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 601–700 of 7,174
Pei, J., Wang, L., Huang, N., et al. (2018) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs10091321 · Cited by 47
Global Solar Radiation Prediction Using Hybrid Online Sequential Extreme Learning Machine Model
Hou, M., Zhang, T., Weng, F., et al. (2018) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en11123415 · Cited by 47
A Smart Recommender Based on Hybrid Learning Methods for Personal Well-Being Services
Nouh, R. M., Lee, H.-H., Lee, W.-J., & Lee, J.-D. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19020431 · Cited by 47
Meshram, S. G., Ghorbani, M. A., Deo, R. C., et al. (2019) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-019-02265-0 · Cited by 47
Reality mining and predictive analytics for building smart applications
Asri, H., Mousannif, H., & Moatassime, H. A. (2019) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0227-y · Cited by 47
Merder, J., Freund, J. A., Feudel, U., Niggemann, J., Singer, G. A., & Dittmar, T. (2019) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04234 · Cited by 47
Ukhurebor, K. E., Azi, S. O., Aigbe, U. O., Onyancha, R. B., & Emegha, J. O. (2020) · Measurement · doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108110 · Cited by 47
Idrees, M. B., Jehanzaib, M., Kim, D., & Kim, T. (2021) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-021-01982-6 · Cited by 50
Low-dose CT image denoising using residual convolutional network with fractional TV loss
Chen, M., Pu, Y., & Bai, Y. (2020) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2020.10.004 · Cited by 46
Comparison of High-Resolution Satellite Precipitation Products in Sub-Saharan Morocco
Rachdane, M., Khalki, E. M. E., Saidi, M. E. M., et al. (2022) · Water · doi:10.3390/w14203336 · Cited by 46
New machine learning model based on the time factor for e-commerce recommendation systems
Tran, D. T., & Huh, J. (2022) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-022-04909-2 · Cited by 46
Sumdang, N., Chotpantarat, S., Cho, K. H., et al. (2023) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114665 · Cited by 46
Mahammad, S., Islam, A., Shit, P. K., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101385 · Cited by 46
Soltanmohammadi, R., & Faroughi, S. A. (2023) · Applied Computing and Geosciences · doi:10.1016/j.acags.2023.100143 · Cited by 48
Reza, A. F., Singh, R., Verma, R. K., Singh, A., Ahn, Y.-H., & Ray, S. S. (2024) · Desalination · doi:10.1016/j.desal.2024.117849 · Cited by 47
AI-powered ultrasonic thermometry for HIFU therapy in deep organ
Luan, S., Ji, Y., Liu, Y., Zhu, L., Zhao, H., Zhou, H., Li, K., Zhu, W., & Zhu, B. (2024) · Ultrasonics Sonochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2024.107154 · Cited by 46
Location-Centered House Price Prediction: A Multi-Task Learning Approach
Gao, G., Bao, Z., Cao, J., et al. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3501806 · Cited by 46
Roshni, T., Jha, M. K., Deo, R. C., & Vandana, A. (2019) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-019-02253-4 · Cited by 46
Climate Change Impact on Surface Water and Groundwater Recharge in Northern Thailand
Petpongpan, C., Ekkawatpanit, C., & Kositgittiwong, D. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12041029 · Cited by 46
Hannan, M. A., Ali, J. A., Lipu, M. S. H., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17623-5 · Cited by 46
Yanto, Y., Apriyono, A., Santoso, P. B., et al. (2021) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-021-04982-5 · Cited by 46
Yang, C., Zhou, W., & Xu, T. (2022) · Transportation Geotechnics · doi:10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100808 · Cited by 45
Li, Y., Yao, E., Liu, S., & Yang, Y. (2023) · Journal of Transport Geography · doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103744 · Cited by 47
Schmidt, T., Schrön, M., Li, Z., Francke, T., Zacharias, S., Hildebrandt, A., & Peng, J. X. (2023) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113930 · Cited by 48
Ayub, Y., Ren, J., He, C., et al. (2023) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2023.148080 · Cited by 45
A predictive analytics framework for sensor data using time series and deep learning techniques
