globalchange  > 气候变化与战略
DOI: 10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
论文题名:
Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash-Sutcliffe and Kling-Gupta efficiency scores
作者: Knoben W.J.M.; Freer J.E.; Woods R.A.
刊名: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
ISSN: 1027-5606
出版年: 2019
卷: 23, 期:10
起始页码: 4323
结束页码: 4331
语种: 英语
Scopus关键词: Earth sciences ; Hydrology ; Coefficient of variation ; Efficiency metrics ; Evaluation metrics ; Mean flow ; Model performance ; Positive value ; Robust modeling ; Technical notes ; Efficiency ; benchmarking ; game theory ; hydrology ; model validation ; numerical method ; performance assessment ; prediction
英文摘要: A traditional metric used in hydrology to summarize model performance is the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Increasingly an alternative metric, the Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE), is used instead. When NSE is used, NSE = 0 corresponds to using the mean flow as a benchmark predictor. The same reasoning is applied in various studies that use KGE as a metric: negative KGE values are viewed as bad model performance, and only positive values are seen as good model performance. Here we show that using the mean flow as a predictor does not result in KGE=0, but instead KGE = 1- √ 2 ∼ -0:41. Thus, KGE values greater than -0:41 indicate that a model improves upon the mean flow benchmark - even if the model's KGE value is negative. NSE and KGE values cannot be directly compared, because their relationship is non-unique and depends in part on the coefficient of variation of the observed time series. Therefore, modellers who use the KGE metric should not let their understanding of NSE values guide them in interpreting KGE values and instead develop new understanding based on the constitutive parts of the KGE metric and the explicit use of benchmark values to compare KGE scores against. More generally, a strong case can be made for moving away from ad hoc use of aggregated efficiency metrics and towards a framework based on purpose-dependent evaluation metrics and benchmarks that allows for more robust model adequacy assessment. © Author(s) 2019.
Citation statistics:
资源类型: 期刊论文
标识符: http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/162874
Appears in Collections:气候变化与战略

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.


作者单位: Knoben, W.J.M., Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR, United Kingdom, University of Saskatchewan, Coldwater Laboratory, Canmore, AB, Canada; Freer, J.E., School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1BF, United Kingdom, Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1UJ, United Kingdom; Woods, R.A., Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR, United Kingdom, Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1UJ, United Kingdom

Recommended Citation:
Knoben W.J.M.,Freer J.E.,Woods R.A.. Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash-Sutcliffe and Kling-Gupta efficiency scores[J]. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,2019-01-01,23(10)
Service
Recommend this item
Sava as my favorate item
Show this item's statistics
Export Endnote File
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Knoben W.J.M.]'s Articles
[Freer J.E.]'s Articles
[Woods R.A.]'s Articles
百度学术
Similar articles in Baidu Scholar
[Knoben W.J.M.]'s Articles
[Freer J.E.]'s Articles
[Woods R.A.]'s Articles
CSDL cross search
Similar articles in CSDL Cross Search
[Knoben W.J.M.]‘s Articles
[Freer J.E.]‘s Articles
[Woods R.A.]‘s Articles
Related Copyright Policies
Null
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

Items in IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.