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 1,801–1,900 of 7,174
Prediction of groundwater quality assessment by integrating boosted learning with DE optimizer
Subudhi, S., Pati, A. K., Bose, S., Sahoo, S., Pattanaik, A., Acharya, B. M., & Thakur, R. R. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-30122-1 · Cited by 17
Bolgiani, P., Fernández‐González, S., Valero, F., et al. (2018) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos9090329 · Cited by 15
Ethanol production in a biofilm reactor with non-sterile carob extract media and its modeling
Germeç, M., Karhan, M., Demırcı, A., et al. (2018) · Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects · doi:10.1080/15567036.2018.1511643 · Cited by 15
Çakıt, E., Karwowski, W., Murata, A., et al. (2020) · Safety · doi:10.3390/safety6010014 · Cited by 15
Onwukwe, C., & Jackson, P. L. (2020) · Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-19-0212.1 · Cited by 15
Predicting short‐term mobile Internet traffic from Internet activity using recurrent neural networks
Santos, G. L., Rosati, P., Lynn, T., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Network Management · doi:10.1002/nem.2191 · Cited by 15
Design of phosphoryl containing podands with Li+/Na+ selectivity using machine learning
Solov’ev, V. P., Баулин, Д. В., & Tsivadze, A. Y. (2021) · SAR and QSAR in environmental research · doi:10.1080/1062936x.2021.1929462 · Cited by 15
An XGBoost-based Electric Vehicle Battery Consumption Prediction Model
Ma, T., Zhang, Y., Nie, X., Zhao, X., & Li, Y. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Power, Intelligent Computing and Systems (ICPICS) · doi:10.1109/icpics52425.2021.9524291 · Cited by 15
Bae, E.-J., & Woo, E. J. (2021) · Anatomy & Cell Biology · doi:10.5115/acb.21.136 · Cited by 15
Mehrdanesh, A., Monjezi, M., Khandelwal, M., & Bayat, P. (2021) · Engineering With Computers · doi:10.1007/s00366-021-01522-4 · Cited by 15
Tohmé, H., Lawand, G., Eid, R. M. R., et al. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11219859 · Cited by 15
Online Fault Detection in ReRAM-Based Computing Systems for Inferencing
Liu, M., & Chakrabarty, K. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems · doi:10.1109/tvlsi.2021.3139530 · Cited by 15
Ke, L., Xu, J., Fan, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101020 · Cited by 15
Acı, M., & DOĞANSOY, G. A. (2022) · Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.17341/gazimmfd.944081 · Cited by 15
Prediction of the performance of pre‐packed purification columns through machine learning
Jiang, Q., Seth, S., Scharl, T., Schröeder, T., Jungbauer, A., & Dimartino, S. (2022) · Journal of Separation Science · doi:10.1002/jssc.202100864 · Cited by 15
Roblot, V., Giret, Y., Mezghani, S., Auclin, É., Arnoux, A., Oudard, S. M., Duron, L., & Fournier, L. S. (2022) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-022-08579-9 · Cited by 15
Mirboluki, A., Mehraein, M., & Kişi, Ö. (2022) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626667.2022.2082877 · Cited by 16
Liu, Y., Dong, J., Huangfu, W., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · doi:10.1109/tap.2022.3175214 · Cited by 15
Simulating maize water productivity at deficit irrigated field in north west Ethiopia
Eshete, D. G., Sinshaw, B. G., Gizaw, H. D., et al. (2022) · Sustainable Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s40899-022-00771-5 · Cited by 15
Kim, H., Ko, J. U., Na, K., Lee, H., Kim, H.-S., Son, J.-D., Yoon, H., & Youn, B. D. (2022) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119377 · Cited by 15
Predicting students’ academic performance using e-learning logs
Abdullah, M., Al‐Ayyoub, M., Shatnawi, F., Rawashdeh, S., & Abbott, R. (2022) · IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.11591/ijai.v12.i2.pp831-839 · Cited by 18
An Objective Metallographic Analysis Approach Based on Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Sarrionandia, X., Nieves, J., Bravo, B., Pastor-López, I., & Bringas, P. G. (2023) · Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · doi:10.3390/jmmp7010017 · Cited by 16
Khaw, K. W., Sadaa, A. M., Alnoor, A., Zaidan, A. S., Ganesan, Y., & Chew, X. (2023) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2023.100453 · Cited by 15
Prediksi Harga Komoditas Pangan Menggunakan Algoritma Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)
Adi, R. M. S., & Sudianto, S. (2022) · Building of Informatics Technology and Science (BITS) · doi:10.47065/bits.v4i2.2229 · Cited by 24
