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 301–400 of 7,174
Cho, G., & Choi, J. Y. (2019) · Behaviormetrika · doi:10.1007/s41237-019-00098-0 · Cited by 82
Naser, A. H., Badr, A. H., Henedy, S. N., Ostrowski, K. A., & Imran, H. (2022) · Case Studies in Construction Materials · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01262 · Cited by 81
Lou, A., Guan, S., & Loew, M. H. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106579 · Cited by 86
Hybrid Convolutional Neural Network-Multilayer Perceptron Model for Solar Radiation Prediction
Ghimire, S., Nguyen‐Huy, T., Prasad, R., Deo, R. C., Casillas-Pérez, D., Salcedo‐Sanz, S., & Bhandari, B. (2022) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-022-10070-y · Cited by 85
Ali, M., Deo, R. C., Downs, N. J., & Maraseni, T. (2018) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.02.024 · Cited by 79
Akbari, M., Neamatollahi, E., & Neamatollahi, P. (2018) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.035 · Cited by 81
Rezaie-Balf, M., Kim, S., Fallah, H., et al. (2019) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.046 · Cited by 80
Ly, H., Monteiro, É., Le, T.-T., Le, M. V., Dal, M., Régnier, G., & Pham, B. T. (2019) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma12091544 · Cited by 80
Vishwakarma, G., Sonpal, A., & Hachmann, J. (2021) · Trends in Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trechm.2020.12.004 · Cited by 81
Warfarin dosing algorithms: A systematic review
Asiimwe, I. G., Zhang, E. J., Osanlou, R., Jorgensen, A., & Pirmohamed, M. (2020) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bcp.14608 · Cited by 86
Towards efficient and effective renewable energy prediction via deep learning
Khan, Z. A., Hussain, T., Haq, I. U., et al. (2022) · Energy Reports · doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2022.08.009 · Cited by 80
Li, Y., Minh, H.-L., Khatir, S., Sang-To, T., Cuong‐Le, T., MaoSen, C., & Wahab, M. M. A. (2023) · Engineering Structures · doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115891 · Cited by 81
Pham, T. D., Yoshino, K., & Bui, D. T. (2016) · GIScience & Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/15481603.2016.1269869 · Cited by 79
Richard Toro, A., Kvakić, M., Klaić, Z. B., et al. (2018) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.067 · Cited by 79
Experience-Based Swedish TTO and VAS Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L Health States
Burström, K., Teni, F. S., Gerdtham, U., Leidl, R., Helgesson, G., Rolfson, O., & Henriksson, M. (2020) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-020-00905-7 · Cited by 79
Deep learning in the COVID-19 epidemic: A deep model for urban traffic revitalization index
Lv, Z., Li, J., Dong, C., Li, H., & Xu, Z. (2021) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.datak.2021.101912 · Cited by 81
Membrane-type acoustic metamaterial using cork sheets and attached masses based on reused materials
Ciaburro, G., & Iannace, G. (2022) · Applied Acoustics · doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108605 · Cited by 79
Alsayat, A. (2022) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07992-x · Cited by 79
Malashin, I. P., Тынченко, В. С., Nelyub, V. A., Бородулин, А. С., & Gantimurov, A. (2023) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym16010115 · Cited by 83
Safavi, V., Vaniar, A. M., Bazmohammadi, N., Vásquez, J. C., Keysan, O., & Guerrero, J. M. (2024) · Journal of Energy Storage · doi:10.1016/j.est.2024.113176 · Cited by 82
Yang, W., Wang, P., Xu, S., Wang, T., Luo, M., Cai, Y., Xu, C., Xue, G., Que, J., Ding, Q., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51329-2 · Cited by 85
Comparing forecasting approaches for Internet traffic
Katris, C., & Daskalaki, S. (2015) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.029 · Cited by 78
Kutela, B., & Teng, H. (2019) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.06.002 · Cited by 78
Nguyen, H.-L., Pham, B. T., Sơn, L. H., et al. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9214715 · Cited by 78
Ehteram, M., Salih, S. Q., & Yaseen, Z. M. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-08023-9 · Cited by 78
Khan, I., Morris, S., Pashayan, N., et al. (2016) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1 · Cited by 77
Transient three-dimensional CFD modelling of ceiling fans
