BBP Pre-release Science Review - Revision history

Maechlin at 21:24, 23 March 2017

2017-03-23T21:24:37Z

Maechlin at 21:24, 23 March 2017

2017-03-23T21:24:10Z

Maechlin: Created page with "Here is a summary of what we did this time ( more than I ever was involved in before): - Fabio had looked at various products before we met and I think you should ask him what..."

2017-03-23T21:22:35Z

Created page with "Here is a summary of what we did this time ( more than I ever was involved in before): - Fabio had looked at various products before we met and I think you should ask him what..."

New page

Here is a summary of what we did this time ( more than I ever was involved in before):
- Fabio had looked at various products before we met and I think you should ask him what he did, but he did identify systematic differences (in this case with EXSIM), which he brought to my attention; we then worked together on finding the source of differences, which I felt confident we captured for the release. I asked Fabio to send me additional information to complete this investigation, but the results are there are are not a show-stopper for the release.
- We looked together at the large table (“super duper table”) and identified differences relative to last version. I was specifically looking for systematic trends in validation performance on the basis of: methods, period bands, magnitude and distances. We discussed the differences and investigated them by looking at time series and so on. I was satisfied that nothing had been “broken” or changed significantly enough to indicate that errors were introduced relative to the method, period, M, and distance aggregates below.
- In addition, I scrolled through most data products plots for all methods to detect any suspicious trend
- GOF plots for all methods (Part A)
- distance bias plots for Part A
- GMPE plots for all methods (Part B)
- RZZ plots
- a subset of simulated time series (should flip through most in the future)

On task I mentioned before but never got around is to define a subset of simulation sets to look at systematically for a pre-release review. It would be more efficient to have a set of standard problems to verify than to always rerun all the scenarios and realizations. On my to-do list…

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 # looked together at the large table (“super duper table”) and identified differences relative to last version. I was specifically looking for systematic trends in validation performance on the basis of: methods, period bands, magnitude and distances. We discussed the differences and investigated them by looking at time series and so on. I was satisfied that nothing had been “broken” or changed significantly enough to indicate that errors were introduced relative to the method, period, M, and distance aggregates below.
 #In addition, I scrolled through most data products plots for all methods to detect any suspicious trend
-** GOF plots for all methods (Part A)
+## GOF plots for all methods (Part A)
-** distance bias plots for Part A
+## distance bias plots for Part A
-** GMPE plots for all methods (Part B)
+## GMPE plots for all methods (Part B)
-** RZZ plots
+## RZZ plots
-** a subset of simulated time series (should flip through most in the future)
+## a subset of simulated time series (should flip through most in the future)
 #One remaining task is to define a subset of simulation sets to look at systematically for a pre-release review. It would be more efficient to have a set of standard problems to verify than to always rerun all the scenarios and realizations.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Here is a summary of what we did this time ( more than I ever was involved in before):
+== Summary of BBP Science Review ==
-- Fabio had looked at various products before we met and I think you should ask him what he did, but he did identify systematic differences (in this case with EXSIM), which he brought to my attention; we then worked together on finding the source of differences, which I felt confident we captured for the release. I asked Fabio to send me additional information to complete this investigation, but the results are there are are not a show-stopper for the release.
+# looked at various products before we met and I think you should ask him what he did, but he did identify systematic differences (in this case with EXSIM), which he brought to my attention; we then worked together on finding the source of differences, which I felt confident we captured for the release. I asked Fabio to send me additional information to complete this investigation, but the results are there are are not a show-stopper for the release.
-- We looked together at the large table (“super duper table”) and identified differences relative to last version. I was specifically looking for systematic trends in validation performance on the basis of: methods, period bands, magnitude and distances. We discussed the differences and investigated them by looking at time series and so on. I was satisfied that nothing had been “broken” or changed significantly enough to indicate that errors were introduced relative to the method, period, M, and distance aggregates below.
+# looked together at the large table (“super duper table”) and identified differences relative to last version. I was specifically looking for systematic trends in validation performance on the basis of: methods, period bands, magnitude and distances. We discussed the differences and investigated them by looking at time series and so on. I was satisfied that nothing had been “broken” or changed significantly enough to indicate that errors were introduced relative to the method, period, M, and distance aggregates below.
-- In addition, I scrolled through most data products plots for all methods to detect any suspicious trend
+#In addition, I scrolled through most data products plots for all methods to detect any suspicious trend
-	- GOF plots for all methods (Part A)
+** GOF plots for all methods (Part A)
-	- distance bias plots for Part A
+** distance bias plots for Part A
-	- GMPE plots for all methods (Part B)
+** GMPE plots for all methods (Part B)
-	- RZZ plots
+** RZZ plots
-	- a subset of simulated time series (should flip through most in the future)
+** a subset of simulated time series (should flip through most in the future)
+#One remaining task is to define a subset of simulation sets to look at systematically for a pre-release review. It would be more efficient to have a set of standard problems to verify than to always rerun all the scenarios and realizations.