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 6,701–6,800 of 7,174
A Low-Rank Perspective on Similarity Matrix Completion
Ma, C., Yu, R., Chen, X., Zhang, Y., & Lei, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2026.3702548
He, C., Chen, Z., Lin, S., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6910399
A machine learning enhanced time series model for Nigerian unemployment rate prediction
Ogunbona, B. D., Balogun, F., & Olagunju, S. O. (2026) · Journal of Statistical Sciences and Computational Intelligence · doi:10.64497/jssci.79
Kim, Y. J., Park, H. Y., Li, Z. J., & Kim, J. Y. (2026) · Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2026.06.008
Comparative Evaluation of NARX Model Training Algorithms for PM₁₀ Forecasting in Amasya, TÜRKİYE
Özdoğan-Sarıkoç, G. (2026) · Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.65520/erciyesfen.1911367
Efficient Monitoring Framework for Spoilage Prediction in Wheat Grain Warehouse
Devi, J., & Singhrova, A. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on AgriFood Electronics · doi:10.1109/tafe.2026.3685969
Mohammed, B. B. A., Isari, M., Mustafa, N. F., et al. (2026) · Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · doi:10.1061/jidedh.ireng-10695
Spatiotemporal Modelling of Urban Crime: Chicago and Los Angeles
Shoaib, Chittesh, K., Ramkumar, S., Ramar, G., R, S. E. P. P. A., & Rajasekaran, N. (2026) · International Conference on Integrated Intelligence and Communication Systems (ICIICS) · doi:10.1109/iciics67880.2026.11483441
Zem, R. C., Barbosa, C. C. F., Maciel, D. A., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/01431161.2026.2677906
Khan, M., & Sahu, V. (2026) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202607.1004.v1
Albser, O. A., Mouhamed, M. R., Shatta, S., Sweilam, N. H., & Darwish, A. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-56787-w · Cited by 2
Meta-learning–driven adaptive optimisation of building-integrated photovoltaic envelopes
Samarasinghalage, T. I., J.Yang, R., & Zhao, Y. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.117782
Sapinov, R. V., Kulenova, N. A., Sadenova, M. A., et al. (2026) · Recycling · doi:10.3390/recycling11060105
Sebaziga, J. N., Safari, B., Ntwali, D., et al. (2026) · Discover Atmosphere · doi:10.1007/s44292-026-00084-8
Thum, G. Ü., Motta, V. E., dos Santos, E. D., et al. (2026) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr14121934
Uymaz, S. A., Kaya, E., Tongur, V., et al. (2026) · Engineering Science and Technology an International Journal · doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2026.102436
Suriyalaksh, M., Prommawin, B., Hannanta‐anan, P., Sreewongchaı, T., Promchote, P., & Nakasathien, S. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0349688
A dynamic predictive model for Bacillus cereus growth from spores under temperature abuse conditions
Juneja, V. K., Osoria, M., Gao, J., et al. (2026) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2026.119773
Extracting Product Carbon Footprint in PDF Documents using Question Answering Framework
Zhao, K., Balaji, B., & Lee, S. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems (e-Energy) · doi:10.1145/3744255.3798128
Wang, H.-Y., Liu, Z., Guo, R.-G., et al. (2026) · Applied Geophysics · doi:10.1007/s11770-026-1525-8
Melo, M. D. S., Matos, F. B., Francisco, R., Junior, C. X. P., & Araújo, R. D. (2026) · doi:10.5753/educomp.2026.18664
Portela, A. L. C., & Gomes, R. L. (2026) · doi:10.5753/sbrc_estendido.2026.19563
Terassi, P. M. D. B., Júnior, A. C. O., Baratto, J., et al. (2026) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/j.pce.2026.104600
Explainable deep learning analysis of network depth effects on neutron porosity prediction
Chowdhury, M., & Islam, M. S. (2026) · Discover Geoscience · doi:10.1007/s44288-026-00591-6
Spatial assessment of soil health in the Krishna Delta using machine learning and land use patterns
Garg, A., Jyothi, V. S., Mustak, S., et al. (2026) · Discover Soil. · doi:10.1007/s44378-026-00243-8
A Distance-Based Spatial–Temporal Simulator for Renewable Energy Forecasting Under Extreme Weather
Zhang, Y., Wang, F., Shi, D., et al. (2026) · IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition · doi:10.1109/td48022.2026.11562982
Adaptive thresholding for CT metal artifact reduction via LangGraph
Kim, Y., Kim, K., & Lee, D. (2026) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ae7ec4
Wadki, V., & Jadhav, B. (2026) · Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s41024-026-00866-y
Mothers’ milk Na without Na:K ratio detects secretory activation in mothers of preterm infants
Pei, Q., Meier, P. P., Bendixen, M. M., et al. (2026) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-026-05206-x
Yadav, K., & Bhutia, D. T. (2026) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-026-01486-8
Estimating daily ozone levels in urban ambient air
Galán‐Madruga, D., Cárdenas-Escudero, J., Broomandi, P., Urraca, J. L., & Cáceres, J. O. (2026) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-026-15566-w