Babich, F., Cook, M., Loveday, D. L., Rawal, R., & Shukla, Y. (2017) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.039 · Cited by 78
Ngo, H. T. T., Pham, T. A., Vu, H. L. T., & Giap, V. L. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11041949 · Cited by 79
Spatio‐temporal evaluation of gridded precipitation products for the high‐altitude Indus basin
Dahri, Z. H., Ludwig, F., Moors, E. J., Ahmad, S., Ahmad, B., Shoaib, M., Ali, I., Iqbal, M. S., Pomee, M. S., Mangrio, A. G., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.7073 · Cited by 78
Tran, V. Q. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131683 · Cited by 77
Machine Learning for Silver Nanoparticle Electron Transfer Property Prediction
Sun, B., Fernández, M., & Barnard, A. S. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00272 · Cited by 79
Li, J. (2016) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.02.004 · Cited by 77
Kriging-based approach to predict missing air temperature data
Shtiliyanova, A., Bellocchi, G., Borras, D., Eza, U., Martin, R., & Carrère, P. (2017) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.033 · Cited by 78
River flow prediction using hybrid PSOGSA algorithm based on feed-forward neural network
Meshram, S. G., Ghorbani, M. A., Shamshirband, S., Karimi, V., & Meshram, C. Y. (2018) · Soft Computing · doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3598-7 · Cited by 76
Inter-comparison of remotely sensed precipitation datasets over Kenya during 1998–2016
Ayugi, B. O., Tan, G., Ullah, W., et al. (2019) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.03.032 · Cited by 76
Kişi, Ö., Choubin, B., Deo, R. C., & Yaseen, Z. M. (2019) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626667.2019.1632460 · Cited by 76
Bahino, J., Yoboué, V., Galy‐Lacaux, C., et al. (2018) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-18-5173-2018 · Cited by 76
Effect of temperature on kinetics of biogas production from macroalgae
Membere, E., & Sallis, P. J. (2018) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.023 · Cited by 76
Validity of the Perception Neuron inertial motion capture system for upper body motion analysis
Sers, R., Forrester, S., Moss, E. L., Ward, S., Ma, J., & Zecca, M. (2019) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2019.107024 · Cited by 78
Measuring performance of low impact development practices for the surface runoff management
Yang, W., Brüggemann, K., Seguya, K. D., et al. (2020) · Environmental Science and Ecotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.ese.2020.100010 · Cited by 75
Salih, A., Rafiq, S. K., Mahmood, W. I., et al. (2020) · Construction and Building Materials · doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120777 · Cited by 75
Speech vs. text: A comparative analysis of features for depression detection systems
Morales, M. R., & Levitan, R. (2016) · IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) · doi:10.1109/slt.2016.7846256 · Cited by 75
Tian, H., Wang, L., Wu, M., et al. (2017) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs9060521 · Cited by 75
Real-Time Visual–Inertial SLAM Based on Adaptive Keyframe Selection for Mobile AR Applications
Piao, J.-C., & Kim, S.-D. (2019) · IEEE transactions on multimedia · doi:10.1109/tmm.2019.2913324 · Cited by 60
Gebremicael, T. G., Mohamed, Y. A., van der Zaag, P., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/01431161.2018.1562585 · Cited by 74
Li, L., Dai, S., Cao, Z., Hong, J., Jiang, S., & Yang, K. (2020) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-019-03130-y · Cited by 74
Assessment and Calibration of ERA5 Severe Winds in the Atlantic Ocean Using Satellite Data
Campos, R. M., Gramcianinov, C. B., de Camargo, R., & Dias, P. L. D. S. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14194918 · Cited by 85
Perceptive Self-Supervised Learning Network for Noisy Image Watermark Removal
Tian, C., Zheng, M., Li, B., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology · doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2024.3349678 · Cited by 74
Gridded Population Maps Informed by Different Built Settlement Products
Reed, F. J., Gaughan, A. E., Stevens, F. R., Yetman, G., Sorichetta, A., & Tatem, A. J. (2018) · Data · doi:10.3390/data3030033 · Cited by 74
Dengue Epidemics Prediction: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art Based on Data Science Processes
Siriyasatien, P., Chadsuthi, S., Jampachaisri, K., & Kesorn, K. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2871241 · Cited by 80
