CSEP 2.0 Developments: Difference between revisions

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Wsavran (talk | contribs)
 
Wsavran (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[CSEP 1 Status]]
[[CSEP_Working_Group|CSEP Working Group Home Page]]<br>
__TOC__
 
== Proposed software developments needed to test UCERF3 -- CSEP2.0 as a workflow ==
* abstract goes here.
* summary statement of proposal
* clearly state proposed plans for putting ucerf3 under test
* [under development until remainder of proposal is written]
 
== Introduction ==
* state reasons for transitioning from CSEP1 -> CSEP2
* introduce technical/scientific challenges of testing UCERF3 etas
* introduce the csep problem as a workflow
* describe remaining software infrastructure
* 'on-demand' prospective/retrospective experiments
 
; Guiding Principals
# Controlled Environment
# Transparency
# Comparability
# Reproducibility
 
== Testing the Next Generation of Earthquake Forecasts ==
* cover technical/scientific challenges of testing UCERF3 etas
* fault and stochastic event sets
* potential models under forecast
* make point that software developments are required to test CSEP2.0
** software developments
** first step to evaluation forecast is to compute forecasts
 
== CSEP2.0 as a Workflow ==
* proposed software and hardware to test CSEP2.0
* describe tech used to achieve guiding principals
** controlled environment -> containers
** transparency -> web application (results viewer)
** comparability -> (open sourced evaluations)
** reproducibility -> containers and workflow
* decoupling of forecasts and evaluations
* proposal to open-source experiments to community
* versioning of catalog data
* introduce the minimum viable product to run Open-SHA from container in pegasus
 
== Proposed scientific questions for testing new Forecasting models ==
* do faults provide improved forecasting skill?
* retrospective experiements for past earthquakes
** el mayor cucupah
** landers
** napa valley
** northridge (unknown fault... hinterlands)
* simple versus complex models
* comparison against csep1 simulations (use case for csep1 dataset)
** need method for comparing rate based forecasts and fault-based simulation based forecasts
 
== Roadmap toward testing UCERF3 ==
* describe specific steps required for testing UCERF3
* essentially, previous sections written as actionable statements from previous section
* include timeline
 
== Conclusion ==
* wrap up proposal with brief paragraph reiterating main points

Latest revision as of 23:37, 28 June 2018

CSEP Working Group Home Page

Proposed software developments needed to test UCERF3 -- CSEP2.0 as a workflow

  • abstract goes here.
  • summary statement of proposal
  • clearly state proposed plans for putting ucerf3 under test
  • [under development until remainder of proposal is written]

Introduction

  • state reasons for transitioning from CSEP1 -> CSEP2
  • introduce technical/scientific challenges of testing UCERF3 etas
  • introduce the csep problem as a workflow
  • describe remaining software infrastructure
  • 'on-demand' prospective/retrospective experiments
Guiding Principals
  1. Controlled Environment
  2. Transparency
  3. Comparability
  4. Reproducibility

Testing the Next Generation of Earthquake Forecasts

  • cover technical/scientific challenges of testing UCERF3 etas
  • fault and stochastic event sets
  • potential models under forecast
  • make point that software developments are required to test CSEP2.0
    • software developments
    • first step to evaluation forecast is to compute forecasts

CSEP2.0 as a Workflow

  • proposed software and hardware to test CSEP2.0
  • describe tech used to achieve guiding principals
    • controlled environment -> containers
    • transparency -> web application (results viewer)
    • comparability -> (open sourced evaluations)
    • reproducibility -> containers and workflow
  • decoupling of forecasts and evaluations
  • proposal to open-source experiments to community
  • versioning of catalog data
  • introduce the minimum viable product to run Open-SHA from container in pegasus

Proposed scientific questions for testing new Forecasting models

  • do faults provide improved forecasting skill?
  • retrospective experiements for past earthquakes
    • el mayor cucupah
    • landers
    • napa valley
    • northridge (unknown fault... hinterlands)
  • simple versus complex models
  • comparison against csep1 simulations (use case for csep1 dataset)
    • need method for comparing rate based forecasts and fault-based simulation based forecasts

Roadmap toward testing UCERF3

  • describe specific steps required for testing UCERF3
  • essentially, previous sections written as actionable statements from previous section
  • include timeline

Conclusion

  • wrap up proposal with brief paragraph reiterating main points