Dandabathula, G., Ghatage, O. S., Roy, S., et al. (2026) · Environmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability · doi:10.1088/2634-4505/ae7f49
Manungo, K. K., Marange, C. S., & Ndiweni, O. (2026) · Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics · doi:10.3389/fams.2026.1836441
Investigation of Packet and RSSI Behavior for Multi-Target Indoor Localization
Chabchoub, A., Chiboub, S., Souissi, R., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/ssd69655.2026.11559061
Kim, S., Park, J., Kim, S.-G., et al. (2026) · Case Studies in Thermal Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.csite.2026.108294
End-to-end prediction of skin permeability from SMILES using a hybrid and explainable GNN framework
Alakuş, D. O., & Alakuş, T. B. (2026) · Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jddst.2026.108617
Su, X., & Yang, H. (2026) · Journal of Earthquake Engineering · doi:10.1080/13632469.2026.2674950
GMDH-HS hybrid framework for optimization of combined drought indices in arid ecosystems
Shahbeygi, N., Pirzadeh, B., & Piri, J. (2026) · Ain Shams Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2026.104268
Geleneksel ve modern halıların fotogrametri tabanlı 3B modellenmesi ve sanal müze ortamında sunumu
Kaya, Y., & Yiğit, A. Y. (2026) · International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences · doi:10.29132/ijpas.1775441
Tanyıldız, H., Ceylan, Ç., & Aslan, S. (2026) · International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences · doi:10.29132/ijpas.1838407
Kaya, M., Göttsche, J.-L., & Klahn, C. (2026) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2026.178541
Dynamic modeling of the growth of spoilage fungi on sweet cherries under fluctuating temperatures
Xing, S., Xing, W., Fan, X., & Zeng, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2026.1858080
Mo, D., de Souza, D. A., Zou, X., & Wong, W. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.134304
Zhang, Z., Chen, L., Chen, Y., Huang, B., Wang, J., 韩经科, Zhang, J., & Zhao, L. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6992579
Event-based control of postoperative analgesia using physiological nociception signals
Ayvaz, B., Othman, G. B., Yumuk, E., Copoţ, D., & Ionescu, C. M. (2026) · Biomedical Signal Processing and Control · doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2026.110867
Asamoah, E. N., Cafaro, M., Epicoco, I., Franceschi, G. D., & Cesaroni, C. (2026) · Advances in Space Research · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2026.06.068
Rojas, J. M. P., Soto, H. L. H., Casas, M. B. S., Vera, R. O. V., Calderón, G. P., Calderón, J. M. P., Ramírez, A. L. Ñ., & Casimiro, E. E. M. (2026) · South Florida Journal of Development · doi:10.46932/sfjdv7n6-036
Artificial Intelligence for Multimodal ESG Report Analysis: Detecting Corporate GreenwashingPreprint
Feng, W., Siau, K. L., & Chen, H. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6996371
Pu, Q., Xie, K., Guo, H., et al. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Robotic and Sensors Environments · doi:10.1109/rose69181.2026.11570975
Darma, Y. Y. E., Pratama, R. H., Rohman, A. T., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9637377/v1
Wang, Q., Shang, C., Wu, H., et al. (2026) · Journal of Materials Informatics · doi:10.20517/jmi.2026.06
Upadhyay, U., Solanki, H., Tank, B., & Shah, P. (2026) · Discover Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-026-08769-w
A Novel ANFIS Framework for Energy Consumption Forecasting in Vietnam
Phan, V. T., & Nguyen, D. T. (2026) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr14132080
Swell-dominated wave parameter retrieval from oblique coastal video under variable camera geometry
Ngene, T. C., Abreu, T., da Silva, P. A., et al. (2026) · Applied Ocean Research · doi:10.1016/j.apor.2026.105161
Katipoğlu, O. M., Kartal, V., Akıner, M. E., Bazrafshan, O., Spor, P., & Çelik, M. A. (2026) · Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2026.106885 · Cited by 2
Predicting Furniture Prices Using Machine Learning Methods
KILIÇ, K. (2026) · Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.33484/sinopfbd.1795688
A substructure method with coupled explicit-implicit strategy for long-span wave-bridge FSI analysis
Yin, X., Quan, Y., Zhou, Y., et al. (2026) · Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2026.126751
Nuskiya, M. H. F., Sathyaseelan, S., & Nasar-u-Minallah, M. (2026) · DYSONA – Applied Science · doi:10.30493/das.2026.012706
AI-BASED ENERGY FORECASTING AND IMPROVED DEMAND MANAGEMENT IN SMART HOMES
Tokhmetov, A., Serikbayeva, S., Tanchenko, L., et al. (2026) · Herald of Kazakh-British technical university · doi:10.55452/1998-6688-2026-23-2-133-149
Lu, D., Zhao, L., Zhao, H., Chen, S., Nie, Z., & Nikolopoulou, M. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.117853
Gwate, O., Weideman, C., Smart, K., et al. (2026) · African Journal of Range and Forage Science · doi:10.2989/10220119.2026.2655194
Lee, U.-J., Kim, T.-K., Kim, B.-K., & Ko, D.-H. (2026) · 한국해안·해양공학회논문집 · doi:10.9765/kscoe.2026.38.3.81
AI-Guided DSE of GEMM Kernels for Vision Transformers on FPGA-Based Edge Platforms
