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 2,401–2,500 of 7,174
Taur, K.-H., Deng, X.-Y., Chou, M.-H., et al. (2019) · International Automatic Control Conference · doi:10.1109/cacs47674.2019.9024364 · Cited by 10
MODELLING OF HEAT GENERATION IN AN 18650 LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELL UNDER VARYING DISCHARGE RATES
Hwang, F. S., Confrey, T., Scully, S., et al. (2020) · Proceeding of Second Thermal and Fluids Engineering Conference · doi:10.1615/tfec2020.fue.032096 · Cited by 10
Geological seabed stability model for informing Irish offshore renewable energy opportunities
Peters, J. L., Butschek, F., O’Connell, R., et al. (2020) · Advances in geosciences · doi:10.5194/adgeo-54-55-2020 · Cited by 10
Artificial neural network applications in fiber reinforced concrete
Sangeetha, P., & Shanmugapriya, M. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1706/1/012113 · Cited by 10
Feasibility of Solar Tracking System for PV Panel in Sunbelt Region
Soulayman, S., Hamoud, M., Hababa, M.-A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy · doi:10.35833/mpce.2018.000658 · Cited by 10
Jang, B., Kim, I., & Kim, J. W. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/23305 · Cited by 11
Assessment of Climatic Parameters for Future Climate Change in a Major Agricultural State in India
Jha, R. K., Kalita, P. K., & Cooke, R. A. (2021) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli9070111 · Cited by 10
Predicting presenteeism using measures of health status
Jones, C., Payne, K., Thompson, A., & Verstappen, S. M. M. (2021) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02936-9 · Cited by 11
An Improved Ocean Surface Albedo Computational Scheme: Structure and Performance
Wei, J., Ren, T., Yang, P. X., et al. (2021) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2020jc016958 · Cited by 10
Evaluation of Evaporation from Water Reservoirs in Local Conditions at Czech Republic
Melišová, E., Vizina, A., Hanel, M., et al. (2021) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology8040153 · Cited by 10
Signaroli, M., Lana, A., Martorell‐Barceló, M., Sanllehi, J., Barcelo‐Serra, M., Aspillaga, E., Mulet, J., & Alós, J. (2022) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.13396 · Cited by 10
Akhoondinasab, M.-R., Shafaei, Y., Rahmani, A., et al. (2022) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00266-022-02937-0 · Cited by 10
Piekuś-Słomka, N., Zapadka, M., & Kupcewicz, B. (2022) · Arabian Journal of Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.104204 · Cited by 10
Ajdour, A., Adnane, A., Ydir, B., et al. (2022) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-022-23084-8 · Cited by 10
Liu, H., Zhao, X., Duan, K., et al. (2022) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2022.106484 · Cited by 10
Gao, X., Han, W., Hu, Q., et al. (2023) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs15030642 · Cited by 10
Rezaei, R., Naderalvojoud, B., & Güllü, G. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14020239 · Cited by 10
Zhu, Y. P., Zhao, T., Mao, W., Ye, M., Han, X., Jia, B., & Yang, J. (2023) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129259 · Cited by 11
Tsirogiannis, I. L., Malamos, N. A., & Baltzoi, P. (2023) · Horticulturae · doi:10.3390/horticulturae9020267 · Cited by 10
A Predictive Analysis of Retail Sales Forecasting using Machine Learning Techniques
Sajawal, M. (2023) · Lahore Garrison University Research Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology · doi:10.54692/lgurjcsit.2022.0604399 · Cited by 10
Projected changes in surface air temperature over Pakistan under bias-constrained CMIP6 models
Karim, R., Tan, G., Ayugi, B., Shahzaman, M., Babaousmail, H., Ngoma, H., & Ongoma, V. (2023) · Arabian Journal of Geosciences · doi:10.1007/s12517-023-11243-1 · Cited by 11
A UUV target detection method based on Informer
Zhuo, C., Fan, X., Guo, L., & Cui, Y. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Frontiers Technology of Information and Computer (ICFTIC) · doi:10.1109/icftic57696.2022.10075304 · Cited by 10
Alharbi, O. A., Hasan, S. S., Fahil, A. S., et al. (2023) · Regional Studies in Marine Science · doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103118 · Cited by 10
Kabaş, Ö., Kayakuş, M., Ünal, İ., et al. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13158906 · Cited by 10
