Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components

被引:449
作者
Kobayashi, K [1 ]
Salam, MU
机构
[1] Natl Inst Agroenvironm Sci, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058604, Japan
[2] Natl Inst Agroenvironm Sci, Japan Sci & Technol Corp, Rice FACE Project, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058604, Japan
关键词
D O I
10.1007/s100870050043
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
When output (x) of a mechanistic model is compared with measurement (y), it is common practice to calculate the correlation coefficient between x and y, and to regress y on x. There are, however, problems in this approach. The assumption of the regression, that y is linearly related to x, is not guaranteed and is unnecessary for the x-y comparison. The correlation and regression coefficients are not explicitly related to other commonly used statistics [e.g., root mean squared deviation (RMSD)]. We present an approach based on the mean squared deviation (MSD = RMSD2) and show that it is better suited to the x-y comparison than regression. Mean squared deviation is the sum of three components: squared bias (SB), squared difference between standard deviations (SDSD), and lack of correlation weighted by the standard deviations (LCS), To show examples, the MSD-based analysis was applied to simulation vs. measurement comparisons in literature, and the results were compared with those from regression analysis, The analysis of MSD clearly identified the simulation vs. measurement contrasts with larger deviation than others; the correlation-regression approach tended to focus on the contrasts with lower correlation and regression line far front the equality line. It was also shown that results of the MSD-based analysis mere easier to interpret than those of regression analysis. This is because the three MSD components are simply additive and all constituents of the MSD components are explicit. This approach will be useful to quantify the deviation of calculated values obtained with this model from measurements.
引用
收藏
页码:345 / 352
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   COMPUTER-SIMULATION OF CHANGES IN SOIL MINERAL NITROGEN AND CROP NITROGEN DURING AUTUMN, WINTER AND SPRING [J].
ADDISCOTT, TM ;
WHITMORE, AP .
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, 1987, 109 :141-157
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1988, SAS STAT US GUID
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1974, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics
[4]   A SUNFLOWER SIMULATION-MODEL .1. MODEL DEVELOPMENT [J].
CHAPMAN, SC ;
HAMMER, GL ;
MEINKE, H .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1993, 85 (03) :725-735
[5]   MEAN SQUARED ERROR OF YIELD PREDICTION BY SOYGRO [J].
COLSON, J ;
WALLACH, D ;
BOUNIOLS, A ;
DENIS, JB ;
JONES, JW .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1995, 87 (03) :397-402
[6]  
Draper N. R., 1966, APPL REGRESSION ANAL
[7]   A comparison of the models AFRCWHEAT2, CERES-wheat, Sirius, SUCROS2 and SWHEAT with measurements from wheat grown under drought [J].
Jamieson, PD ;
Porter, JR ;
Goudriaan, J ;
Ritchie, JT ;
van Keulen, H ;
Stol, W .
FIELD CROPS RESEARCH, 1998, 55 (1-2) :23-44
[8]   Evaluation of two maize models for nine US locations [J].
Kiniry, JR ;
Williams, JR ;
Vanderlip, RL ;
Atwood, JD ;
Reicosky, DC ;
Mulliken, J ;
Cox, WJ ;
Mascagni, HJ ;
Hollinger, SE ;
Wiebold, WJ .
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1997, 89 (03) :421-426
[9]   REGRESSION OF REAL-WORLD DATA ON MODEL OUTPUT - AN APPROPRIATE OVERALL TEST OF VALIDITY [J].
MAYER, DG ;
STUART, MA ;
SWAIN, AJ .
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 1994, 45 (01) :93-104
[10]   VERIFICATION, VALIDATION, AND CONFIRMATION OF NUMERICAL-MODELS IN THE EARTH-SCIENCES [J].
ORESKES, N ;
SHRADERFRECHETTE, K ;
BELITZ, K .
SCIENCE, 1994, 263 (5147) :641-646