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 2,801–2,900 of 7,174
Battista, L., Scorza, A., Botta, F., et al. (2016) · Measurement Science and Technology · doi:10.1088/0957-0233/27/2/025704 · Cited by 8
Shih, Y.-T., Cheng, H., Sung, S., Chuang, S., Hu, W.-C., & Chen, C. (2015) · American Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpv164 · Cited by 8
Investigating indoor concentrations of PM10 in an underground loading dock in Malaysia
Abualqumboz, M. S., Mohammed, N. I., Malakahmad, A., et al. (2016) · Air Quality Atmosphere & Health · doi:10.1007/s11869-016-0413-4 · Cited by 8
A new algorithm for lane detection and tracking on pulsed field gel electrophoresis images
Rezaei, M. B., Amiri, M., Mohajeri, P., et al. (2016) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2016.05.018 · Cited by 8
Interpolation of the gaps in current maps generated by high-frequency radar
Dauji, S., Deo, M. C., & Bhargava, K. (2016) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/01431161.2016.1230281 · Cited by 8
Lee, S., & Lee, W. J. (2016) · KIPS Transactions on Computer and Communication Systems · doi:10.3745/ktccs.2016.5.10.353 · Cited by 8
Performance metrics for guidance active constraints in surgical robotics
Enayati, N., Ferrigno, G., & Momi, E. D. (2017) · International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · doi:10.1002/rcs.1873 · Cited by 8
Kaewfoongrungsi, P., & Hormdee, D. (2017) · International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies · doi:10.1109/iscit.2017.8261221 · Cited by 8
Safety stock determination of uncertain demand and mutually dependent variables
Lisan, S. (2018) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.18533/ijbsr.v8i3.1095 · Cited by 8
Application of artificial neural networks in the prediction of sugarcane juice Pol
Coelho, A. P., Bettiol, J. V. T., Dalri, A. B., et al. (2019) · Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental · doi:10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n1p9-15 · Cited by 8
Guo, Y., Wu, W., Du, M., et al. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11082372 · Cited by 8
Ensemble learning for predicting mortality rates affected by air quality
Dewi, K. C., Mustika, W. F., & Murfi, H. (2019) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1192/1/012021 · Cited by 8
Ma, T., Wei, T.-F., Qin, C., et al. (2019) · Earth Science Informatics · doi:10.1007/s12145-019-00407-x · Cited by 8
Forecasting international tourist arrivals in zanzibar using box – jenkins SARIMA model
Msofe, Z. A., & Mbago, M. C. Y. (2019) · General Letters in Mathematics · doi:10.31559/glm2019.7.2.6 · Cited by 8
Persuasion-based recommender system ensambling matrix factorisation and active learning models
Sánchez, R., Casado–Mansilla, D., Borges, C. E., et al. (2020) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-020-01382-7 · Cited by 8
Perdigão, J., Canhoto, P., Salgado, R., et al. (2020) · Forecasting · doi:10.3390/forecast2020007 · Cited by 8
Zeng, L., Shi, Q., Guo, K., et al. (2020) · Hydrogeology Journal · doi:10.1007/s10040-020-02177-z · Cited by 8
Aircraft positioning using DGNSS technique for GPS and GLONASS data
Krasuski, K., & Ćwiklak, J. (2020) · Sensor Review · doi:10.1108/sr-12-2018-0327 · Cited by 8
Conflict Event Modelling: Research Experiment and Event Data Limitations
Halkia, M., Stefano, F., Papazoglou, M., Damme, M.-S. V., & Thomakos, D. D. (2020) · Cited by 8
Case study of the prediction of elective surgery durations in a New Zealand teaching hospital
Soh, K. W., Walker, C. G., O’Sullivan, M., et al. (2020) · The International Journal of Health Planning and Management · doi:10.1002/hpm.3046 · Cited by 8
A Time-Varying Bayesian Compressed Vector Autoregression for Macroeconomic Forecasting
Aunsri, N., & Taveeapiradeecharoen, P. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3033203 · Cited by 8
Application of artificial neural network with backpropagation algorithm for estimating leaf area
Asriani, E., & Robika (2020) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/599/1/012046 · Cited by 8
Burhan, A. M., Erzaij, K. R., & Hatem, W. A. (2021) · Civil and Environmental Engineering · doi:10.2478/cee-2021-0039 · Cited by 8
A hybrid big data movies recommendation model based k-nearest neighbors and matrix factorization
Ez-Zahout, A., Gueddah, H., Nasry, A., et al. (2022) · Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v26.i1.pp434-441 · Cited by 8
Joint roughness profiling using photogrammetry
