, S., Montávez, J. P., Jiménez‐Guerrero, P., et al. (2012) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1539-1 · Cited by 80 · cited 2×
“(2009) (e.g., Taylor et al., 2013; Chatterjee et al., 2013; Jerez et al., 2013).”
Method
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,100 of 7,174
Mohammadiun, S., Hu, G., Gharahbagh, A. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129282 · Cited by 30
Air pollution measurement errors: is your data fit for purpose?
Diez, S., Lacy, S., Bannan, T. J., et al. (2022) · Atmospheric measurement techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022 · Cited by 30
Preeti, Bala, R., & Singh, R. P. (2022) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109317 · Cited by 32
Dynamic Feature Selection for Solar Irradiance Forecasting Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning
Lyu, C., Eftekharnejad, S., Basumallik, S., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · doi:10.1109/tia.2022.3206731 · Cited by 30
Latif, S., & Simonović, S. P. (2022) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-022-03321-y · Cited by 30
Forecasting nonperforming loans using machine learning
Abdullah, M., Chowdhury, M. A. F., Uddin, A., & Moudud‐Ul‐Huq, S. (2023) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.2977 · Cited by 35
Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Yu, Z., et al. (2023) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c03677 · Cited by 30
Performance of multi-physics ensembles in convective precipitation events over northeastern Spain
García‐Ortega, E., Lorenzana, J., Merino, A., et al. (2017) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.02.009 · Cited by 30
Foreign arrivals nowcasting in Italy with Google Trends data
Antolini, F., & Grassini, L. (2018) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-018-0748-z · Cited by 30
Shao, Y., & Lan, J. (2019) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs11091045 · Cited by 30
Bremer, V., Chow, P. I., Funk, B., Thorndike, F. P., & Ritterband, L. M. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.17738 · Cited by 29
Citywide Mobile Traffic Forecasting Using Spatial-Temporal Downsampling Transformer Neural Networks
Hu, Y., Zhou, Y., Song, J., Xu, L., & Zhou, X. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2022.3214483 · Cited by 29
Prediction of pasture yield using machine learning-based optical sensing: a systematic review
Stumpe, C., Leukel, J., & Zimpel, T. (2023) · Precision Agriculture · doi:10.1007/s11119-023-10079-9 · Cited by 31
Structural monitoring data repair based on a long short-term memory neural network
Panfeng, B., Songlin, Z., Hongyu, C., Caiwei, L., Pengtao, W., & Lichang, Q. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-60196-2 · Cited by 34
A Survey of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Wind Energy Forecasting
Dhaka, P., Sreejeth, M., & Tripathi, M. M. (2024) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-024-10182-8 · Cited by 32
Gupta, S., & Basant, N. (2016) · RSC Advances · doi:10.1039/c6ra22865h · Cited by 29
Almasi, S. N., Bagherpour, R., Mikaeil, R., et al. (2017) · Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10706-017-0177-0 · Cited by 29
ESTIMATING BUILDING AGE WITH 3D GIS
Biljecki, F., & Sindram, M. (2017) · ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · doi:10.5194/isprs-annals-iv-4-w5-17-2017 · Cited by 29
Wang, J., Wu, Z., Wu, C., Cao, Z., Fan, W., & Tarolli, P. (2017) · GIScience & Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/15481603.2017.1417690 · Cited by 31
Habib, A., Sou, C., Hafeez, H. M., et al. (2018) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.04.063 · Cited by 29
Validation of near infrared spectroscopy as an age-prediction method for plastics
Alassali, A., Picuno, C., Bébien, T., Fiore, S., & Kuchta, K. (2019) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104555 · Cited by 30
Urban Traffic Flow Forecast Based on FastGCRNN
Zhang, Y., Lu, M., & Li, H. (2020) · Journal of Advanced Transportation · doi:10.1155/2020/8859538 · Cited by 29
Comparative Analysis of Supervised Models for Diamond Price Prediction
Sharma, G., Tripathi, V., Mahajan, M., et al. (2021) · International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence) · doi:10.1109/confluence51648.2021.9377183 · Cited by 29
Soil health spatial-temporal variation influence soil security on Midwestern, U.S. farms
Crookston, B., Yost, M., Bowman, M., Veum, K. S., Cardon, G., & Norton, J. (2021) · Soil Security · doi:10.1016/j.soisec.2021.100005 · Cited by 13
Chejara, P., Prieto, L. P., Ruiz‐Calleja, A., Rodríguez‐Triana, M. J., Shankar, S. K., & Kasepalu, R. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21082863 · Cited by 29
AQI time series prediction based on a hybrid data decomposition and echo state networks
Liu, H., & Zhang, X. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-14186-w · Cited by 29
