Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Technical note
 | 
25 Oct 2019
Technical note |  | 25 Oct 2019

Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores

Wouter J. M. Knoben, Jim E. Freer, and Ross A. Woods

Viewed

Total article views: 18,776 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
11,117 7,535 124 18,776 1,076 233 212
  • HTML: 11,117
  • PDF: 7,535
  • XML: 124
  • Total: 18,776
  • Supplement: 1,076
  • BibTeX: 233
  • EndNote: 212
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 18,776 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 16,413 with geography defined and 2,363 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 26 Apr 2024
Download
Short summary
The accuracy of model simulations can be quantified with so-called efficiency metrics. The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) has been often used in hydrology, but recently the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) is gaining in popularity. We show that lessons learned about which NSE scores are acceptable do not necessarily translate well into understanding of the KGE metric.