Use of Synthetic Data in Maritime Applications for the Problem of Steam Turbine Exergy Analysis
Šegota, S. B., Mrzljak, V., Anđelić, N., Poljak, I., & Car, Z. (2023) · Journal of Marine Science and Engineering · doi:10.3390/jmse11081595 · Cited by 10
Machine Learning Approaches to Improve North American Precipitation Forecasts
Sengoz, C., Ramanna, S., Kehler, S. D., et al. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3309054 · Cited by 10
Mocellin, A. P. G., Maciel, R. P., Oleinik, P. H., et al. (2023) · Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Analyses · doi:10.3390/jeta1010003 · Cited by 10
Ramnarain, U. D., Ncube, R., & Teo, T. P. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1217826 · Cited by 20
West, R., Bonin, F., Thomas, J., Wright, A. J., Aonghusa, P. M., Gleize, M., Hou, Y., O’Mara-Eves, A., Hastings, J., Johnston, M., et al. (2023) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20000.1 · Cited by 17
Data driven development of iron-based metallic glasses using artificial neural networks
Bobzin, K., Heinemann, H., Burbaum, E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Alloys and Compounds · doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2023.172895 · Cited by 10
Whole-Body Teleoperation Control of Dual-Arm Robot Using Sensor Fusion
Wang, F., Chen, F., Dong, Y., Yong, Q., Yang, X., Zheng, L., Zhang, X., & Su, H. (2023) · Biomimetics · doi:10.3390/biomimetics8080591 · Cited by 10
López, J. M., & Garay-Vitoria, N. (2023) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122905 · Cited by 10
Lee, Y. S., Lee, K., Chung, M. G., et al. (2024) · Journal of Manufacturing Processes · doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2024.01.044 · Cited by 10
Majnarić, D., Šegota, S. B., Anđelić, N., et al. (2024) · Journal of Marine Science and Engineering · doi:10.3390/jmse12020273 · Cited by 10
The drift handling framework for open radio access networks: An experimental evaluation
Gudepu, V., Chintapalli, V. R., Castoldi, P., et al. (2024) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2024.110290 · Cited by 10
Zhou, H., Li, S., Wang, M., et al. (2024) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-023-11364-6 · Cited by 10
Mahara, A., & Rishe, N. D. (2024) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs16071154 · Cited by 10
Ayub, Y., Ren, J., & He, C. (2024) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2024.131482 · Cited by 10
Shubham, K., Metya, S., Sinha, A. K., et al. (2024) · Advances in Civil Engineering · doi:10.1155/2024/9981433 · Cited by 10
Ngan, F., Cohen, M., Luke, W. T., et al. (2015) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos6030209 · Cited by 10
Self-citationBallentine, M. L., Ariyarathna, T., Smith, R. W., et al. (2016) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.03.038 · Cited by 10
Annan, R. F., Ziggah, Y. Y., Ayer, J., et al. (2016) · South African Journal of Geomatics · doi:10.4314/sajg.v5i3.1 · Cited by 10
Nam, K., Kim, M., Lee, S., et al. (2017) · Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11814-017-0197-8 · Cited by 10
Prediksi Harga Emas Menggunakan Metode Neural Network Backropagation Algoritma Conjugate Gradient
Sari, Y. (2018) · Jurnal ELTIKOM · doi:10.31961/eltikom.v1i2.21 · Cited by 10
Heterogeneous radiotherapy dose-outcomes response in parotid glands
Clark, H., Thomas, S., Reinsberg, S. A., et al. (2018) · Convergent Science Physical Oncology · doi:10.1088/2057-1739/aac8ea · Cited by 10
Gaddam, V. K., Kulkarni, A. V., & Gupta, A. K. (2018) · Geocarto International · doi:10.1080/10106049.2018.1516247 · Cited by 10
Liu, J., Feng, K., & Ren, Y. (2018) · Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics · doi:10.1080/07391102.2018.1528887 · Cited by 10
Modelling Assessment of Sandy Beaches Erosion in Thailand
Thepsiriamnuay, H., & Pumijumnong, N. (2018) · Environment and Natural Resources Journal · doi:10.32526/ennrj.17.2.2019.14 · Cited by 10
Ruz-Hernández, J. A., Matsumoto, Y., Arellano-Valmaña, F., et al. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9081649 · Cited by 10
Hussain, Z., & Azlan, N. Z. (2019) · Iranian Journal of Science and Technology Transactions of Mechanical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s40997-019-00299-8 · Cited by 10