Liu, G., Qin, H., Shen, Q., Lyv, H., Qu, Y., Fu, J., Liu, Y., & Zhou, J. (2021) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117379 · Cited by 33
García, S. D. A., Aranda-Barranco, S., Nieto, H., et al. (2021) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108692 · Cited by 29
Liu, L., Ao, T., Zhou, L., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127819 · Cited by 29
Adaptive RISE Feedback Control for Robotized Machining With PKMs: Design and Real-Time Experiments
Escorcia-Hernández, J. M., Chemori, A., & Sierra, H. A. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · doi:10.1109/tcst.2022.3169015 · Cited by 29
Exploring the use of astronomical seasons in municipal solid waste disposal rates modeling
Adusei, K. K., Ng, K. T. W., Mahmud, T. S., et al. (2022) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2022.104115 · Cited by 29
Liu, W., Deng, H., Shi, Y., Liu, C., & Zheng, L. (2022) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111944 · Cited by 29
Zhang, T., Zhang, L., Chen, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2022.3213189 · Cited by 38
Khan, K., Kumar, V., Colombo, E., Lombardo, A., Benfenati, E., & Roy, K. (2022) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107625 · Cited by 27
Learning-Based Matched Representation System for Job Recommendation
Alsaif, S. A., Hidri, M. S., Eleraky, H. A., Ferjani, I., & Amami, R. (2022) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers11110161 · Cited by 42
Sapiega, P., Zalewska, T., & Struzik, P. (2022) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105624 · Cited by 29
Active temperature control of electric drivetrains for efficiency increase
Wahl, A., Wellmann, C., Monissen, C., & Andert, J. (2023) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120887 · Cited by 29
Pourrahmati, M. R., Baghdadi, N. N., Darvishsefat, A. A., et al. (2015) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2015.2478478 · Cited by 29
Gupta, S., Basant, N., Mohan, D., et al. (2016) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6527-2 · Cited by 29
Guo, L., Jin, B., Yu, R., et al. (2016) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2016.2578638 · Cited by 29
Antwi, M., Duker, A. A., Fosu, M., et al. (2016) · Cogent Geoscience · doi:10.1080/23312041.2016.1201906 · Cited by 29
Mathur, N., Paul, G., Irvine, J. M., Abuhelala, M., Buis, A. W. P., & Glesk, I. (2016) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2016.2622163 · Cited by 29
Odipo, V., Nickless, A., Berger, C. R., Baade, J., Urbazaev, M., Walther, C., & Schmullius, C. (2016) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f7120294 · Cited by 29
Schmidt, J., Werther, L., & Zielhofer, C. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200167 · Cited by 32
The Use of Forest Biomass for Energy Purposes in Selected European Countries
Kożuch, A., Cywicka, D., Adamowicz, K., Wieruszewski, M., Wysocka-Fijorek, E., & Kiełbasa, P. (2023) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en16155776 · Cited by 28
Investigation of ANN Architecture for Predicting Load‐Carrying Capacity of Castellated Steel Beams
Nguyen, T., Ly, H., & Tran, V. Q. (2021) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2021/6697923 · Cited by 28
Spatiotemporal Assessment and Correction of Gridded Precipitation Products in North Western Morocco
Dhmane, L. A., Moustadraf, J., Rachdane, M., Saidi, M. E., Benjmel, K., Amraoui, F., Ezzaouini, M. A., Sliman, A. A., & Hadri, A. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14081239 · Cited by 32
Ahmad, F., Samui, P., & Mishra, S. S. (2023) · Modeling Earth Systems and Environment · doi:10.1007/s40808-023-01882-4 · Cited by 28
Enhancing Essay Scoring with Adversarial Weights Perturbation and Metric-specific AttentionPooling
Huang, J., Zhao, X., Che, C., Lin, Q., & Liu, B. (2023) · International Conference on Information Network and Computer Communications (INCC) · doi:10.1109/incc58754.2023.00009 · Cited by 31
Electrodermal activity in pain assessment and its clinical applications
Kong, Y., & Chon, K. H. (2024) · Applied Physics Reviews · doi:10.1063/5.0200395 · Cited by 31
Candy, B., Saunders, R. W., Ghent, D. J., et al. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2016jd026417 · Cited by 28
A hybrid approach for the spatial disaggregation of socio-economic indicators
Monteiro, J., Martins, B., & Pires, J. M. (2017) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-017-0080-z · Cited by 28
Artificial Vector Calibration Method for Differencing Magnetic Gradient Tensor Systems
Li, Q., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., et al. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18020361 · Cited by 28
Samouly, A. A., Luong, C. N., Li, Z., Smith, S. T., Baetz, B. W., & Ghaith, M. (2018) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-018-7701-2 · Cited by 28