Selmy, H. A., Mohamed, H. K., & Medhat, W. (2024) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-023-09398-9 · Cited by 57
Njana, M. A., Bollandsås, O. M., Eid, T., Zahabu, E. M., & Malimbwi, R. E. (2015) · Annals of Forest Science · doi:10.1007/s13595-015-0524-3 · Cited by 46
Jaiswal, R. K., & Jaidhar, C. D. (2016) · Wireless Networks · doi:10.1007/s11276-016-1265-4 · Cited by 45
Comparison of ARIMA and ANN Models Used in Electricity Price Forecasting for Power Market
Gao, G., Lo, K., & Fan, F. (2017) · Energy and Power Engineering · doi:10.4236/epe.2017.94b015 · Cited by 45
Imran, H. M., Kala, J., Ng, A. W. M., & Muthukumaran, S. (2017) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3758-y · Cited by 47
Prediction bands for solar energy: New short-term time series forecasting techniques
Fliess, M., Join, C., & Voyant, C. (2018) · Solar Energy · doi:10.1016/j.solener.2018.03.049 · Cited by 45
Stefanidis, S. P., & Stathis, D. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10101469 · Cited by 45
Ghorbani, M. A., Deo, R. C., Karimi, V., et al. (2018) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-018-1630-1 · Cited by 45
Updated Lagrangian Particle Hydrodynamics (ULPH) modeling and simulation of multiphase flows
Yan, J., Li, S., Zhang, A., et al. (2019) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.05.017 · Cited by 45
Xu, P., Zhou, H., & Wong, S. C. (2021) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106237 · Cited by 45
Lezhnina, O., & Kismihók, G. (2021) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/1743727x.2021.1963226 · Cited by 50
Kuma, H. G., Fufa, F., & Demissie, T. A. (2021) · Journal of Water and Climate Change · doi:10.2166/wcc.2021.281 · Cited by 45
Sengupta, S., Mohinuddin, S., Arif, M., et al. (2022) · Geocarto International · doi:10.1080/10106049.2022.2076925 · Cited by 45
An automated machine learning approach for earthquake casualty rate and economic loss prediction
Chen, W., & Zhang, L. (2022) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108645 · Cited by 46
Predicting Aedes aegypti infestation using landscape and thermal features
Lorenz, C., Castro, M. C., Trindade, P. M. P., Nogueira, M. L., Lage, M. D. O., Quintanilha, J. A., Parra, M. C. P., Dibo, M. R., Fávaro, E. A., Guirado, M. M., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78755-8 · Cited by 44
Tang, C., Zhang, W., Li, H., et al. (2020) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-020-05673-w · Cited by 44
Minh, V. T. T., Tín, T. T., & To, H. T. (2021) · Aerosol and Air Quality Research · doi:10.4209/aaqr.210108 · Cited by 44
Dyer, A. S., Zaengle, D., Nelson, J. R., Duran, R., Wenzlick, M., Wingo, P. C., Bauer, J. R., Rose, K., & Romeo, L. (2022) · Marine Structures · doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2021.103152 · Cited by 46
EMOQ-TTS: Emotion Intensity Quantization for Fine-Grained Controllable Emotional Text-to-Speech
Im, C.-B., Lee, S.-H., Kim, S.-B., & Lee, S. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp43922.2022.9747098 · Cited by 44
Prediction of Rock Strain Using Hybrid Approach of Ann and Optimization Algorithms
Pradeep, T., & Samui, P. (2022) · Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10706-022-02174-x · Cited by 44
Zhang, Y., Wei, L., Lu, Q., Zhong, Y., Yuan, Z., Wang, Z., Li, Z., & Yang, Y. (2023) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120962 · Cited by 44
FLOOD RISK MAPPING USING RANDOM FOREST AND SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE
Ganjirad, M., & Delavar, M. R. (2023) · ISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · doi:10.5194/isprs-annals-x-4-w1-2022-201-2023 · Cited by 44
UAV sensor data applications with deep neural networks: A comprehensive survey
Düdükçü, H. V., Taşkıran, M., & Kahraman, N. (2023) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106476 · Cited by 47
Sharma, U., Gupta, N., & Verma, M. (2023) · Asian Journal of Civil Engineering · doi:10.1007/s42107-023-00721-2 · Cited by 44
An artificial neural network for predicting air traffic demand based on socio-economic parameters
Alam, M. S., Deb, J. B., Amin, A. A., & Chowdhury, S. (2023) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100382 · Cited by 44