Enhanced performance Gaussian process regression for probabilistic short-term solar output forecast
Najibi, F., Apostolopoulou, D., & Alonso, E. (2021) · International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106916 · Cited by 75
Clustering method and sine cosine algorithm for image segmentation
Khrissi, L., Akkad, N. E., Satori, H., et al. (2021) · Evolutionary Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s12065-020-00544-z · Cited by 73
Ahmed, A. A. M., Deo, R. C., Ghahramani, A., Raj, N., Feng, Q., Yin, Z., & Yang, L. (2021) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-021-01969-3 · Cited by 72
Sakai, M., Nagayasu, K., Shibui, N., Andoh, C., Takayama, K., Shirakawa, H., & Kaneko, S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-80113-7 · Cited by 75
Performance evaluation of regression models for COVID-19: A statistical and predictive perspective
Khan, M. A., Khan, R., Algarni, F., Kumar, I., Choudhary, A., & Srivastava, A. (2021) · Ain Shams Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2021.08.016 · Cited by 73
Ahmed, A. A. M., Deo, R. C., Ghahramani, A., Feng, Q., Raj, N., Yin, Z., & Yang, L. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154722 · Cited by 75
Sandoval, A., González, C., Alarcón, R. A., et al. (2018) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.02.002 · Cited by 72
Fissa, M. R., Lahiouel, Y., Khaouane, L., & Hanini, S. (2018) · Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.jmgm.2018.11.013 · Cited by 71
Digital twin of an urban-integrated hydroponic farm
Jans-Singh, M., Leeming, K., Choudhary, R., & Girolami, M. (2020) · Data-Centric Engineering · doi:10.1017/dce.2020.21 · Cited by 81
Qiao, J., Jin, J., Wang, D., Teng, S., Zhang, J., Yang, X., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Cui, L., Zou, Q., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59634-0 · Cited by 87
Samadianfard, S., Majnooni-Heris, A., Qasem, S. N., et al. (2019) · Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1080/19942060.2018.1560364 · Cited by 71
Estimating Above-Ground Biomass of Potato Using Random Forest and Optimized Hyperspectral Indices
Yang, H., Li, F., Wang, W., et al. (2021) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs13122339 · Cited by 71
Ghafarian, F., Wieland, R., Lüttschwager, D., et al. (2022) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105466 · Cited by 71
Pareek, C. M., Tewari, V. K., & Machavaram, R. (2022) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105559 · Cited by 72
Gampe, D., & Ludwig, R. (2017) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology4040053 · Cited by 71
AL‐Musaylh, M. S., Deo, R. C., Adamowski, J., & Li, Y. (2019) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109293 · Cited by 69
Estimating 2-year flood flows using the generalized structure of the Group Method of Data Handling
Walton, R., Binns, A. D., Bonakdari, H., et al. (2019) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.068 · Cited by 70
Urban air temperature model using GOES-16 LST and a diurnal regressive neural network algorithm
Hrisko, J., Ramamurthy, P., Yu, Y., Yu, P., & Melecio-Vázquez, D. (2019) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111495 · Cited by 72
Ngarambe, J., Irakoze, A., Yun, G. Y., et al. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12114471 · Cited by 70
Aieb, A., Madani, K., Scarpa, M. L., Bonaccorso, B., & Lefsih, K. (2019) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01247 · Cited by 74
Explainable drug sensitivity prediction through cancer pathway enrichment
Tang, Y.-C., & Gottlieb, A. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82612-7 · Cited by 74
Emami, S. A., & Banazadeh, A. (2021) · Aerospace Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.ast.2021.106573 · Cited by 69
Landscape and vegetation traits of urban green space can predict local surface temperature
Chen, D., Fei, Z., Zhang, M., Meng, Q., Jim, C. Y., Shi, J., Tan, M. L., & Ma, X. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154006 · Cited by 68
Yousif, N. R., Balaha, H. M., Haikal, A. Y., & El-Gendy, E. M. (2022) · Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing · doi:10.1007/s12652-022-04342-6 · Cited by 69
Garzón, J. L., & Ferreira, C. M. (2016) · Journal of Marine Science and Engineering · doi:10.3390/jmse4030045 · Cited by 69
