偏略有不同:energynumbers所指出的,在这样或那样的所有模型都是错的。一个完全现实的准确模型将复杂的现实,所以一些简化总是必要的。这意味着不可能存在任何有用的模型的预测在各个方面都是完全准确的(可能通过事故除外)。验证模型,因此,不是说“这个模型是正确的”的过程,是/否的答案。相反,它应该是1。决定标准模型必须满足给定目的是有用的* *。2。评估它是否满足这些标准。* *如果模型验证失败对于一个应用程序,它可能仍然是有用的。* *的一些例子不同的验证标准,以区域海洋模式为例:一个显而易见的选择是当前速度或水位的预测是最重要的。 Even after selecting one of these, the way in which the predictions are assessed may vary. A reasonable default might be to assess the fit at every time point between measured and observed water levels in a number of places, and accept the model if measurements such as bias and RMSE are below defined thresholds. However, here are two examples of specific scenarios that justify different approaches: * NOAA runs models whose primary application is the production of depth information for navigational aids. The critical statistic for them is not the general accuracy of their models, but the frequency with which the model overpredicts the water level - as this form of error could result in vessels running aground. [1] * Vested et al (1995) [2] give an example of a storm surge model that would provide flood warnings. It was tested not for the accuracy of all of its water level predictions, but for the accuracy of its predictions of *peak* water levels, as those are what would matter in operation. [1] NOAA, “NOS Standards for evaluating operational nowcast and forecast hydrodynamic model systems,” NOAA Technical Report NOS CS 17, Oct. 2003. http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/docs/RD_standards_Hess_etal.pdf [2] H. J. Vested, J. W. Nielsen, H. R. Jensen, and K. B. Kristensen, “Skill Assessment of an Operational Hydrodynamic Forecast System for the North Sea and Danish Belts,” in Quantitative Skill Assessment for Coastal Ocean Models, vol. 47, D. R. Lynch and A. M. Davies, Eds. Washington DC: American Geophysical Union, 1995, pp. 373–396.