Cabeccia, F., Raffo, L., Palumbo, F., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29365-7_12
Tharaga, P. C., Steyn, A. S., & Malobane, M. E. (2026) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos17070637
Neural Network Parameterized Bayesian Nonstationary Radio Map Estimation With Uncertain Location
Liu, H., Liu, Z. H., Zhang, Z., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/infocom59046.2026.11571402
Wei, S., Zhang, W., Wang, G., et al. (2026) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2026.105604
Wu, H., Kong, H., & Wong, C. (2026) · International Symposium on Computer Technology and Information Science (ISCTIS) · doi:10.1109/isctis70043.2026.11572552
LONG-TERM AIR QUALITY (PM2.5) PREDICTION USING DEEP LEARNING-BASED TEMPORAL CONVOLUTIONAL NETWORKS
Doğan, V., Erten, M. Y., & Aydilek, H. (2026) · Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi · doi:10.21923/jesd.1902759
Cai, Y., Jiang, Y., Ye, Y., et al. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.130347
Li, J., Yang, Z., Li, Q., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7025971
Evaluating Segmentation and Temporal Resolution in Highway Crash Forecasting: The BR-040 Corridor
Tozetto, J. P., Nunes, I., Soares, B., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30488-9_36
A Hybrid DDMRP-OUTL Inventory Policy with Defect Prediction for Resilient Supply Chains
Rosyida, E. E., Masudin, I., Isrofi, N., et al. (2026) · Jurnal Optimasi Sistem Industri · doi:10.25077/josi.v25.n1.p63-93.2026
Pacci, S., Tosun, S., Ertosun, B., et al. (2026) · EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE (EJSS) · doi:10.18393/ejss.1924804
Prediction And Analysis Of Concrete Compressive Strength By Machine Learning Methods
Gürfidan, R., & ERTEN, K. M. (2026) · Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi · doi:10.17798/bitlisfen.1816694
Monthanopparat, N., & Tanchaisawat, T. (2026) · Geotechnics · doi:10.3390/geotechnics6030061
Nguyen, B. M. A., Duong, T. K., Nguyen, T. N. P., & Tran, H. C. (2026) · Springer proceedings in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-9113-8_31
Wu, X., Tsai, P., Yuan, J., Yu, M., Sun, G., & Zhang, L. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC) · doi:10.1109/icbc67748.2026.11575454
CBUE: Conclusion Based Utility Evaluation for Differentially Private Categorical Data
Sarıkaya, F., Lu, S., Bater, J., & Hempstead, M. (2026) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp63933.2026.00058
Zhou, W., Liu, H., Li, M., Лиу, Л., & Cui, J. (2026) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2026.115423
Chen, Y., Wang, W., Yan, R., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Fatigue · doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2026.109790
Jin, X., DANTANARAYANA, M. M., Declaro, A., et al. (2026) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs18132136
BMC-FedStack: Secure and robust federated stacking for residential short-term load forecasting
Han, G., Chang, X., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.117896
Mas’udah, M., Livotov, P., Kokoschko, B. R., Xu, W., Hendra, I., & Hartmann, N. (2026) · Proceedings of the Design Society · doi:10.1017/pds.2026.10603 · Cited by 2
Wang, L., Chen, W., Lu, L., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7043321
Yousefi, T., & Varlıklar, Ö. (2026) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.3984
Guo, R., Xiao, B., Nie, J., et al. (2026) · MetaResource · doi:10.23919/metar.2026.000048
Liu, J.-H., Corbita, N. T., & Paclijan, G. B. (2026) · Advances in Mechanical Engineering · doi:10.1177/16878132261464392
Shah, Z. A., Chandio, M. B., Mehdi, G., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2026.156325
Zhao, Z., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., et al. (2026) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr14132176
Dixit, A., Singh, K., & Singh, D. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science · doi:10.1680/jenes.25.00019
Benchtop validation of a low-cost wearable triaxial accelerometer
Silva, C. F. E., Leal, I. D. S., de Melo, P. R. V., et al. (2026) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ae866e
Nejadi, E. J., Magagi, R., & Goı̈ta, K. (2026) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs18132213
Çakmak, E., & Akkaya, S. (2026) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae86c4
Budak, İ., & Yayla, İ. (2026) · Journal of Tourism Futures · doi:10.1108/jtf-12-2025-0414
Khoury, C. E., & Hickey, J.-P. (2026) · Aerospace Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.ast.2026.113130
Rahman, S. U., Khan, M. S., Hussain, J., et al. (2026) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.71038
Neto, J. B. F., Leão, H. S., Freitas, M. S., et al. (2026) · Discover Cities · doi:10.1007/s44327-026-00318-9
Sheng, L. Y., Quar, T. K., Yen, C. F., et al. (2026) · Speech Language and Hearing · doi:10.1080/2050571x.2026.2697916
Ulloa, N. A., Vallejo, K. M. V., Mancheno, P., et al. (2026) · Journal of Sustainability Research · doi:10.20900/jsr20260061
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