Huang, X., Wang, C., Li, Z., & Ning, H. (2020) · Big Earth Data · doi:10.1080/20964471.2020.1776200 · Cited by 69
Crop Yield Estimation in India Using Machine Learning
Kavita, M., & Mathur, P. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA) · doi:10.1109/iccca49541.2020.9250915 · Cited by 68
Prediction of Probability of Liquefaction Using Soft Computing Techniques
Kumar, D. R., Samui, P., & Burman, A. (2022) · Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India) Series A · doi:10.1007/s40030-022-00683-9 · Cited by 72
Micro-Directional Propagation Method Based on User Clustering
Ban, Y., Liu, Y., Yin, Z., Liu, X., Liu, M., Yin, L., Li, X., & Zheng, W. (2023) · Computing and Informatics · doi:10.31577/cai_2023_6_1445 · Cited by 68
Hu, Z., He, W., Hong, X., et al. (2016) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.016 · Cited by 68
Temporal effects on glare response from daylight
Kent, M. G., Altomonte, S., Wilson, R., & Tregenza, P. R. (2016) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.002 · Cited by 69
Deo, R. C., Şahin, M., Adamowski, J., & Mi, J. (2019) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.009 · Cited by 67
Role of Mineral–Organic Interactions in PFAS Retention by AFFF-Impacted Soil
Wanzek, T. A., Stults, J. F., Johnson, M. G., Field, J. A., & Kleber, M. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08806 · Cited by 71
Harahagazwe, D., Condori, B., Barreda, C., Bararyenya, A., Byarugaba, A., Kude, D. A., Lung'aho, C., Martinho, C., Mbiri, D., Nasona, B., et al. (2018) · Open Agriculture · doi:10.1515/opag-2018-0019 · Cited by 47
Lee, M., & Hong, T. (2019) · Energy Conversion and Management · doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.096 · Cited by 67
Data Driven Natural Gas Spot Price Prediction Models Using Machine Learning Methods
Su, M., Zhang, Z., Zhu, Y., Zha, D., & Wen, W. (2019) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en12091680 · Cited by 68
Sharma, E., Deo, R. C., Prasad, R., Parisi, A. V., & Raj, N. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3039002 · Cited by 68
Projection of future extreme precipitation in Iran based on CMIP6 multi-model ensemble
Zarrin, A., & Dadashi-Roudbari, A. (2021) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-021-03568-2 · Cited by 65
Li, S., Wang, Z., Wu, X., et al. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114574 · Cited by 66
Orimoloye, I. R., Olusola, A. O., Belle, J. A., Pande, C. B., & Ololade, O. O. (2022) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-022-05219-9 · Cited by 67
Jarahizadeh, S., & Salehi, B. (2024) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s24010286 · Cited by 66
Joseph, L. P., Deo, R. C., Casillas-Pérez, D., Prasad, R., Raj, N., & Salcedo‐Sanz, S. (2024) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122624 · Cited by 67
Vatandaşlar, C., & Yavuz, M. (2017) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-017-6388-0 · Cited by 66
Fan, C., Jiang, X., & Mostafavi, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70524-x · Cited by 65
Adversarial Examples in Deep Learning for Multivariate Time Series Regression
Mode, G. R., & Hoque, K. A. (2020) · IEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop · doi:10.1109/aipr50011.2020.9425190 · Cited by 69
IoT-Agro: A smart farming system to Colombian coffee farms
Rodríguez, J. P., Montoya‐Munoz, A. I., Rodriguez-Pabon, C., Hoyos, J., & Corrales, J. C. (2021) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2021.106442 · Cited by 73
Liu, J., Mohammadi, M., Zhan, Y., et al. (2021) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma14226792 · Cited by 65
The efficacy of deep learning based LSTM model in forecasting the outbreak of contagious diseases
Absar, N., Uddin, N., Khandaker, M. U., & Ullah, H. (2021) · Infectious Disease Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.idm.2021.12.005 · Cited by 73
A new model of air quality prediction using lightweight machine learning
Van, N. H., Thanh, P. V., Tran, D., & Tran, D. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s13762-022-04185-w · Cited by 66
An materials informatics approach to Ni-based single crystal superalloys lattice misfit prediction
Jiang, X. F., Yin, H., Zhang, C., Zhang, R.-J., Zhang, K.-Q., Deng, Z., Liu, G., & Qu, X. (2017) · Computational Materials Science · doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2017.09.061 · Cited by 67
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
