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 2,101–2,200 of 7,174
Chen, X., Tuo, J., & Wang, Y. (2019) · Chinese Control Conference (CCC) · doi:10.23919/chicc.2019.8866210 · Cited by 13
Medium and Long-Term Parametric Temperature Forecasting using Real Meteorological Data
Massaoudi, M., Chihi, I., Sidhom, L., Trabelsi, M., & Oueslati, F. S. (2019) · Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON) · doi:10.1109/iecon.2019.8927778 · Cited by 13
A model for the assessment of bluetongue virus serotype 1 persistence in Spain
Aguilar‐Vega, C., Fernández‐Carrión, E., Lucientes, J., et al. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232534 · Cited by 13
A neural network model for solvency calculations in life insurance
Fernandez-Arjona, L. (2020) · Annals of Actuarial Science · doi:10.1017/s1748499520000330 · Cited by 13
Predictive Models for Popularity of Solo and Group Singers in Spotify Using Decision Tree
Sandag, G. A., & Manueke, A. M. (2020) · International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS) · doi:10.1109/icoris50180.2020.9320838 · Cited by 13
Research on the Modality Transfer Method of Brain Imaging Based on Generative Adversarial Network
Cheng, D.-P., Qiu, N., Zhao, F., Mao, Y.-Y., & Li, C. (2021) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.655019 · Cited by 11
Using a deep convolutional network to predict the longitudinal dispersion coefficient
Ghiasi, B., Jodeiri, A., & Andik, B. (2021) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2021.103798 · Cited by 13
A Comparison of Contemporary Methods on Univariate Time Series Forecasting
Karanikola, A., Liapis, C. M., & Kotsiantis, S. B. (2021) · Learning and analytics in intelligent systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76794-5_8 · Cited by 13
Guo, L., Wang, J., Teng, J., & Chen, Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Energy Research · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.813650 · Cited by 13
RetractedDistributed Neural Networks for Missing Big Data Imputation
Petrozziello, A., Jordanov, I., & Sommeregger, C. (2018) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2018.8489488 · Cited by 13
Moustafa, K., & Longo, L. (2019) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14273-5_6 · Cited by 13
Jansen, G., Valley, B., & Miller, S. A. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.10942 · Cited by 13
Zhai, J., Qi, X., Cai, L., Liu, Y., Tang, H., Xie, L., & Wang, J. (2025) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf212 · Cited by 12
Birinci, E., Ekmekcioğlu, Ö., Özdemir, H., et al. (2026) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-026-03168-4 · Cited by 12
Machine learning for water quality prediction and uncertainty assessment
Mengistu, T. D., Chung, I.-M., & Chang, S. W. (2026) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/j.pce.2026.104319 · Cited by 12
An Improved PV Output Forecasting Model by Using Weight Function: A Case Study in Cambodia
Kittisontirak, S., Bupi, A., Chinnavornrungsee, P., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Photoenergy · doi:10.1155/2016/2616750 · Cited by 12
First Steps Towards Automatically Defining the Difficulty of Maze-Based Programming Challenges
Kanellopoulou, I., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3075027 · Cited by 12
A Novel Method of Design Flood Hydrographs Estimation for Flood Hazard Mapping
Gądek, W., Baziak, B., Tokarczyk, T., et al. (2022) · Water · doi:10.3390/w14121856 · Cited by 12
Ahmadi, H., Rostami, N., & Dadashi-Roudbari, A. (2022) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-022-04302-2 · Cited by 12
Morphometric and physical characteristics of Indonesian beef cattle
Adinata, Y., Noor, R. R., Priyanto, R., Cyrilla, L., & Sudrajad, P. (2023) · Archives animal breeding/Archiv für Tierzucht · doi:10.5194/aab-66-153-2023 · Cited by 20
Linchamps, P., Stoetzel, E., Robinet, F., Hanon, R., Latouche, P., & Cornette, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2023.1178379 · Cited by 15
Predicting mechanical properties of defective h-BN nanosheets using Data-Driven models
Mousavi, S. A., & Montazeri, A. (2023) · Computational Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2023.112380 · Cited by 13
Li, Y., Wu, G., & Liu, K. (2023) · Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · doi:10.1177/09544070231193178 · Cited by 12
Tabak, B. M., Froner, M. B., Corrêa, R. S., & Silva, T. C. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20206951 · Cited by 16
