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 1,301–1,400 of 7,174
OCLE: A European open access database on climate change effects on littoral and oceanic ecosystems
de la Hoz, C. F., Ramos, E., Acevedo, A., Puente, A., Losada, Í. J., & Juanes, J. A. (2018) · Progress In Oceanography · doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2018.09.021 · Cited by 24
Beck‐Broichsitter, S., Gerke, H. H., & Horn, R. (2018) · Geosciences · doi:10.3390/geosciences8100372 · Cited by 26
Remotely Sensed Boro Rice Production Forecasting Using MODIS-NDVI: A Bangladesh Perspective
Faisal, B. M. R., Rahman, H., Sharifee, M. N. H., et al. (2019) · AgriEngineering · doi:10.3390/agriengineering1030027 · Cited by 23
A Recursive Approach to Partially Blind Calibration of a Pollution Sensor Network
Becnel, T., Sayahi, T., Kelly, K. E., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1109/icess.2019.8782523 · Cited by 23
Predictive Model of Listeria monocytogenes Growth in Queso Fresco
Thomas, M. S., Tiwari, R., & Mishra, A. (2019) · Journal of Food Protection · doi:10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-19-185 · Cited by 23
Zhang, Z., Laakso, T., Wang, Z., et al. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12156254 · Cited by 23
Temporal flood forecasting for trans-boundary Jhelum River of Greater Himalayas
Parvaze, S., Khan, J. N., Kumar, R., et al. (2021) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-021-03562-8 · Cited by 23
Tudor, C. D., & Şova, R. (2022) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi11040232 · Cited by 23
An Overview of Voice Conversion and its Challenges: From Statistical Modeling to Deep LearningPreprint
Şişman, B., Yamagishi, J., King, S., & Li, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.03648 · Cited by 23
Yang, W., Su, A., & Ding, L. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17218-x · Cited by 22
Grape Yield Prediction Models: Approaching Different Machine Learning Algorithms
Andrade, C. B., Moura-Bueno, J. M., Comin, J. J., & Brunetto, G. (2023) · Horticulturae · doi:10.3390/horticulturae9121294 · Cited by 29
Li, K. C., Chen, X., Sabbaghi, A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Materials Chemistry A · doi:10.1039/d4ta00234b · Cited by 22
Wu, Y., Chen, S., Jin, Y., Xu, H., Zhou, X., Wang, X., Chong, A., Li, J., & Yan, D. (2024) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2024.102589 · Cited by 25
Advances in Real-Time 3D Reconstruction for Medical Endoscopy
Richter, A., Steinmann, T., Rosenthal, J.-C., & Rupitsch, S. J. (2024) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging10050120 · Cited by 26
AI-driven social media text analysis during crisis: A review for natural disasters and pandemics
Wahid, J. A., Xu, M., Ayoub, M., Jiang, X., Lei, S., Gao, Y., Hussain, S., & Yu, Y. (2025) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112774 · Cited by 27
A k-d tree-based algorithm to parallelize Kriging interpolation of big spatial data
Wei, H., Du, Y., Liang, F., et al. (2015) · GIScience & Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/15481603.2014.1002379 · Cited by 22
Basant, N., & Gupta, S. (2016) · Nanotoxicology · doi:10.1080/17435390.2016.1257075 · Cited by 22
Wesemael, A. V., Landuyt, L., Lievens, H., et al. (2019) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.05.025 · Cited by 22
A novel approach for rainfall-runoff modelling using a biogeography-based optimization technique
Roy, B., Singh, M. P., & Singh, A. (2019) · International Journal of River Basin Management · doi:10.1080/15715124.2019.1628035 · Cited by 22
Saikia, A., Pathak, B., Singh, P., Bhuyan, P. K., & Adhikary, B. (2019) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos10110703 · Cited by 22
Cheshmberah, F., Fathizad, H., Parad, G. A., & Shojaeifar, S. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-020-02696-y · Cited by 22
Erkan, S. B., Yatmaz, E., Germeç, M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Food Processing and Preservation · doi:10.1111/jfpp.14635 · Cited by 22
Mohammed, A. S., Rafiq, S. K., Ghafor, K., et al. (2021) · Iranian Journal of Science and Technology Transactions of Civil Engineering · doi:10.1007/s40996-021-00604-z · Cited by 22
Arlé, E., Zizka, A., Keil, P., Winter, M., Essl, F., Knight, T. M., Weigelt, P., Jiménez‐Muñoz, M., & Meyer, C. (2021) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13629 · Cited by 23