Liao, Q., Mai, Y., Sheng, Z., Wang, Y., Ni, Q., & Zhou, S. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · doi:10.1109/tap.2023.3254201 · Cited by 16
Polyp segmentation with distraction separation
Liu, T., Ye, X., Hu, K., et al. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120434 · Cited by 15
Hao, C., Zhang, Q., Wang, S., et al. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12112241 · Cited by 15
Developing a More Reliable Framework for Extracting Traffic Data From a UAV Video
Li, X., & Wu, J. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3290827 · Cited by 16
Spontoni, T. A., Ventura, T. M., Palácios, R. D. S., et al. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13082056 · Cited by 15
Rivera-Perez, J. J., Talebpour, A., & Al‐Qadi, I. L. (2023) · International Journal of Pavement Engineering · doi:10.1080/10298436.2023.2253964 · Cited by 15
Kyrgyzbay, K., Kakimzhanov, Y., & Sagin, J. (2023) · Climate Services · doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100423 · Cited by 15
Enhancing Urban Microclimates: Potential Benefits of Greenery Strategies in a Semi-Arid Environment
Brahimi, M., Benabbas, M., Altan, H., et al. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152316380 · Cited by 15
Yu, J., Rezaei, E. E., Thompson, J. B., Reckling, M., & Nendel, C. (2023) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/j.eja.2023.127067 · Cited by 15
Kovačić, Đ., Radočaj, D., Samac, D., et al. (2024) · AgriEngineering · doi:10.3390/agriengineering6010011 · Cited by 15
Ceskoutsé, R. F. T., Bomgni, A. B., Zanfack, D. R. G., Agany, D. D. M., Bouetou, T. B., & Gnimpiéba, E. Z. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108117 · Cited by 16
Wang, R., Zhang, J., Lü, Y., Ren, S., & Huang, J. (2024) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings14030615 · Cited by 19
Latif, S., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., St‐Hilaire, A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131079 · Cited by 15
Scene-Aware Foveated Neural Radiance Fields
Shi, X., Wang, L., Liu, X., Wu, J., & Shao, Z. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3429416 · Cited by 17
Salas-Martínez, F., Márquez-Grajales, A., Valdés-Rodríguez, O. A., Palacios-Wassenaar, O. M., & Pérez-Castro, N. (2024) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-024-05100-8 · Cited by 17
Prediction of HPC compressive strength based on machine learning
Jin, L., Duan, J., Jin, Y., Xue, P., & Zhou, P. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67850-9 · Cited by 16
Osmani, S. A., Jun, C., Baik, J., Lee, J., & Narimani, R. (2024) · Expert systems with applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124962 · Cited by 16
The interpretable descriptors for fatigue performance of wrought aluminum alloys
Bai, P., Shang, C., Zhu, D., Zhao, H., Liu, Y., Kuang, J., Li, F., Ji, J., Wang, S., Wu, G., et al. (2024) · Journal of Materials Research and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2024.08.160 · Cited by 14
Forecasting Maximum Temperature Trends with SARIMAX: A Case Study from Ahmedabad, India
Shah, V., Patel, N., Shah, D. A., et al. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16167183 · Cited by 15
Sohrab, S., Csikós, N., & Szilassi, P. (2024) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-024-00972-z · Cited by 15
Near future flash flood prediction in an arid region under climate change
Al-Rawas, G., Nikoo, M. R., Janbehsarayi, S. F. M., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76232-0 · Cited by 15
Zhang, B., Wang, X., Ding, L., et al. (2024) · Construction and Building Materials · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139081 · Cited by 15
CR-former: Single-Image Cloud Removal With Focused Taylor Attention
Wu, Y., Deng, Y., Zhou, S., Liu, Y., Huang, W., & Wang, J. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3506780 · Cited by 15
Broucek, J., Khatamsaz, D., Cakirhan, C., et al. (2024) · Acta Materialia · doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2024.120651 · Cited by 15
Ultrasonic imaging of near-surface blind defects based on WSAttnGAN network
Xing, Y., Zhu, W., Xu, J., Fan, G., & Qi, W. (2024) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2024.116577 · Cited by 15
Forecasting summer marine heatwaves in the South China Sea using explainable machine learning models
Mi, C., Yi, A., Xue, J., Dong, C., & Shan, H. (2025) · Deep Sea Research Part I Oceanographic Research Papers · doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2025.104457 · Cited by 17