Özkal, İ., Özkan, İ. A., & Başçi̇ftçi̇, F. (2023) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-023-09228-y · Cited by 15
Liu, Z., Gao, J.-H., Li, C., Xu, L., Lv, X., Deng, H., Gao, Y., Wang, H., Li, H., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.tox.2023.153679 · Cited by 12
Touhs, H., Temouden, A., Khallaayoun, A., Chraibi, M., & Hafdaoui, H. E. (2023) · World Electric Vehicle Journal · doi:10.3390/wevj15010001 · Cited by 12
Harnessing the power of transformers and data fusion in smart irrigation
Deforce, B., Baesens, B., Diels, J., & Serral, E. (2024) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111246 · Cited by 15
Predicting climate change using an autoregressive long short-term memory model
Chin, S., & Lloyd, V. (2024) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2024.1301343 · Cited by 12
Bhuiyan, M. M. H., Sakib, A. N., Alawee, S. I., et al. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16062388 · Cited by 12
Machine Learning-Based Japanese Spot Market Price Forecasting Considering the Solar Contribution
Fang, X., Cui, J., Oozeki, T., & Ueda, Y. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3387071 · Cited by 12
Eğirdir Gölü alansal değişiminin uzaktan algılama ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri yardımıyla analizi
Mustafa Murat, K. A. L. E., & Erişmiş, M. (2024) · lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education · doi:10.32003/igge.1380588 · Cited by 12
Multi-objective extensive hypothesis testing for the estimation of advanced crash frequency models
Ahern, Z., Corry, P., Rabbani, W., & Paz, A. (2024) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2024.107690 · Cited by 13
NAS Powered Deep Image Prior for Electrical Impedance Tomography
Xia, H., Shan, Q., Wang, J., & Liu, D. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging · doi:10.1109/tci.2024.3440063 · Cited by 12
Machine learning model to predict rate constants for sonochemical degradation of organic pollutants
Na, I., Kim, T. H., Qiu, P., et al. (2024) · Ultrasonics Sonochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2024.107032 · Cited by 12
Supervised learning-based artificial senses for non-destructive fish quality classification
Saeed, R., Glamuzina, B., Mai, N., et al. (2024) · Biosensors and Bioelectronics · doi:10.1016/j.bios.2024.116770 · Cited by 12
Huang, X., Schmelter, F., Uhlig, A., Irshad, M. T., Nisar, M. A., Piet, A., Jablonski, L., Witt, O., Schröder, T., Sina, C., et al. (2024) · Intelligent Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.imed.2024.05.002 · Cited by 13
Data refinement for enhanced ionic conductivity prediction in garnet-type solid-state electrolytes
Kharbouch, Z., Bouchaara, M., Kouihen, F. E., Habbal, A., Ratnani, A., & Faik, A. (2024) · Solid State Ionics · doi:10.1016/j.ssi.2024.116713 · Cited by 12
Banjare, L., Murmu, A., Pandey, N. K., et al. (2024) · In Silico Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s40203-024-00266-5 · Cited by 12
Elmotawakkil, A., & Enneya, N. (2024) · Journal of Hydroinformatics · doi:10.2166/hydro.2024.328 · Cited by 17
Lu, D., Zhang, B., Liu, L., Zhang, H., Cao, L., & Zhou, Y. (2024) · Composites Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2024.110947 · Cited by 13
Mehdiyev, N., Majlatow, M., & Fettke, P. (2024) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2024.102402 · Cited by 19
Nourmohammadi, Z., Hu, B., Rey, D., et al. (2025) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2025.105101 · Cited by 12
Khouili, O., Hanine, M., & Louzazni, M. (2025) · International Journal of Energy Research · doi:10.1155/er/5846114 · Cited by 12
Kulkarni, M. S., Bharathi, S. V., Perdana, A., & Kilari, D. (2025) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-025-03848-y · Cited by 16
Li, K., Li, L., Tang, J., Dick, G., Wickert, J., Yu, H., He, Q., & Dong, Z. (2025) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2025.108238 · Cited by 12
Ultra-Short-Term Solar Power Prediction Using Sky Image Sequences by a Residual Vision Reformer
Rastgoo, R., Amjady, N., Lin, S., & Muyeen, S. M. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · doi:10.1109/tste.2025.3575520 · Cited by 14
Achite, M., Kumar, M., Elshaboury, N., Srivastava, A., Elbeltagi, A., & Salem, A. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-05985-z · Cited by 14
Islam, M. T., Roy, S. C., Jahan, N., et al. (2025) · H2Open Journal · doi:10.2166/h2oj.2025.016 · Cited by 12
