Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, 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 et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 7,992 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
5,095 2,859 38 7,992 525 73 93
  • HTML: 5,095
  • PDF: 2,859
  • XML: 38
  • Total: 7,992
  • Supplement: 525
  • BibTeX: 73
  • EndNote: 93
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 6,260 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 6,215 with geography defined and 45 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 16 Sep 2021
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.