Abstract
Willmott et al. [Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K. 2012. A refined index of model performance. International Journal of Climatology , forthcoming. DOI:10.1002/joc.2419.] recently suggest a refined index of model performance ( d r ) that they purport to be superior to other methods. Their refined index ranges from − 1.0 to 1.0 to resemble a correlation coefficient, but it is merely a linear rescaling of our modified coefficient of efficiency ( E 1 ) over the positive portion of the domain of d r . We disagree with Willmott et al. ( 2012 ) that d r provides a better interpretation; rather, E 1 is more easily interpreted such that a value of E 1 = 1.0 indicates a perfect model (no errors) while E 1 = 0.0 indicates a model that is no better than the baseline comparison (usually the observed mean). Negative values of E 1 (and, for that matter, d r d r is piecewise continuous, it is not continuous through the second and higher derivatives. We explain why the coefficient of efficiency ( E or E 2 ) and its modified form ( E 1 ) are superior and preferable to many other statistics, including d r , because of intuitive interpretability and because these indices have a fundamental meaning at zero. We also expand on the discussion begun by Garrick et al. [Garrick M, Cunnane C, Nash JE. 1978. A criterion of efficiency for rainfall‐runoff models. Journal of Hydrology 36 : 375‐381.] and continued by Legates and McCabe [Legates DR, McCabe GJ. 1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research 35 (1): 233‐241.] and Schaefli and Gupta [Schaefli B, Gupta HV. 2007. Do Nash values have value? Hydrological Processes 21 : 2075‐2080. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6825.]. This important discussion focuses on the appropriate baseline comparison to use, and why the observed mean often may be an inadequate choice for model evaluation and development. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society