Saricam, I. T., & Ozturk, H. (2022) · Applied Geomatics · doi:10.1007/s12518-022-00454-y · Cited by 8
Column-wise Guided Data Imputation
Petrozziello, A., & Jordanov, I. (2017) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.008 · Cited by 8
Advanced Evasion Attacks and Mitigations on Practical ML-Based Phishing Website ClassifiersPreprint
Lei, Y., Chen, S., Fan, L., Song, F., & Liu, Y. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.06954 · Cited by 8
Predicting Poverty Level from Satellite Imagery using Deep Neural NetworksPreprint
Chitturi, V., & Nabulsi, Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00011 · Cited by 9
Hassanat, A. B. A., Alqaralleh, M. K., Tarawneh, A. S., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4492948/v1 · Cited by 8
Robust parametric modeling of Alzheimer’s disease progression
Ghazi, M. M., Nielsen, M., Pai, A., Marc Modat, A., Cardoso, M. J., Sebastien Ourselin, A., & Sørensen, L. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117460 · Cited by 32
Ren, J., Xu, J., Zhang, D., Zhang, J., & Li, L. (2023) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma16103652 · Cited by 7
Alcon, M., Brando, A., Mezzetti, E., Abella, J., & Cazorla, F. J. (2023) · Real-Time Systems · doi:10.1007/s11241-023-09405-1 · Cited by 7
Zhang, R., Guo, C., Wu, J., et al. (2024) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111808 · Cited by 7
Xiao, C., Li, Q., Zhao, G., & Huang, Y. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2024.3376577 · Cited by 7
Panda, A. K., Verma, V., Srivastav, A., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300253 · Cited by 7
Fei, Z., Liang, S., & Cai, Y. (2024) · Case Studies in Construction Materials · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03060 · Cited by 7
Ren, Y., Hu, T., Xu, S., Chen, C., Xuan, W., & Ren, Z. (2024) · Journal of Alloys and Metallurgical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jalmes.2024.100073 · Cited by 7
State of art and emerging trends on group recommender system: a comprehensive review
Singhal, S., & Pal, K. (2024) · International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval · doi:10.1007/s13735-024-00329-5 · Cited by 7
Abbasi, A., Lork, A., & Rostami, V. (2024) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-024-09148-6 · Cited by 7
da Silva, A. C., da Silva, F. D. G. B., Valério, V. E. D. M., et al. (2024) · Revista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos · doi:10.1590/2318-0331.292420230057 · Cited by 7
Fabio, A. D., Buttò, V., Chakraborty, D., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Forests and Global Change · doi:10.3389/ffgc.2024.1422165 · Cited by 7
Schmidt, S. I., Schröder, T., Kutzner, R. D., et al. (2024) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs16183416 · Cited by 7
Accurate solar radiation site adaptation: Harnessing satellite data and in situ measurements
Ruiz-Muñoz, J. F., & Hoyos-Gómez, L. S. (2024) · Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy · doi:10.1063/5.0226782 · Cited by 7
Assessing the stability of terrestrial water storage to drought based on CMIP6 forcing scenarios
Wei, W., Wang, J., Wang, X., et al. (2024) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132232 · Cited by 7
Abduljalil, K., & Faisal, M. (2024) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.1007/s40262-024-01432-w · Cited by 7
Data-driven model assessment: A comparative study for ship response determination
Ferlita, A. L., Ley, J., Qi, Y., et al. (2024) · Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.119711 · Cited by 7
AI-driven data fusion modeling for enhanced prediction of mixed-mode I/III fracture toughness
Timtong, A., Ariyarit, A., Boongsood, W., Aengchuan, P., & Wiangkham, A. (2024) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103289 · Cited by 7
You, F., Guo, Z. J., Zhang, X., et al. (2024) · Health Information Science and Systems · doi:10.1007/s13755-024-00313-7 · Cited by 7
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units with Two Transition Matrix and Independent Gates
Passo, S. J. G., Kothavade, V. H., Lin, W.-M., & Walton, C. M. (2024) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109663 · Cited by 7
Pizarro, S., Pricope, N. G., Vera, J., et al. (2024) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.117138 · Cited by 7
Tao, X., Wang, Q., Guo, W. W., & Xie, S. (2025) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2025.115488 · Cited by 7