Satellite-based phenology products and in-situ pollen dynamics: A comparative assessment
Li, L., Hao, D., Li, X., et al. (2021) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111937 · Cited by 22
Liu, W., Feng, Q., Wang, R., et al. (2021) · Urban forestry & urban greening · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127331 · Cited by 22
Casal-Guisande, M., Comesaña-Campos, A., Pereira, A., et al. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10030520 · Cited by 22
Recommendation System Algorithms on Location-Based Social Networks: Comparative Study
Al-Nafjan, A., Alrashoudi, N., & Alrasheed, H. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13040188 · Cited by 22
Park, J., Lee, W., & Huh, K. Y. (2022) · Case Studies in Thermal Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.csite.2022.102288 · Cited by 22
Ananias, P. H. M., Negri, R. G., Dias, M. A., da Silva, E. A., & Casaca, W. C. D. O. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14174283 · Cited by 25
Data-driven prediction of building energy consumption using an adaptive multi-model fusion approach
Lin, P., Zhang, L., & Zuo, J. (2022) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109616 · Cited by 22
Aquatic toxicity prediction of diverse pesticides on two algal species using QSTR modeling approach
Banjare, P., Singh, J., Papa, E., et al. (2022) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-022-22635-3 · Cited by 22
Automatic Modeling for Concrete Compressive Strength Prediction Using Auto-Sklearn
Shi, M., & Shen, W. (2022) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings12091406 · Cited by 22
Silva, A. L. D., Trueman, S. J., Kämper, W., Wallace, H. M., Nichols, J. T., & Bai, S. H. (2023) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants12030558 · Cited by 23
Liu, R., Xue, Y., & Li, S. (2023) · Engineering With Computers · doi:10.1007/s00366-023-01792-0 · Cited by 22
A novel sorting method for liquid metal batteries based on deep learning and sequential features
Xia, J., Shi, Q., Li, H., Zhou, M. J., Jiang, K., & Wang, K. (2023) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2023.107093 · Cited by 22
Semi-MapGen: Translation of Remote Sensing Image Into Map via Semisupervised Adversarial Learning
Song, J., Chen, H., Du, C., et al. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2023.3263897 · Cited by 22
Ghadirian, O., Lotfi, A., Moradi, H., et al. (2023) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102129 · Cited by 22
Yang, P., Li, C., Qiu, Y., et al. (2023) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma16114034 · Cited by 22
Wang, Y., Jiang, W., Wang, C., Song, Q., Zhang, T., Dong, Q., & Li, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Energy Research · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2023.1116465 · Cited by 26
Economic Costs of the Invasive Asian Hornet on Honey BeesPreprint
Réquier, F., Fournier, A., Pointeau, S., Rome, Q., & Courchamp, F. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165576 · Cited by 27
Comparison of Empirical ETo Relationships with ERA5-Land and In Situ Data in Greece
Gourgouletis, N., Gkavrou, M., & Baltas, E. A. (2023) · Geographies · doi:10.3390/geographies3030026 · Cited by 23
Recent Advances in Toxicity Prediction: Applications of Deep Graph Learning
Miao, Y., Ma, H., & Huang, J. (2023) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00384 · Cited by 29
Kumar, D. R., Samui, P., Burman, A., et al. (2023) · Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology · doi:10.1007/s40515-023-00327-w · Cited by 22
Silver Price Forecasting Using Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) Method
Gono, D. N., Napitupulu, H., & Firdaniza, F. (2023) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math11183813 · Cited by 22
Saigustia, C., & Pijarski, P. (2023) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en16227618 · Cited by 22
Souissi, R., Sahnoun, S., Baazaoui, M. K., Fromm, R., Fakhfakh, A., & Derbel, F. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24030802 · Cited by 22
Yang, H., Sun, H. C., Jia, C., Yang, T., & Yang, X. F. (2024) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-024-03753-8 · Cited by 25
A heterogeneous traffic spatio-temporal graph convolution model for traffic prediction
Xu, J., Li, Y., Lu, W., Wu, S., & Li, Y. (2024) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2024.129746 · Cited by 24