Heddam, S. (2016) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-016-6905-9 · Cited by 44
Ghermandi, A. (2016) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.009 · Cited by 45
Beck, H. E., Vergopolan, N., Pan, M., Levizzani, V., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Weedon, G. P., Brocca, L., Pappenberger, F., Huffman, G. J., & Wood, E. F. (2020) · Advances in global change research · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35798-6_9 · Cited by 44
Vanvanhossou, S. F. U., Diogo, R. V. C., & Dossa, L. H. (2018) · Cogent Food & Agriculture · doi:10.1080/23311932.2018.1549767 · Cited by 44
A Peak Traffic Congestion Prediction Method Based on Bus Driving Time
Huang, Z., Xia, J., Li, F., Li, Z., & Li, Q. (2019) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e21070709 · Cited by 44
Milali, M. P., Sikulu-Lord, M. T., Kiware, S. S., Dowell, F. E., Corliss, G. F., & Povinelli, R. J. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209451 · Cited by 46
A Matrix Factorization Model for Hellinger-Based Trust Management in Social Internet of Things
Aalibagi, S., Mahyar, H., Movaghar, A., & Stanley, E. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2021.3052953 · Cited by 44
Wan, R., Wang, P., Wang, X., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.01281 · Cited by 44
Solar Irradiance Variability: Modeling the Measurements
Lean, J. L., Coddington, O., Marchenko, S. V., Machol, J. L., DeLand, M. T., & Kopp, G. A. (2020) · Earth and Space Science · doi:10.1029/2019ea000645 · Cited by 44
Buyrukoğlu, G., Buyrukoğlu, S., & Topalcengiz, Z. (2021) · Microbial Risk Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.mran.2021.100171 · Cited by 44
Huang, C., Zhou, J., Chen, J., Yang, J. Y., Clawson, K., & Peng, Y. (2021) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-021-05962-3 · Cited by 56
Ren, Q., Ding, L., Dai, X., et al. (2021) · Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003741 · Cited by 44
Huang, J., Algahtani, M., & Kaewunruen, S. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12199788 · Cited by 49
Jiang, J., Chiu, H.-C., Yang, Y.-C., et al. (2022) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3139933 · Cited by 43
Pande, C. B., Kushwaha, N. L., Alawi, O. A., et al. (2024) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2024.124040 · Cited by 43
Lemaoui, T., Eid, T., Darwish, A. S., Arafat, H. A., BANAT, F. A., & AlNashef, I. M. (2024) · Materials Science and Engineering R Reports · doi:10.1016/j.mser.2024.100798 · Cited by 43
A Hybrid PCA-CART-MARS-Based Prognostic Approach of the Remaining Useful Life for Aircraft Engines
Lasheras, F. S., Nieto, P. J. G., Juez, F. J. D. C., Bayón, R. M., & González, V. M. (2015) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s150307062 · Cited by 43
Kamalvand, M., Keshavarz, M. H., & Jafari, M. (2014) · Propellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · doi:10.1002/prep.201400139 · Cited by 43
Soodmand, E., Kluess, D., Varady, P. A., et al. (2018) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-018-0461-0 · Cited by 43
Height and Weight Estimation From Anthropometric Measurements Using Machine Learning Regressions
Rátiva, D., Fernandes, B., & Roque, A. (2018) · IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine · doi:10.1109/jtehm.2018.2797983 · Cited by 43
Ocean Color Analytical Model Explicitly Dependent on the Volume Scattering Function
Twardowski, M. S., & Tonizzo, A. (2018) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app8122684 · Cited by 43
Sure, A., & Dikshit, O. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.109 · Cited by 43
An empirical-based rainfall-runoff modelling using optimization technique
Roy, B., & Singh, M. P. (2019) · International Journal of River Basin Management · doi:10.1080/15715124.2019.1680557 · Cited by 43
Chaabene, W. B., & Nehdi, M. L. (2020) · Composites Part C Open Access · doi:10.1016/j.jcomc.2020.100070 · Cited by 43
Pradeep, T., Bardhan, A., Burman, A., et al. (2021) · Infrastructures · doi:10.3390/infrastructures6090129 · Cited by 43
George, A. D., Kaya, D., Layton, B. A., et al. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00882 · Cited by 43
Inulinase production and mathematical modeling from carob extract by using Aspergillus niger