Multi-rate principal component regression model for soft sensor application in industrial processes
Zhou, L., Wang, Y., & Ge, Z. (2019) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-018-9624-8 · Cited by 28
Simultaneous convolutional neural network for highly efficient image steganography
Văn, T. P., Dinh, T. H., & Thanh, T. M. (2019) · International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies · doi:10.1109/iscit.2019.8905216 · Cited by 28
Aziz, F., Malek, S., Ali, A. M., Wong, M., Mosleh, M. A. A., & Milow, P. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.8286 · Cited by 28
PM10 concentration forecast using modified depth-first search and supervised learning neural network
Photphanloet, C., & Lipikorn, R. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138507 · Cited by 31
A Machine Learning Approach to Short-Term Body Weight Prediction in a Dietary Intervention Program
Babajide, O., Tawfik, H., Palczewska, A., Gorbenko, A., Astrup, A. V., Martínez, J. A., Oppert, J., & Sørensen, T. I. A. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50423-6_33 · Cited by 29
Hydraulic Performance and Modelling of Pressurized Drip Irrigation System
Sharu, E. H., & Razak, M. S. A. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12082295 · Cited by 28
Xiao, M., Liu, G., Xie, J., Dai, Z., Wei, Z., Ren, Z., Yu, J. M., & Zhang, L. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2021.3049617 · Cited by 28
In silico local QSAR modeling of bioconcentration factor of organophosphate pesticides
Banjare, P., Matore, B. W., Singh, J., et al. (2021) · In Silico Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s40203-021-00087-w · Cited by 28
System Identification for Propellers at High Incidence Angles
Simmons, B. M. (2021) · Journal of Aircraft · doi:10.2514/1.c036329 · Cited by 28
Application of novel hybrid artificial intelligence algorithms to groundwater simulation
Dehghani, R., & Poudeh, H. T. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-021-03596-5 · Cited by 27
Machine learning in the prediction of sugarcane production environments
de Almeida, G. M., Pereira, G. T., Bahia, A. S. R. D. S., et al. (2021) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106452 · Cited by 28
Wahyuni, S., Sisinggih, D., & Dewi, I. A. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/930/1/012042 · Cited by 28
Age Estimation from Left-Hand Radiographs with Deep Learning Methods
Özdemir, C., Gedik, M. A., & Kaya, Y. (2021) · Traitement du signal · doi:10.18280/ts.380601 · Cited by 28
Guillén, A., & Cano, M. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22062217 · Cited by 33
Mélin, F. (2022) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113153 · Cited by 28
Machine Learning Models for Ecofriendly Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete Columns
Aydın, Y., Bekdaş, G., Ni̇gdeli, S. M., et al. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13074117 · Cited by 28
Probabilistic spatiotemporal forecasting of wind speed based on multi-network deep ensembles method
Liu, G., Wang, Y., Qin, H., Shen, K., Liu, S., Shen, Q., Qu, Y., & Zhou, J. (2023) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.03.094 · Cited by 31
Torkko, J., Poom, A., Willberg, E. S., & Toivonen, T. (2023) · Frontiers in Sustainable Cities · doi:10.3389/frsc.2023.1160995 · Cited by 30
Furuya, M. T. G., Furuya, D. E. G., de Oliveira, L. Y. D., et al. (2023) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-023-11017-8 · Cited by 28
Pradeep, T., Kumar, D. R., Kumar, M., et al. (2024) · Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment · doi:10.1007/s10064-024-03775-x · Cited by 28
Alwash, M., Breysse, D., & Sbartaï, Z. M. (2016) · Materials and Structures · doi:10.1617/s11527-016-0962-x · Cited by 28
Indirect methods of tree biomass estimation and their uncertainties
Njana, M. A. (2016) · Southern Forests a Journal of Forest Science · doi:10.2989/20702620.2016.1233753 · Cited by 28
Urbančič, T., Roškar, Ž., Fras, M. K., et al. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19143179 · Cited by 28
Lipu, M. S. H., Hannan, M. A., Hussain, A., Saad, M. H. M., Ayob, A., & Muttaqi, K. M. (2019) · IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting (IAS) · doi:10.1109/ias.2019.8912322 · Cited by 28
Distance Estimation Based on RSSI and Log-Normal Shadowing Models for ZigBee Wireless Sensor Network
Mohammed, S. L. (2016) · Engineering and Technology Journal · doi:10.30684/etj.34.15a.15 · Cited by 28
Ncir, N., Akchioui, N. E., & Fathi, A. E. (2023) · Renewable energy focus · doi:10.1016/j.ref.2023.100504 · Cited by 27
Prediction of Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Perovskite Band Gap by Multiple Machine Learning Algorithms
Feng, S., & Wang, J. (2024) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules29020499 · Cited by 28