Deep Long Short-term Memory (LSTM) Network with Sliding-window Approach in Urban Thermal Analysis
Li, L., Dai, S., & Cao, Z. (2019) · doi:10.1109/iccchinaw.2019.8849965 · Cited by 10
Eichhorn, S. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12103976 · Cited by 10
PortWeather: A Lightweight Onboard Solution for Real-Time Weather Prediction
Karvelis, P. S., Mazzei, D., Biviano, M., et al. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20113181 · Cited by 10
Generalised Linear Models for Prediction of Dissolved Oxygen in a Waste Stabilisation Pond
Pham, D. T., Ho, L. T., Espinoza-Palacios, J., Arévalo-Durazno, M. B., Echelpoel, W. V., & Goethals, P. L. M. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12071930 · Cited by 10
Noori, F., Kamangir, H., King, S. A., et al. (2020) · ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information · doi:10.3390/ijgi9070456 · Cited by 10
Hari, M., Tyagi, B., Huddar, M. S. K., et al. (2020) · Irrigation and Drainage · doi:10.1002/ird.2553 · Cited by 10
Dharmawardane, C., Sillanpää, V., & Holmström, J. (2021) · Operations Management Research · doi:10.1007/s12063-020-00176-7 · Cited by 13
Gaudreault, J., Liberelle, B., Durocher, Y., et al. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83268-z · Cited by 10
Application of Support Vector Regression in Krylov Solvers
Thalib, R., Bakar, M. A., & Ibrahim, N. F. (2021) · Annals of Emerging Technologies in Computing · doi:10.33166/aetic.2021.05.022 · Cited by 10
Hussein, E. A., Ghaziasgar, M., Thron, C., Vaccari, M., & Bagula, A. (2021) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos12050539 · Cited by 10
Predicting COVID-19 infections and deaths in Bangladesh using Machine Learning Algorithms
Leon, M. I., Iqbal, M. I., Azim, S. M., et al. (2021) · International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Development (ICICT4SD) · doi:10.1109/icict4sd50815.2021.9396820 · Cited by 10
Application of photogrammetry and image analysis for rock slope investigation
Kim, D., Balasubramaniam, A., & Gratchev, I. (2018) · Griffith Research Online · Cited by 10
Ehteram, M., Sharafati, A., Asadollah, S. B. H. S., et al. (2021) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-021-09269-7 · Cited by 10
Sedighkia, M., Datta, B., & Abdoli, A. (2021) · Earth Science Informatics · doi:10.1007/s12145-021-00671-w · Cited by 10
Adhaityar, B. Y., Sahara, D. P., Pratama, C., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1109/icoict52021.2021.9527461 · Cited by 10
Sedighkia, M., Datta, B., & Abdoli, A. (2021) · Journal of Hydro-environment Research · doi:10.1016/j.jher.2021.09.001 · Cited by 10
Liu, W., He, L., Xia, Y., et al. (2021) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d1ay01586a · Cited by 10
Shen, Y., Zheng, W., Yin, W., Xu, A., Zhu, H., Qing-qing, W., & Chen, Z. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14030535 · Cited by 10
Gore, R. J., Lynch, C. J., Jordan, C. A., Collins, A. J., Robinson, R. M., Fuller, G., Ames, P., Keerthi, P., & Kandukuri, Y. (2022) · JMIR Public Health and Surveillance · doi:10.2196/37379 · Cited by 10
Su, M., Liu, H., Yu, C., & Duan, Z. (2022) · Digital Signal Processing · doi:10.1016/j.dsp.2022.103691 · Cited by 11
Ishida, S., Isozaki, M., Fujiwara, Y., et al. (2022) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.28433 · Cited by 10
MG-CNFNet: A multiple grained channel normalized fusion networks for medical image deblurring
Zeng, X., Dong, Q., & Li, Y. (2023) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2023.104572 · Cited by 10
Applying Machine Learning to Classify the Origins of Gene Duplications
McKibben, M. T. W., & Barker, M. S. (2023) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2561-3_5 · Cited by 8
ATiPreTA: An analytical model for time-dependent prediction of terrorist attacks
Kebir, O., Nouaouri, I., Rejeb, L., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science · doi:10.34768/amcs-2022-0036 · Cited by 10
PM$$_{2.5}$$ forecasting based on transformer neural network and data embedding
Limperis, J., Tong, W., Hamza-Lup, F. G., & Li, L. (2023) · Earth Science Informatics · doi:10.1007/s12145-023-01002-x · Cited by 10
Hybrid weather-based ANN for forecasting the production of a real wind power plant
Morina, M., Grimaccia, F., Leva, S., & Mussetta, M. (2016) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2016.7727858 · Cited by 10