Tuboalabo, A., Buinwi, U., Okatta, C. G., Johnson, E., & Buinwi, J. A. (2024) · International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research · doi:10.51594/ijmer.v6i6.1239 · Cited by 40
Mesfin, W. M., & Kim, H.-K. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.108888 · Cited by 22
Zhu, Y., Li, M., Ma, X., Wang, Y., Li, G., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Hassanien, R. H. E. (2024) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118758 · Cited by 23
Compressive strength detection of tunnel lining using hyperspectral images and machine learning
Huang, H., Wang, C., Zhou, M., & Qu, L. (2024) · Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tust.2024.105979 · Cited by 22
Missing data imputation using correlation coefficient and min-max normalization weighting
Shantal, M., Othman, Z., & Bakar, A. A. (2024) · Intelligent Data Analysis · doi:10.3233/ida-230140 · Cited by 22
Zhang, Z., Li, Z., Yang, M., Zhao, F., & Han, S. (2024) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134530 · Cited by 22
The effects of March 20 2015 solar eclipse on the F2 layer in the mid-latitude
Chukwuma, V., & Adekoya, B. J. (2016) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2016.06.038 · Cited by 22
Neck Muscle EMG-Force Relationship and Its Reliability During Isometric Contractions
LoMartire, R., Gladh, K., Westman, A., et al. (2017) · Sports Medicine - Open · doi:10.1186/s40798-017-0083-2 · Cited by 22
PM10 density forecast model using long short term memory
Park, J. H., Yoo, S.-J., Kim, K.-J., Gu, Y., Lee, K.-H., & Son, U.-H. (2017) · International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks · doi:10.1109/icufn.2017.7993855 · Cited by 22
Ezzine, H., Bouziane, A., Ouazar, D., et al. (2017) · Advances in Meteorology · doi:10.1155/2017/8124962 · Cited by 22
Detecting Anomalies in Meteorological Data Using Support Vector Regression
Lee, M.-K., Moon, S., Yoon, Y., et al. (2018) · Advances in Meteorology · doi:10.1155/2018/5439256 · Cited by 22
Fergadiotis, G., Hula, W. D., Swiderski, A. M., Lei, C.-M., & Kellough, S. (2019) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-18-0344 · Cited by 23
Magnetic object positioning method based on tensor spacial invariant relations
Li, Q., Shi, Z., Li, Z., et al. (2020) · Measurement Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ab8dfe · Cited by 22
Allende-Arandía, M. E., Zavala‐Hidalgo, J., Torres‐Freyermuth, A., Appendini, C. M., Cerezo‐Mota, R., & Taylor-Espinosa, N. (2020) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.105051 · Cited by 22
A Domain-Guided Noise-Optimization-Based Inversion Method for Facial Image Manipulation
Yang, N., Zheng, Z., Zhou, M., Guo, X., Qi, L., & Wang, T. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2021.3089905 · Cited by 23
Neupane, S., Shrestha, S., Ghimire, U., et al. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149137 · Cited by 22
Application of HEC-HMS Model for Evaluation of Rainwater Harvesting Potential in a Semi-arid City
Ndeketeya, A., & Dundu, M. (2021) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-021-02941-0 · Cited by 22
Gervin, K., Salas, L. A., Bakulski, K. M., van Zelm, M. C., Koestler, D. C., Wiencke, J. K., Duijts, L., Moll, H. A., Kelsey, K. T., Kobor, M. S., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/570457 · Cited by 22
Low-Cost Outdoor Air Quality Monitoring and Sensor Calibration: A Survey and Critical AnalysisPreprint
Concas, F., Mineraud, J., Lagerspetz, E., Varjonen, S., Liu, X., Puolamäki, K., Nurmi, P., & Tarkoma, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.06384 · Cited by 22
Shi, D., Yuan, P., Liang, L., Gao, L., Li, M., & Diao, M. (2024) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy14020254 · Cited by 22
Nwazelibe, V. E., & Egbueri, J. C. (2024) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-024-11533-1 · Cited by 23
Zhang, S., Yao, R., & Li, B. (2024) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111481 · Cited by 21
Zheng, C., Tao, Y., Zhang, J., Xun, L., Li, T., & Yan, Q. Y. (2024) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127700 · Cited by 25
Waqar, M., Kim, Y., & Byun, Y.-C. (2025) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.126964 · Cited by 26
Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D
Hartman, J. D., & Craig, B. M. (2017) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1769-0 · Cited by 21
Comparing Two Binned Probability Distributions for Information Access Evaluation