FRAMU: Attention-Based Machine Unlearning Using Federated Reinforcement Learning
Shaik, T., Tao, X., Li, L., Xie, H., Cai, T., Zhu, X., & Li, Q. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3382726 · Cited by 33
Wang, Z., Zhu, S., Li, J., Jiang, W., Ramakrishnan, K. K., Yan, M. L., Zhang, X., & Liu, A. X. (2024) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · doi:10.1109/tnet.2024.3400953 · Cited by 27
Transformer-Based hyperspectral image analysis for phenotyping drought tolerance in blueberries
Rahman, M. H., Busby, S., Ru, S., Hanif, S., Sanz‐Sáez, Á., Zheng, J., & Rehman, T. U. (2024) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.109684 · Cited by 28
Griffin, S. M., Otkin, J. A., Rozoff, C. M., et al. (2016) · Weather and Forecasting · doi:10.1175/waf-d-16-0098.1 · Cited by 27
Predicting fuel properties of biomass using thermogravimetry and multivariate data analysis
Strandberg, A., Holmgren, P., & Broström, M. (2016) · Fuel Processing Technology · doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.10.021 · Cited by 27
Mathematical modeling of lactic acid fermentation in bioreactor with carob extract
Germeç, M., Karhan, M., Bialka, K. L., Demırcı, A., & Turhan, İ. (2018) · Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2018.03.018 · Cited by 27
Althuwaynee, O. F., Aşıkoğlu, Ö. L., & Eriş, E. (2018) · Landslides · doi:10.1007/s10346-018-0968-2 · Cited by 27
Educational Data Mining: An Application of Regressors in Predicting School Dropout
do Nascimento, R. L. S., das Neves, R. B., Neto, M. A. D. A., et al. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96133-0_19 · Cited by 27
A new approach for rating prediction system using collaborative filtering
Kumar, P., Kumar, V., & Thakur, R. S. (2018) · Iran Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42044-018-00028-5 · Cited by 27
Performance Analysis of Regression-Machine Learning Algorithms for Predication of Runoff Time
Khan, M., & Noor, S. (2019) · Agrotechnology · doi:10.35248/2168-9881.19.8.187 · Cited by 27
Evaluation of methods for selecting climate models to simulate future hydrological change
Ross, A. C., & Najjar, R. G. (2019) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02512-8 · Cited by 29
Mirgol, B., Nazari, M., & Eteghadipour, M. (2020) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture10030060 · Cited by 27
Mostafa, S. M., Eladimy, A. S., Hamad, S. H., et al. (2020) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym12101594 · Cited by 27
Spatial modelling of accidents risk caused by driver drowsiness with data mining algorithms
Farhangi, F., Sadeghi‐Niaraki, A., Nahvi, A., et al. (2020) · Geocarto International · doi:10.1080/10106049.2020.1831626 · Cited by 27
Xu, S., Li, Z., Hu, Y. C., Zhao, W., Jiang, J., Feng, Z., Chen, W., Li, C., Chen, L.-X., Fang, B., et al. (2020) · Acta Ophthalmologica · doi:10.1111/aos.14658 · Cited by 28
Mir, A. A., Kearfott, K. J., Çelebi, F. V., & Rafique, M. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262131 · Cited by 27
Estimation of Cold Stress, Plant Age, and Number of Leaves in Watermelon Plants Using Image Analysis
Nabwire, S., Wakholi, C., Faqeerzada, M. A., Arief, M. A. A., Kim, M. S., Baek, I., & Cho, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.847225 · Cited by 27
Weidner, S., Tomalka, A., Rode, C., & Siebert, T. (2022) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00735.2021 · Cited by 29
Cedillo, S., Núñez, A.-G., Sánchez-Cordero, E., et al. (2022) · Advanced Modeling and Simulation in Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1186/s40323-022-00226-8 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R.
- Affiliations
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
- Venue
- Geoscientific Model Development
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2014-06-30
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1247-1250
- ISSN
- 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
- 1991-9603
- OpenAlex
- W2102148524
- Semantic Scholar
- 8c42db1839098b46f18265907464c16e49bb7a1c
- Cited by
- 7,178
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1015 · 2025: 1120 · 2024: 980 · 2023: 873 · 2022: 751 · 2021: 683 · 2020: 538 · 2019: 411 · 2018: 324 · 2017: 235 · 2016: 175 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 13
- FWCI
- 106.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Geoscientific model development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NA09NES4400006)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- root mean square error, mean absolute error, model evaluation metrics, error distribution, Gaussian errors, triangle inequality, distance measures, model evaluation, hydrological model evaluation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-17, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-17 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
