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 6,201–6,300 of 7,174
Mass Prediction from 2D Images
Yılmaz, İ. C. S., & Efe, M. Ö. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-90893-4_81
Eebo, F. O., James, A. L., McCarter, C. P. R., & Tafvizi, A. (2026) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.136039
van Tegelen, E., van Voorn, G. A. K., Athanasiadis, I. N., & van Heijster, P. (2025) · Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · doi:10.1063/5.0288264 · Cited by 4
Su, J., Zhou, Y., Wang, Z., et al. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2025jd044882
A Review of Motion Artifact Removal Algorithms Based on fNIRS Signals
方, 书. (2025) · Software Engineering and Applications · doi:10.12677/sea.2025.145101
Neural network approaches for enhanced nitrate management in recirculating aquaculture systems
Fan, X., Li, J., Cui, Z., Liang, S., Chen, J., Cui, H., Li, H., Xu, Y. J., & Yin, Z. (2025) · Aquacultural Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2025.102650
Tian, J., Wang, Y., Gong, S., et al. (2025) · Geo-spatial Information Science · doi:10.1080/10095020.2025.2567560
Intelligent MPC-Based Time-Series Forecasting for Efficient Greenhouse Climate Automation
Bouali, K., Bajit, A., Benzzine, H., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-8901-9_47
Wang, H., Lei, J., Duan, Q., et al. (2025) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d5ay01443c
Kinetic mechanism of fine limestone in fluidized bed calcination: Surface reaction dominance
Chen, T., Zhu, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2025.10.031
Predicting precipitation based on copula-statistical models (Case study: Northwest of Iran)
Kouhi, M., & Amini, M. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102851
Physics-Based Machine Learning for Vibration Mitigation by Open Buried Trenches
Pereira, L., Godinho, L., Branco, F. G., Oliveira, P. J. V., Costa, P. A., & Colaço, A. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152111609
Improving Collaborative Recommender System Using Random Search Optimization and SVD
Panda, B., Behera, G., Swain, B. K., et al. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05120-2_7
Swathilakshmi, A. V., Poonkothai, M., Subashini, P., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Phytoremediation · doi:10.1080/15226514.2025.2579144
Toraman, Y., & Şimşek, O. M. (2025) · Journal of Polytechnic · doi:10.2339/politeknik.1739414 · Cited by 1
Liu, Y., Jiang, D., Wang, H., et al. (2025) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos16111262
Sensitivity and optimization CFD analysis of a vane-type pipe separator based on the AIAD model
Haokun, Z., & Höhne, T. (2025) · International Journal of Multiphase Flow · doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2025.105510
Analytical study of multi-layer one-dimensional spatially dependent solute transport modeling
Bharti, P., Kumar, M., Singh, M. K., et al. (2025) · Environmental Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1007/s10652-025-10058-w
Qiu, T., Fu, H., Qu, X., et al. (2025) · Magnetic Resonance Letters · doi:10.1016/j.mrl.2025.200254
On the Efficacy of ARFIMA, ARTFIMA, and MARFIMA Models in Forecasting Nigerian Crude Oil Prices
Tasi’u, M., Bello, A., Dikko, H. G., et al. (2025) · UMYU Scientifica · doi:10.56919/usci.2543.021
Multivariate Wind Power Time Series Forecasting with Noise-Filtering Neural ODEs
Chang, T., Chen, D., & Wang, D. (2025) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3746252.3761118
Tavares, H. P., & Christo, E. D. S. (2025) · Green Energy and Environmental Technology · doi:10.5772/geet.20250064
Deep Learning Improves Planting Year Estimation of Macadamia Orchards in Australia
Clark, A., Brinkhoff, J., Robson, A. J., & Shephard, C. (2025) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture15222346
Hasanzadeh, H., Wang, B., Rönnqvist, M., et al. (2025) · Transportation · doi:10.1007/s11116-025-10682-x