Bozkurt, M. A., KÖSE, Y., & Çelik, S. (2025) · Energy Sources Part B Economics Planning and Policy · doi:10.1080/15567249.2025.2457438 · Cited by 7
Machine Learning Integration in Computational Fluid Dynamics for Turbulence Modeling
Naseem, A., Naseem, S., Fatima, S., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Applied Science Engineering and Technology · doi:10.59324/ejaset.2025.3(1).02 · Cited by 7
The Detection and Counting of Olive Tree Fruits Using Deep Learning Models in Tacna, Perú
Mamani, E. F. O., Carbajal, O. I. S., Chaparro-Cruz, I. N., Ochoa, D., & Alcázar-Alay, S. C. (2025) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai6020025 · Cited by 7
Accuracy of an Ultra-Wideband-Based Tracking System for Time–Motion Analysis in Tennis
Yang, W., Wang, J., Zhao, Z., & Cui, Y. (2025) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s25041031 · Cited by 9
Quantifying Uncertainty in Projections of Desertification in Central Asia Using Bayesian Networks
Liu, J., Ren, Y., He, P., et al. (2025) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs17040665 · Cited by 7
Shi, Q., Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., et al. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2025.3543223 · Cited by 7
Cui, P., Abdel-Aty, M. A., Wang, C., et al. (2025) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.03.033 · Cited by 7
Ennejjar, M., Ezzini, M., Assri, N. E., Jallal, M. A., Chabaa, S., & Zeroual, A. (2025) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/adcc67 · Cited by 9
Evaluation of genetic algorithm alternatives for wind speed modeling using grey relational analysis
Işık, H., & Kılıç, M. B. (2025) · Journal of Engineering and Applied Science · doi:10.1186/s44147-025-00616-w · Cited by 7
Abbade, H., Fadil, H. E., Lassioui, A., et al. (2025) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr13051453 · Cited by 7
Technology evolution in maritime autonomous systems: A patent-based analysis
Belabyad, M., Pyne, R., Paraskevadakis, D., et al. (2025) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107744 · Cited by 7
Stockdale, R. A., Dos’Santos, T., McDaid, K., Nagy, P., Gaffney, C. J., & Barry, T. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325611 · Cited by 8
BOL-LPP: A Bayesian-Optimized LSTM Model for Day-Ahead Load Price Forecasting in the ERCOT Market
Mohamed, Y., Fouda, M. M., Fadlullah, Z. M., Abdelfattah, R., & Ibrahem, M. I. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society · doi:10.1109/ojcs.2025.3580107 · Cited by 8
Evaluation of Turkey’s Road-Based Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Future Projections
DOĞRUPARMAK, Ş. Ç., Demirarslan, K. O., & Çavuşoğlu, S. V. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15137007 · Cited by 7
Zhu, J., Chen, J., Li, M., et al. (2025) · Geo-spatial Information Science · doi:10.1080/10095020.2025.2522149 · Cited by 7
Rahmanparast, A., Milani, M., Camcı, M., et al. (2025) · Applied Thermal Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2025.127553 · Cited by 7
Liu, J., Iwakin, O. M., Romero, C. E., Cheng, L., Moazeni, F. K., Yao, Z., Saro, R. D., & Craparo, J. (2025) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2025.115079 · Cited by 9
Chen, Z., Crawford, I., Matthews, E., Flynn, M. J., Bannan, T. J., Cardenas, L. M., West, J. S., Coe, H., Topping, D. O., & Gallagher, M. W. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.127033 · Cited by 8
Hybrid forecasting of university electricity demand using time series and deep learning
Baek, M., & Seo, Y. (2025) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116400 · Cited by 10
Yin, X., Yang, Q., Wu, L., et al. (2025) · Advances in Engineering Software · doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2025.104022 · Cited by 7
Lakshmi, V., Elif Gülen, K. I. R., & Fang, B. (2025) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs17183199 · Cited by 7
Sudarsan, S., Srinivasan, N. R., Vinayagam, R., et al. (2025) · Chemical Engineering Journal Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ceja.2025.100932 · Cited by 7
Kost, L., Lier, S. K., & Breitner, M. H. (2025) · Energy and AI · doi:10.1016/j.egyai.2025.100648 · Cited by 7
Evaluation of Data Mining Tools for Telecommunication Monitoring Data Using Design of Experiment
Singh, S., Liu, Y., Ding, W., et al. (2016) · IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2016.43 · Cited by 7
A Multiscale Hierarchical Model for Sparse Hyperspectral Unmixing