Sakai, T. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3209978.3210073 · Cited by 21
Zhang, G., & Zhu, A. (2019) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.024 · Cited by 21
A machine learning approach to portfolio pricing and risk management for high‐dimensional problems
Fernandez‐Arjona, L., & Filipović, D. (2022) · Mathematical Finance · doi:10.1111/mafi.12358 · Cited by 21
Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithm Based on Multi-relationship Social Network
Liu, Y., Yang, H., Sun, G., et al. (2020) · Ingénierie des systèmes d information · doi:10.18280/isi.250310 · Cited by 21
A new approach to monitor and assess the damage caused by two-spotted spider mite
Uygun, T., Özgüven, M. M., & Yanar, D. (2020) · Experimental and Applied Acarology · doi:10.1007/s10493-020-00561-8 · Cited by 21
Pakrooh, P., Nematian, J., Pishbahar, E., et al. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126146 · Cited by 21
Chou, J., Truong, D., & Kuo, C.-C. (2021) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.120100 · Cited by 22
Ebrahimi‐Khusfi, Z., Taghizadeh‐Mehrjardi, R., Roustaei, F., Ebrahimi-Khusfi, M., Mosavi, A. H., Heung, B., Soleimani-Sardo, M., & Scholten, T. (2021) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108287 · Cited by 21
Time-Series Growth Prediction Model Based on U-Net and Machine Learning in Arabidopsis
Chang, S., Lee, U., Hong, M. J., Jo, Y. D., & Kim, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.721512 · Cited by 24
Fang, Q., Ibarra‐Castanedo, C., Yuxia, D., Erazo-Aux, J., Garrido, I., & Maldague, X. (2021) · Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation · doi:10.1007/s10921-021-00827-0 · Cited by 22
Montano, J. J. R., Tobón, A., Muñoz, A. A. R., et al. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10243123 · Cited by 21
Evaluation of Railway Passenger Comfort With Machine Learning
Huang, J., & Kaewunruen, S. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3139465 · Cited by 21
Majeed, F., Ziggah, Y. Y., Kusi-Manu, C., et al. (2022) · Geosystems and Geoenvironment · doi:10.1016/j.geogeo.2022.100038 · Cited by 21
Meng, M., Luo, W., Wang, S., et al. (2022) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.113338 · Cited by 21
Kayet, N., Pathak, K., Singh, C. P., Chowdary, V. M., Bhattacharya, B. K., Kumar, D., Kumar, S., & Shaik, I. (2022) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113650 · Cited by 21
Prediction of Mechanical Properties of the 2024 Aluminum Alloy by Using Machine Learning Methods
Özkavak, H. V., İnce, M., & Bıçaklı, E. E. (2022) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-022-07009-8 · Cited by 21
LEE, S., Kim, S., Lee, H., Kim, B. S., Oh, H., Lee, J. B., Park, K., Yi, Y. J., Park, C. H., & Park, J. D. (2022) · Physics of Fluids · doi:10.1063/5.0117989 · Cited by 21
Diffraction-Net: a robust single-shot holography for multi-distance lensless imaging
Luo, H., Xu, J., Zhong, L., et al. (2022) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.472658 · Cited by 21
Uncertainty-aware transfer learning to evolve digital twins for industrial elevators
Xu, Q., Ali, S., Yue, T., & Arratibel, M. (2022) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3540250.3558957 · Cited by 21
Niaki, M. H., Ahangari, M. G., Izadi, M., et al. (2022) · Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · doi:10.1111/ffe.13889 · Cited by 21
Cabezón, L., Ruiz, L. G. B., Criado-Ramón, D., et al. (2022) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en15228732 · Cited by 21
Le‐Nguyen, K., Minh, Q. C., Ahmad, A., & Ho, L. S. (2022) · Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0880-7 · Cited by 22
Maamoun, I., Rushdi, M. A., Falyouna, O., Eljamal, R., & Eljamal, O. (2022) · Separation and Purification Technology · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122863 · Cited by 21
Cuesta, S. A., Moreno, M., López, R. A., Mora, J. R., Paz, J. L., & Márquez, E. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01367 · Cited by 21
Zadeh, S. H., Behbahanian, A., Broucek, J., Fan, M., Vazquez, G., Noroozi, M., Trehern, W., Qian, X., Karaman, İ., & Arróyave, R. (2022) · Computational Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112225 · Cited by 21
Predicting optimal membrane hydration and ohmic losses in operating fuel cells with machine learning
Paciocco, J., Cawte, T., & Bazylak, A. (2023) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233119 · Cited by 24
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