Vaithiyanadhan, S. K., Baier, F. W., & Gilardi, L. (2025) · doi:10.1061/9780784486481.020
A Transformer-Based Hybrid Model for Multi-Indicator Numerical Prediction of Marine Environment
Ma, L., Duan, B., Li, Y., Fu, Y., & Ma, D. (2025) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn64981.2025.11229192 · Cited by 1
Multi-Source Feature Fusion and Spatio-Temporal Unet for Precipitation Nowcasting
Liu, D., Zheng, P., Deng, H., et al. (2025) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn64981.2025.11228334 · Cited by 2
Long, Z., & Tong, S. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8076538/v1
Predicting global warming potential: A self-training and ensemble machine learning approach
Park, S.-M., Park, S., & Lee, J. (2025) · Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Nanotechnology and Microelectronics Materials Processing Measurement and Phenomena · doi:10.1116/6.0004715
Lu, X., Zhang, W., Zhan, G., et al. (2025) · Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1007/s44273-025-00067-y
Examining System-Wide Bike-Share Ridership in Response to Bikeway Expansion: A Trend-Based Analysis
Azimi, M., Zhou, L., Ghaffari, N., et al. (2025) · Journal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.teeng-9307
Qi, T., Tang, S., & Ye, H. (2025) · Marine Geodesy · doi:10.1080/01490419.2025.2583086 · Cited by 1
Sifriyani, S., Sifriyani, Budiantara, I. N., et al. (2025) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103727
Age estimation through CT image analysis of the thoracic cage in a Mediterranean population
Navadijo, M. P., Miranda, E. A. B., Navarro, F., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Legal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00414-025-03660-6
Gao, G., Zhan, J., Zhang, S., et al. (2025) · Optics Express · doi:10.1364/oe.581800
Bashiru, L., Murat, H., Yaakob, Y., et al. (2025) · Radioprotection · doi:10.1051/radiopro/2025046
Rezaei, Z., Aghamohammadi, H., & Vahidnia, M. H. (2025) · Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · doi:10.1007/s41062-025-02380-5
Signal estimation adaptive algorithm with latch-mechanism for real-time water quality monitoring
Twaróg, B., Hawro, P., & Kwater, T. (2025) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2025.106793
Wijaya, A. R., & Nusantara, C. A. D. S. (2025) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1551/1/012063
Kalkan, E., Budak, İ., Kaya, G., et al. (2025) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr13123820
Analysis of pile load-settlement prediction using finite element method and deep neural network
Kabir, M. U., Aninda, S. S., Islam, M. S., & Zahid, C. Z. B. (2025) · Engineering Research Express · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ae1dcc
de Menezes-Júnior, L. A. A. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-27008-7
Banjoko, B., Banjoko, O. G., & Eslamian, S. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-29104-3.00018-5
Efficient Short-Term Weather Forecasting with Random Forests: A Study on Limited Dataset
Lukman, S., Loekito, J. A., Pelupessy, D. S., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Instrumentation, Control, and Automation (ICA) · doi:10.1109/ica65945.2025.11254861
Cui, Z., Zheng, S., Ren, J., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5823647
Travel Time Estimation for Vehicles Using Link-Level Data Through Tree-Based Models
Srivastava, N., Gohil, B. N., & Ray, S. (2025) · International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research · doi:10.1007/s13177-025-00580-y
Calderon, C., Aguilar, Z., Carrasco, G., et al. (2025) · Journal of Disaster Research · doi:10.20965/jdr.2025.p0886
Zhao, Y., Zhu, X., Tang, W., Zhou, L., Li, F., & Tang, M. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app152312690
Sobhani, A., Laimighofer, J., Ortner, R., Hofstätter, H., Steiner, C., & Laaha, G. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102987
Can machine learning predict PTSD symptoms from trauma narratives of children and adolescents?