Elmotawakkil, A., Moumane, A., Sadiki, A., et al. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05677-8 · Cited by 12
Spennemann, P. C., Rivera, J. A., Osman, M., et al. (2017) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-17-0015.1 · Cited by 12
Neuro Fuzzy Modelling for Prediction of Consumer Price Index
Ambukege, G., Justo, G. N., & Mushi, J. C. (2017) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications · doi:10.5121/ijaia.2017.8503 · Cited by 12
Yazdanshenas, E., Rezania, A., Rad, M. K., et al. (2018) · Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy · doi:10.1063/1.5040166 · Cited by 12
Donnou, H. E. V., Akpo, A., Kouchadé, C. A., et al. (2019) · Advances in Meteorology · doi:10.1155/2019/7530828 · Cited by 12
Horner, M., Pakzad, S. N., & Gulgec, N. S. (2019) · Frontiers in Built Environment · doi:10.3389/fbuil.2019.00109 · Cited by 12
Weight-Constrained Neural Networks in Forecasting Tourist Volumes: A Case Study
Livieris, I. E., Pintelas, E. G., Kotsilieris, T., et al. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8091005 · Cited by 12
Biomass Assessment of Agricultural Crops Using Multi-temporal Dual-Polarimetric TerraSAR-X Data
Ahmadian, N., Ullmann, T., Verrelst, J., et al. (2019) · PFG – Journal of Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science · doi:10.1007/s41064-019-00076-x · Cited by 12
Métodos de cálculo para estimar la evapotranspiración de referencia para el Valle de Tumbaco
Ortiz, R. S., & Asimbaya, M. C. (2020) · Siembra · doi:10.29166/siembra.v7i1.1450 · Cited by 12
Barba‐Escoto, L., van Wijk, M. T., & López‐Ridaura, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00051 · Cited by 16
Kim, T.-H., & Hong, Y.-S. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20123485 · Cited by 12
Wadhera, T., & Kakkar, D. (2020) · Journal of Mathematical Sociology · doi:10.1080/0022250x.2020.1774877 · Cited by 12
Cerda-Lugo, A., González, A., Cárdenas, A., & Piovesan, D. (2020) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-020-00811-1 · Cited by 13
Application of TRMM in the Hydrological Analysis of Upper Bengawan Solo River Basin
Senjaya, T., Yudianto, D., Yuebo, X., et al. (2020) · Journal of the Civil Engineering Forum · doi:10.22146/jcef.57125 · Cited by 12
Byerlay, R. A. E., Coates, C., Aliabadi, A. A., et al. (2020) · Thermochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.tca.2020.178779 · Cited by 12
Fernández, C. I., Haddadi, A., Leblon, B., et al. (2021) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs13030396 · Cited by 12
Quantifying suitable dynamic water levels in marsh wetlands based on hydrodynamic modelling
Hu, P., Yang, Z., Zhu, Q., et al. (2021) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.14054 · Cited by 12
Hananto, A. L., Sulaiman, S., Widiyanto, S., et al. (2021) · Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v22.i1.pp207-214 · Cited by 12
Performance improvement of integrated CO2 systems with HVAC and hot water for hotels
Smitt, S. M., Tolstorebrov, I., & Hafner, A. (2021) · Thermal Science and Engineering Progress · doi:10.1016/j.tsep.2021.100869 · Cited by 12
Prediksi Harga Rumah Menggunakan General Regression Neural Network
Rahayuningtyas, E. F., Rahayu, F. N., & Azhar, Y. (2021) · Jurnal Informatika · doi:10.31294/ji.v8i1.9036 · Cited by 12
Honrubia, J. L. D. A., de la Puerta, J. G., Cortés, F., et al. (2021) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math9101120 · Cited by 12
Brusokas, J., Pedersen, T. B., Šikšnys, L., Zhang, D., & Chen, K. (2021) · ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems (e-Energy) · doi:10.1145/3447555.3464866 · Cited by 15
Weather Forecast Based Rice Advisory Services in Bangladesh
Rahman, N., Rahman, M., Baten, M., et al. (2021) · Bangladesh Rice Journal · doi:10.3329/brj.v25i1.55179 · Cited by 12
Personalized Privacy Preservation for Smart Grid
Bhattacharjee, A., Badsha, S., & Sengupta, S. (2021) · IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) · doi:10.1109/isc253183.2021.9562929 · Cited by 12
AirGen: GAN-based synthetic data generator for air monitoring in Smart City
Le-Minh, K.-H., & Le, K.-H. (2021) · IEEE International Forum on Research and Technology for Society and Industry (RTSI) · doi:10.1109/rtsi50628.2021.9597364 · Cited by 12
Predictive Wireless Channel Modeling of MmWave Bands Using Machine Learning
Aldosary, A., Aldossari, S. A., Chen, K., et al. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10243114 · Cited by 12