Grisales-Noreña, L. F., Botero-Gómez, V., Bolaños, R. I., et al. (2025) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104408 · Cited by 15
He, Q., & Wang, S. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103248 · Cited by 16
Bello, S. A., Abdullah, M., Hamid, N. S. A., et al. (2017) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.02.003 · Cited by 15
Prediction of true critical pressure of multi-component mixtures: Extending fast estimation methods
Najafi, H., Maghbooli, B., & Sobati, M. A. (2017) · Thermochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.tca.2017.06.017 · Cited by 15
A Machine Learning Approach to Forecasting Consumer Food Prices
Harris, J. (2017) · DalSpace (Dalhousie University) · Cited by 15
Mylonas, M. P., Barbouchi, S., Herrmann, H., & Nastos, P. T. (2017) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.088 · Cited by 15
Meng, L., Feng, K., & Ren, Y. (2018) · Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers · doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2018.06.017 · Cited by 15
Manito, A. R. A., Bezerra, U. H., Tostes, M. E. D. L., et al. (2018) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en11123303 · Cited by 15
Osadebey, M. E., Pedersen, M., Arnold, D. L., et al. (2019) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging5010020 · Cited by 15
DC coefficient recovery for JPEG images in ubiquitous communication systems
Qiu, H., Memmi, G., Chen, X., et al. (2019) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.01.037 · Cited by 15
Automated Labeling of Movement- Related Cortical Potentials Using Segmented Regression
Rashid, U., Niazi, I. K., Jochumsen, M., Krol, L. R., Signal, N., & Taylor, D. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2019.2913880 · Cited by 14
Indoor Positioning System using Regression-based Fingerprint Method
Ghozali, R. P., & Putra, G. (2019) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100829 · Cited by 15
Extreme Regression for Dynamic Search Advertising
Prabhu, Y., Kusupati, A., Gupta, N., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3336191.3371768 · Cited by 15
Rezaei-Tarahomi, A., Kaya, O., Ceylan, H., Gopalakrishnan, K., Kim, S., & Brill, D. (2020) · International Journal of Pavement Engineering · doi:10.1080/10298436.2020.1748627 · Cited by 15
An Effective Model-Based Trust Collaborative Filtering for Explainable Recommendations
Zarzour, H., Jararweh, Y., & Al-Sharif, Z. A. (2020) · International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS) · doi:10.1109/icics49469.2020.239555 · Cited by 15
New approach to evaluating predictive models of photovoltaic systems
Dobreva, P., van Dyk, E. E., & Vorster, F. J. (2020) · Solar Energy · doi:10.1016/j.solener.2020.04.028 · Cited by 15
A Privacy-Preserving Multi-Task Framework for Knowledge Graph Enhanced Recommendation
Yu, B., Zhou, C., Zhang, C. B. C., Wang, G., & Fan, Y. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3004250 · Cited by 15
Bader, N. B., Germeç, M., & Turhan, İ. (2020) · Process Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2020.09.018 · Cited by 15
Jitter Decomposition by Convolutional Neural Networks
Ren, N., Fu, Z., Zhou, D., et al. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · doi:10.1109/temc.2020.3047080 · Cited by 15
Sazawal, S., Ryckman, K. K., Das, S., et al. (2021) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-021-04067-y · Cited by 15
Prediction of evening fatigue severity in outpatients receiving chemotherapy: less may be more
Kober, K. M., Roy, R., Dhruva, A., Conley, Y. P., Chan, R. J., Cooper, B. A., Olshen, A. B., & Miaskowski, C. A. (2021) · Fatigue Biomedicine Health & Behavior · doi:10.1080/21641846.2021.1885119 · Cited by 16
Unsupervised Abnormal Sensor Signal Detection With Channelwise Reconstruction Errors
Kwak, M. G., & Kim, S. B. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3064563 · Cited by 15
Performance Improvement of Wells Augmented Stuck Pipe Indicator via Model Evaluations
Hashim, M. M. M., Yusoff, M. H., Arriffin, M. F., et al. (2021) · International Petroleum Technology Conference · doi:10.2523/iptc-21455-ms · Cited by 15
Gao, W., Shu, T., Liu, Q., et al. (2021) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.1c00400 · Cited by 15
Phobos image enhancement using unpaired multi-frame acquisitions from Indian Mars Color Camera
Misra, I., Rout, L., Arya, S., Bhateja, Y., Moorthi, S. M., & Dhar, D. (2021) · Planetary and Space Science · doi:10.1016/j.pss.2021.105215 · Cited by 15
Wu, C., Li, B., & Xiong, N. N. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3069990 · Cited by 16