Giuliani, A., Sharp, T. H., Chideya, Y., Meiser‐Stedman, R., Tomlinson, M., & Halligan, S. L. (2025) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008066.2025.2589709
S, J., Hahn, H., Jha, S. K., Schweidler, S., & Velasco, L. (2025) · Eng—Advances in Engineering · doi:10.3390/eng6120340 · Cited by 1
Rowing in Sync: A Data-Driven Model to Uncover Synchronization Gaps in Team Performance
Hu, H., & Buchner, S. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud) · doi:10.1109/cscloud66326.2025.00043
Farej, Z. K., & Hamid, A. F. (2025) · International Conference on Business Analytics for Technology and Security (ICBATS) · doi:10.1109/icbats66542.2025.11258119
Gemechu, T. M., Zhang, H., Sun, J., & Chen, B. (2025) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy15122804
Zhang, J., Lu, L., Feng, P., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338204
Multipath Ghost Correlation-Based NLOS Target Localization and Building Layuot Estimation
Wei, Y., Guo, S., Xu, Z., et al. (2025) · European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) · doi:10.23919/eusipco63237.2025.11226331
Haile, G., Beketie, K. T., Feyisa, G. L., et al. (2025) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-02369-1
Statistical and Machine Learning Analysis of PM2.5 Concentrations and Meteorological InfluencesPreprint
iftekharuzzaman, M. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8288070/v1
Software tooling support for atmospheric dispersion modeling of the AERMOD system
Borges, A. A., de Camargo, E. T., Martins, L. D., et al. (2026) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2026.107079
Predicting Trauma Severity from Imbalanced Data Using Ensemble Regression and Generative Models
Rahman, S., Rahman, M. M., Ridelman, E., Frei, A., Adams, R. M., Rastgaar, M., Shanti, C. M., & Faezipour, M. (2025) · IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI ...) · doi:10.1109/bhi67747.2025.11269452
STA-Based Design of a Fixed-Time Convergence Disturbance Observer for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
Roa, V. M., Guerrero, J., Salgado-Jiménez, T., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control (CCE) · doi:10.1109/cce67728.2025.11271942
An Improved Deep Learning Model for Forecasting Sustainable Health Tourism Trends
Azar, N. A. N., Çavuş, N., & Sancar, N. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-3131-7.ch005
Sánchez-Covarrubias, J. M., López‐Serrano, P. M., Pompa-García, M., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5902365
Qutaishat, D., & Li, S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5917388
Infant mortality rates in Ghana: progress toward sustainable development goal 3
Opoku, S., Adama, Z. K., & Abuga, S. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25576-x
Evaluating Multi-K Bootstrap KNN Regression for Clustered Nonlinear Data
Pansuwan, A., Srisuradetchai, P., & Sriprasert, S. (2025) · Research, Invention, and Innovation Congress: Innovative Electricals and Electronics (RI2C) · doi:10.1109/ri2c67120.2025.11282836
Daily Weather Forecasting and Classification for Citrus Crop Management Using LSTM and Random Forest
Latifah, A., Wijayaningrum, V. N., & Hani’ah, M. (2025) · International Conference on Smart-Green Technology in Electrical and Information Systems (ICSGTEIS) · doi:10.1109/icsgteis68532.2025.11284437
Ren, Q., Yang, K., Deng, Z., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339003
Nemakonde, P., Ratshitanga, M., Nemangwele, F., et al. (2025) · IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica Conference (PowerAfrica) · doi:10.1109/powerafrica65840.2025.11289095
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364267
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606056
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364273
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364264
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364261
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606059
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364270
Sazawal, S., Ryckman, K. K., Das, S., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16584402
Moshawih, S., Bu, Z. H., Goh, H. P., Kifli, N., Lee, L. H., Goh, K. W., & Ming, L. C. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26726824
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606074
Moshawih, S., Bu, Z. H., Goh, H. P., Kifli, N., Lee, L. H., Goh, K. W., & Ming, L. C. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25918943
Schümperlin, D., Schärer, C., Kalberer, L., Ferguson, S. J., & Lorenzetti, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26584332
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606071
Hou, B., Zhou, Y., Li, S., Wei, Y., & Song, J. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26707949
Chen, J. C.-Y., & Tyler, A. D. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13364258
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606053
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606065
Moshawih, S., Bu, Z. H., Goh, H. P., Kifli, N., Lee, L. H., Goh, K. W., & Ming, L. C. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25919107
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606068
Zhang, X., Wu, K., Pan, Y., Yin, R., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Wang, Q., & Chen, W. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26606062
Silva, D., Menezes, R., Serra‐Pereira, B., et al. (2023) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Chrysanthemum Growth
Oh, M. H., Kim, H. H., Lee, G. Y., et al. (2025) · Flower Research Journal · doi:10.11623/frj.2025.33.2.07
Bach, N. V., Baryskievic, I. A., Baryskievic, A., et al. (2025) · Instruments and Experimental Techniques · doi:10.1134/s0020441225700526
Ji, H., Wang, Y., Gao, Y., & Yang, L. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3614456
Parameters Identification Based on PD Controller for A 2-DOF Robotic Arm System
Huynh, B. T., Huynh, T. K. T., Tong, N. H., et al. (2025) · International Conference on Applying New Technology in Green Buildings (ATiGB) · doi:10.1109/atigb66719.2025.11142142
Adaptive Ensemble Learning for Object Counting under varying Environmental Conditions
Gombos, S. P., & Gulyás, L. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3759355.3759634
Predictive modeling of CO2 solubility in aqueous DIPA-based solvents using machine learningPreprint
Dehbani, M., & Rahimi, M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5577330
Kumari, A., Upadhyaya, A., Jeet, P., et al. (2025) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-025-06878-x
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