Ilgın, M., Germeç, M., & Turhan, İ. (2019) · Biotechnology Progress · doi:10.1002/btpr.2919 · Cited by 42
Mpakairi, K. S., Dube, T. J., Dondofema, F., & Dalu, T. (2022) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101667 · Cited by 41
Density estimation method of mature wheat based on point cloud segmentation and clustering
Zou, R., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., et al. (2023) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2023.107626 · Cited by 42
Arora, P., & Ceferino, L. (2023) · Natural hazards and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-23-1665-2023 · Cited by 42
Ayub, Y., Hu, Y., & Ren, J. (2023) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2023.118953 · Cited by 42
Alaneme, G. U., Olonade, K. A., & Esenogho, E. (2023) · SN Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-023-05447-z · Cited by 42
Deb, J. B., Chowdhury, S., & Ali, N. M. (2024) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100492 · Cited by 42
Wang, Q., & Gayed, J. M. (2024) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2024.2371395 · Cited by 53
Remaining Useful Life Predictor for EV Batteries Using Machine Learning
Swain, D., Kumar, M., Nour, A. A., Patel, K., Bhatt, A., Acharya, B., & Bostani, A. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3461802 · Cited by 42
Haseeb, M., Tahir, Z., Mahmood, S. A., et al. (2025) · Information Processing in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.inpa.2025.02.004 · Cited by 42
Ge, M., Wu, P., Zhu, D., et al. (2018) · Agricultural Water Management · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2017.12.009 · Cited by 42
Evaluation of Terrestrial and Mobile Scanner Technologies for Part-Built Information Modeling
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., Forsythe, P. J., & Shirowzhan, S. (2018) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001574 · Cited by 42
Assessment of Precipitation Simulations in Central Asia by CMIP5 Climate Models
Ta, Z., Yu, Y., Sun, L., Chen, X., Mu, G., & Yu, R. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10111516 · Cited by 42
Hotel online reviews: creating a multi-source aggregated index
António, N., de Almeida, A., Nunes, L., Batista, F., & Ribeiro, R. (2018) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-05-2017-0302 · Cited by 42
Germeç, M., Turhan, İ., Karhan, M., et al. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9102121 · Cited by 42
An Integrated Deep Neural Network Approach for Large-Scale Water Quality Time Series Prediction
Dong, Q., Lin, Y., Bi, J., & Yuan, H. (2019) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/smc.2019.8914404 · Cited by 42
Spatio-temporal variation of reference evapotranspiration in northwest China based on CORDEX-EA
Yang, L., Qi, F., Adamowski, J., et al. (2020) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.104868 · Cited by 42
Hitimana, E., Bajpai, G., Musabe, R., et al. (2021) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi13030067 · Cited by 42
FeatureMF: An Item Feature Enriched Matrix Factorization Model for Item Recommendation
Zhang, H., Ганчев, И., Nikolov, N. S., et al. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3074365 · Cited by 42
Voice-Activated Smart Home Controller Using Machine Learning
Filipe, L., Peres, R. S., & Santos‐Tavares, R. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3076750 · Cited by 44
Integrating video tracking and GPS to quantify accelerations and decelerations in elite soccer
Pons, E., García‐Calvo, T., Cos, F., et al. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-97903-2 · Cited by 42
A Survey On Missing Data in Machine LearningPreprint
Emmanuel, T., Maupong, T., Mpoeleng, D., Semong, T., Mphago, B., & Tabona, O. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-535520/v1 · Cited by 51
Gong, X., Cardenas-Barrera, J. L., Castillo-Guerra, E., et al. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · doi:10.1109/tia.2019.2936330 · Cited by 41
Inverse Design of Nanoparticles Using Multi‐Target Machine Learning
Li, S., & Barnard, A. S. (2021) · Advanced Theory and Simulations · doi:10.1002/adts.202100414 · Cited by 40
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