Zou, J., & Lan, J. (2019) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs11050500 · Cited by 7
Estimation of the Experimental Drying Performance Parameters Using Polynomial SVM and ANN Models
Çerçi, K. N., SAYDAM, D. B., & Hürdoğan, E. (2020) · European Mechanical Science · doi:10.26701/ems.692149 · Cited by 7
Modelling on Impact of Building Obstruction for V2I Communication Link in Micro Cellular Environment
Turner, J. S. C., Shahriman, A. B., Harun, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1755/1/012031 · Cited by 7
Dynamic model to describe kinetic behavior of Listeria monocytogenes in smoked salmon
Kang, J., Oh, H., Lee, Y., et al. (2021) · Journal of Food Safety · doi:10.1111/jfs.12925 · Cited by 7
Retraceable and online multi-objective active optimal control using belief rule base
Jiang, J., Chang, L., Zhang, L., et al. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107553 · Cited by 7
Romdani, A., Chen, J., Chien, H., et al. (2022) · Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)ww.1943-5460.0000700 · Cited by 7
Modelling Sectoral Energy Consumption in Malaysia: Assessing the Asymmetric Effects
Tang, C.-S., Kogid, M., Alin, J. M., et al. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031816 · Cited by 7
Juneja, V. K., Sidhu, G., Xu, X., et al. (2022) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2022.102960 · Cited by 7
Goal or Miss? A Bernoulli Distribution for In-Game Outcome Prediction in Soccer
Yao, W., Wang, Y., Zhu, M., Cao, Y., & Zeng, D. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24070971 · Cited by 7
Torres-Bejarano, F. M., García-Gallego, J., & Salcedo-Salgado, J. (2022) · International Soil and Water Conservation Research · doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2022.06.002 · Cited by 7
Olschewski, P., Laux, P., Wei, J., Böker, B., Tian, Z., Sun, L., & Kunstmann, H. G. (2022) · Weather and Climate Extremes · doi:10.1016/j.wace.2022.100531 · Cited by 9
A Comparative Study on Classification Methods for Renal Cell and Lung Cancers Using RNA-Seq Data
Haznedar, B., & ŞİMŞEK, N. Y. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3211505 · Cited by 9
Adapting Data-Driven Techniques to Improve Surrogate Machine Learning Model Performance
Jones, H. R., Popescu, A. C., Sulehman, Y., & Mu, T. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3253429 · Cited by 10
Sensor BMP280 Statistical Analysis for Barometric Pressure Acquisition
Kusuma, H. A., Oktavia, D., Nugaraha, S., et al. (2023) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1148/1/012008 · Cited by 7
de Faria, Á. J. G., Silva, S. H. G., Lima, L. C. A., et al. (2023) · Soil Research · doi:10.1071/sr22168 · Cited by 7
Azeez, P. A., Rohit, P., Raman, M., Shenoy, L., Jaiswar, A. K., Koya, K. M., Mojjada, S. K., Divu, D. N., & Gopalakrishnan, A. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163975 · Cited by 7
Zhao, J., Cheng, Y., Zhang, L., et al. (2023) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2023.3276318 · Cited by 7
Nghana, B., Tariku, F. A., & Bitsuamlak, G. (2023) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en16145266 · Cited by 7
IRI Prediction using Machine Learning Models
Sharma, A., & Aggarwal, P. (2023) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTER RESEARCH · doi:10.37394/232018.2023.11.10 · Cited by 8
Zhang, T., Liew, S., Ng, H., Qin, D., Lee, H. C., Zhao, H., & Wang, D. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14101506 · Cited by 7
Langenberger, B. (2023) · Intelligence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ibmed.2023.100111 · Cited by 7
Enhancing Leaf Area Index Estimation for Maize with Tower-Based Multi-Angular Spectral Observations
Yan, L., Liu, X., Jing, X., et al. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23229121 · Cited by 7
A multi-attention Uformer for low-dose CT image denoising
Yan, H., Fang, C., & Qiao, Z. (2023) · Signal Image and Video Processing · doi:10.1007/s11760-023-02853-z · Cited by 7
Policy for handling air pollution in Jakarta: Study using System Dynamics Simulation Models
Samudra, A. A., Hertasning, B., & Amiro, L. (2024) · Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i2.2969 · Cited by 7
Comparative Evaluation of Remote Sensing Platforms for Almond Yield Prediction
Guimarães, N., Fraga, H., Sousa, J. J., et al. (2024) · AgriEngineering · doi:10.3390/agriengineering6010015 · Cited by 7
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