Gu, Q., Han, Y., Xu, Y., Yao, H., Niu, H., & Huang, F. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14010226 · Cited by 12
Deep learning and optimisation for quality of service modelling
Arunachalam, K., Kumaran, T. S., Shanmugam, V., et al. (2022) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.01.016 · Cited by 12
Data-driven planning of reliable itineraries in multi-modal transit networks
Redmond, M., Campbell, A. M., & Ehmke, J. F. (2019) · Public Transport · doi:10.1007/s12469-019-00221-0 · Cited by 12
Short-Term Forecasting in Smart Electric Grid Using N-BEATS
Singh, N. P., Joshi, A. R., & Alam, M. N. (2022) · International Conference on Power, Control and Computing Technologies (ICPC2T) · doi:10.1109/icpc2t53885.2022.9776757 · Cited by 13
Using LSTM, DNN, and ARIMA approaches to predict the trends in the Stock Market
Goyal, V., & Raj, R. R. (2022) · International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS) · doi:10.1109/icaccs54159.2022.9785150 · Cited by 12
Comparison of growth curve models for Ongole Grade cattle
Adinata, Y., Noor, R. R., Priyanto, R., Cyrilla, L., & Sudrajad, P. (2022) · Tropical Animal Health and Production · doi:10.1007/s11250-022-03254-z · Cited by 12
Oliveira, V. V., Rosalém, M. D. J. C., Aranha, A. C. R., Sípoli, C. C., Andrade, M. M., Tonin, L. T. D., Defendi, R. O., & Suzuki, R. M. (2022) · Journal of Food Processing and Preservation · doi:10.1111/jfpp.17106 · Cited by 14
Short Term Glucose Prediction in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
Katsarou, D. N., Georga, E. I., Christou, M., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · doi:10.1109/embc48229.2022.9870889 · Cited by 12
Lv, L., Li, H., Wu, Z., Zeng, W., Hua, P., & Yang, S. (2022) · European Heart Journal - Digital Health · doi:10.1093/ehjdh/ztac058 · Cited by 12
Sharma, K., & Sunkaria, R. K. (2023) · Signal Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1007/s11760-023-02503-4 · Cited by 12
Mesgarpour, M., Habib, R., Shadloo, M. S., et al. (2023) · Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements · doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2023.01.010 · Cited by 12
Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Research
Srinivas, S., & Young, A. J. (2023) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.suc.2022.11.002 · Cited by 14
3D photogrammetry improves measurement of growth and biodiversity patterns in branching corals
Curtis, J. S., Galvan, J. W., Primo, A., et al. (2023) · Coral Reefs · doi:10.1007/s00338-023-02367-7 · Cited by 12
Duo Satellite Based Surface Temperature Comparative Study of Jaipur City Using Soft Computing
Chauhan, S., Jethoo, A. S., & Das, U. K. (2023) · International Conference on Internet of Everything, Microwave Engineering, Communication and Networks (IEMECON) · doi:10.1109/iemecon56962.2023.10092290 · Cited by 12
CNN-RNN architecture to calculate BPM from underwater ECG samples
Beckingham, T., Spencer, J. W., & McKay, K. (2023) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-023-04522-7 · Cited by 12
Mmame, B., Sunitha, P., V, Samatha, K., et al. (2023) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.06.030 · Cited by 12
Greco, R., Barca, E., Raumonen, P., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2023.103426 · Cited by 12
Sun, M., Chen, P., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1181268 · Cited by 12
Chowdhury, D., & Hovda, S. (2023) · Geoenergy Science and Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212387 · Cited by 12
Prediction of Leaf Break Resistance of Green and Dry Alfalfa Leaves by Machine Learning Methods
Ercan, U., Kabaş, Ö., & Moiceanu, G. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14041638 · Cited by 12
Anindita, A. P., Laksono, P., & Nugraha, I. G. B. B. (2016) · International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS) · doi:10.1109/ictss.2016.7792862 · Cited by 12
The potential of nonparametric model in foundation bearing capacity prediction
Jabbar, S. F., Hamed, R. I., & Alwan, A. H. (2017) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-017-2916-9 · Cited by 12
Wang, X., Jiao, Y., & Li, L. (2017) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.08.038 · Cited by 12
Privacy-preserving trend surface analysis on partitioned data
Demir, S., & Tuğrul, B. (2017) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2017.12.018 · Cited by 12
Aliyu, Y. A., & Botai, J. O. (2018) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.02.034 · Cited by 12
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