Predictability of Biodiesel Fuel Properties from the Fatty Acid Composition of the Feedstock Oils
Kumar, S., Singhal, M. K., & Sharma, M. P. (2021) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-021-05564-0 · Cited by 15
A Method for Prediction of Waterlogging Economic Losses in a Subway Station Project
Wu, H., & Wang, J. (2021) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math9121421 · Cited by 15
Coulibaly, L. K., Guan, Q., Assoma, T. V., Fan, X., & Coulibaly, N. (2021) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108092 · Cited by 18
Gupta, A. N., Kumar, D., & Singh, A. (2021) · Journal of the Geological Society of India · doi:10.1007/s12594-021-1821-0 · Cited by 15
Analysis and assessment of software reliability modeling with preemptive priority queueing policy
Lin, J.-S., Huang, C., & Fang, C. (2022) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111249 · Cited by 15
Yaghoobi, M., & Alaei, M. (2022) · Computational Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2022.111284 · Cited by 15
Gene expression is a poor predictor of steady‐state metabolite abundance in cancer cells
Li, H., Barbour, J. A., Zhu, X., & Wong, J. W. H. (2022) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.202101921rr · Cited by 17
Clustering-based spatial transfer learning for short-term ozone forecasting
Deng, T., Manders, A., Jin, J., & Lin, H. X. (2022) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances · doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100168 · Cited by 15
Zheng, S., Yingsa, H., Meichen, S., et al. (2023) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/acbe90 · Cited by 15
Development of a surrogate model of an amine scrubbing digital twin using machine learning methods
Galeazzi, A., Prifti, K., Cortellini, C., Pretoro, A. D., Gallo, F., & Manenti, F. (2023) · Computers and Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108252 · Cited by 15
A hybrid knowledge discovery system for oil spillage risks pattern classification
Inyang, U. G., & Akinyokun, O. C. (2014) · Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.5430/air.v3n4p77 · Cited by 15
Basant, N., Gupta, S., & Singh, K. P. (2016) · Toxicology Research · doi:10.1039/c5tx00493d · Cited by 15
Gülay, E., & Emeç, H. (2017) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.2478 · Cited by 15
Adamson, J., Nazarski, R. B., Jarvet, J., et al. (2017) · ChemPhysChem · doi:10.1002/cphc.201701125 · Cited by 15
Storm Time Total Electron Content Modeling Over African Low‐Latitude and Midlatitude Regions
Uwamahoro, J., Habarulema, J. B., & Okouma, P. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics · doi:10.1029/2018ja025455 · Cited by 15
Kotěrová, A., Velemínská, J., Cunha, E., & Brůžek, J. (2018) · Zeitschrift für Rechtsmedizin · doi:10.1007/s00414-018-1934-1 · Cited by 15
Regionalization of precipitation with determination of homogeneous regions via fuzzy c-means
Gomes, E. P., Blanco, C. J. C., & Pessoa, F. C. L. (2018) · Revista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos · doi:10.1590/2318-0331.231820180079 · Cited by 15
Toward a Unified Performance Metric for Benchmarking Steganography Systems
Rabie, T. F., Baziyad, M. S., Bonny, T., et al. (2019) · Journal of Circuits Systems and Computers · doi:10.1142/s0218126620500425 · Cited by 15
A Contactless Measuring Speed System of Belt Conveyor Based on Optical Flow Techniques
Gao, Y., Qiao, T., Zhang, H., et al. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2937317 · Cited by 15
Non-singular terminal sliding mode control for redundantly actuated parallel mechanism
Zhang, H., Fang, H., & Zou, Q. (2020) · International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · doi:10.1177/1729881420919548 · Cited by 15
Assessing the Performance of a Hydrological Tank Model at Various Spatial Scales
Goodarzi, M. S., Amiri, B. J., Azarneyvand, H., et al. (2020) · Journal of Water Management Modeling · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c472 · Cited by 15
Time-series data optimized AR/ARMA model for frugal spectrum estimation in Cognitive Radio
Chakraborty, D., & Sanyal, S. K. (2020) · Physical Communication · doi:10.1016/j.phycom.2020.101252 · Cited by 14
Milkievicz, T., Badia, V., Souza, V. B., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109110 · Cited by 15
McKeen, T., Bondarenko, M., Kerr, D., Esch, T., Marconcini, M., Palacios‐Lopez, D., Zeidler, J., Valle, R. C., Juran, S., Tatem, A. J., et al. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02305-w · Cited by 15
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