Luetkemeier, R., Stein, L., Drees, L., Müller‐Thomy, H., & Liehr, S. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10040499 · Cited by 10
A Cost-Sensitive Loss Function for Machine Learning
Chen, S., Liu, X., & Li, B. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91455-8_22 · Cited by 10
Chahid, A., Serrai, H., Achten, E., et al. (2018) · doi:10.1109/embc.2018.8513615 · Cited by 10
Temporal-Sparsity Aware Service Recommendation Method via Hybrid Collaborative Filtering Techniques
Meng, S., Li, Q., Chen, S., et al. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03596-9_30 · Cited by 10
Integrating Large Wood Jams into Hydraulic Models: Evaluating a Porous Plate Modeling Method
Ventres‐Pake, R., Nahorniak, M., Kramer, N., et al. (2020) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12818 · Cited by 10
Stadnicka-Michalak, J., Bramaz, N., Schönenberger, R., & Schirmer, K. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-84109-9 · Cited by 12
Zhang, C., Ouyang, X., & Patras, P. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.02413 · Cited by 10
Begum, A., & Kumar, R. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1405206/v1 · Cited by 11
du Plessis, A. (2021) · Environmental Challenges · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2021.100100 · Cited by 9
Systematic Review of Electricity Demand Forecast Using ANN-Based Machine Learning Algorithms
Román-Portabales, A., López‐Nores, M., & Pazos-Arias, J. J. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21134544 · Cited by 24
Valuasi Saham dan Pengambilan Keputusan Investasi: Perbandingan Metode Absolute dan Metode Relative
Pengestika, T. N., & Christianti, A. (2021) · Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen · doi:10.26905/jbm.v8i2.6127 · Cited by 9
Yu, T., Gao, F., Liu, X., et al. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22010005 · Cited by 9
An edge–cloud integrated framework for flexible and dynamic stream analytics
Wang, X., Khan, A., Wang, J., Gangopadhyay, A., Busart, C., & Freeman, J. (2022) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2022.07.023 · Cited by 12
Hunt, R., Blackmore, T., Mills, C., & Dicks, M. (2022) · i-Perception · doi:10.1177/20416695221116652 · Cited by 9
Prediction of CO2 emission from arid soil after addition of exogenous organic matter
Chaker, R., Mbarek, H. B., Ammar, A. B., et al. (2022) · Journal of Arid Environments · doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2022.104920 · Cited by 9
Development of QSPR-ANN models for the estimation of critical properties of pure hydrocarbons
Fissa, M. R., Lahiouel, Y., Khaouane, L., et al. (2023) · Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.jmgm.2023.108450 · Cited by 9
Shantal, M., Othman, Z., & Bakar, A. A. (2023) · Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences · doi:10.11113/mjfas.v19n6.3098 · Cited by 9
Semantic Similarity Models for Depression Severity Estimation
Pérez, A., Warikoo, N., Wang, K., Parapar, J., & Gurevych, I. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.1000 · Cited by 14
Complex terrains and wind power: enhancing forecasting accuracy through CNNs and DeepSHAP analysis
Konstantinou, T., & Hatziargyriou, N. D. (2024) · Frontiers in Energy Research · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2023.1328899 · Cited by 10
Predicting construction cost index using fuzzy logic and machine learning in Jordan
Kailani, H. A., Sweis, G. J., Sammour, F., Maaitah, W., Sweis, R. J., & Alkailani, M. (2024) · Construction Innovation · doi:10.1108/ci-08-2023-0182 · Cited by 9
Exploring the Influence of Climate Change on Earthen Embankments with Expansive Soil
Ghosh, D., Banerjee, A., Puppala, A. J., et al. (2024) · Geosciences · doi:10.3390/geosciences14020037 · Cited by 9
Non‐destructive firmness assessment of ‘SunGold’ kiwifruit a three‐year study
Sneddon, T., Rivera, S. A., Li, M., et al. (2024) · New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science · doi:10.1080/01140671.2024.2314496 · Cited by 9
Samantaray, A. K., Mooney, P., & Vivacqua, C. A. (2024) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-3321-2024 · Cited by 9
Wani, F. M., Vemuri, J., Reddy, K. S. K. K., & Rajaram, C. (2024) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-024-02729-9 · Cited by 9
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
