Wsavran: /* Action Items */

2018-03-14T22:04:36Z

Action Items

Wsavran: /* Action Items */

2018-03-14T22:04:13Z

Action Items

Wsavran at 22:03, 14 March 2018

2018-03-14T22:03:58Z

Wsavran at 21:58, 14 March 2018

2018-03-14T21:58:38Z

Wsavran: Created page with "Csep call notes (03/14/2018): ; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement''' : [as] questions about the reviews of the GEAR paper. more about development of model than results. : [..."

2018-03-14T21:57:35Z

Created page with "Csep call notes (03/14/2018): ; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement''' : [as] questions about the reviews of the GEAR paper. more about development of model than results. : [..."

New page

Csep call notes (03/14/2018):

; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement'''
: [as] questions about the reviews of the GEAR paper. more about development of model than results.
: [dj] should we define the magnitude or the moment magnitude? should use equation for the magnitude and moment. discrepancies between the conversion between moment and moment magnitude definition.
: [mw] reviewer asked that the strain-rate forecast depends greatly on the upper end of the GR distribution where the relationship is clipped.
: [dj] the numbers are quite sensitive in this upper clipping. 1 Mw unit = factor of 3. It was worked out by determining corner magnitudes in 5 different tectonic regions (e.g., subduction zone, continental transform faults) would match these corner magnitudes to compute the earthquake-rate from the strain-
: rate. This requires some smoothing between the different boundaries to remove step-like changes.

: [mw] summary review comments
:# difference between CSEP Mw threshold and gear1 mw threshold. This causes a difference in eq. rates but does not affect the results. [why?]
:# sensitivity of seismic rates that come from strain-rate models. Fitting corner magnitudes of tectonic region fixes this.
:# number of large eqs. insufficient to make statements about utility of strain-rate maps in seismicity models.
:#: [mw] we would like to challenge this criticism by stating that we want to show models how we will be using in future, and that strain-rates help prospective forecasting. this was confirmed by retrospective testing. reviewer is pessimistic about using only 2 years of data for a global model.
:#: [dj] issues: N-test and spatial distribution of the test. 2 years of data is not sufficient for N-test, could be rectified by using probabilities directly as opposed to Poisson assumption. All work indicates that spatial distribution is stable.
:#: [mw] is spatial distribution stable at a 2yr time scale? The relative likelihood scores are stable.
:#: [am] question about spatial distribution: huge difference between rates at plate boundaries vs everywhere else. Should get good scores at boundaries, but not elsewhere. Do these tests give information about performance of model in lower-rate areas? should talk about the stability of the tests.
:#: [mw] I think that we should be more precise about the timeframes and develop some ideas of how much data is absolutely necessary.
:#: [dj] something could be learned over 2 years, so maybe rephrase it instead of making it a binary

; Canterbury Experiment Issue with STEPCoulomb
: [mw] STEPCoulomb == STEPJava. but fixing might take some time. Might not happen before SRL reviews. Identified a fix and working toward implementing. Might have to remove some of the elec. supp. But opens the door for a new paper.

; Special Issue
: [mw] we have 10 papers, with some being resubmitted and reviewed. 1 accepted. Should be a good set of papers coming out of this. July/august issue.

;Webpage
: [mw] need a separate call for feedback for the scec.org/research/csep landing page. Need feedback from group.

; 5 year plan
: [mw] to group: please review the 5-year plan and make modifications as necessary to the working group wiki page. A request has been made to develop plan and would take into account the commitments to the USGS.
: [mw] Should we continue on with the old CSEP model? Or take advantage of man-power? How does CSEP IT fit into this problem?
: [pm] have some responsibility to USGS to uphold our promises, so we don't have complete freedom to start over.
: [am] the usgs needs the simulation-based testing, declustering issues, rupture association, ground motion testing, non poisson behavior problems. Could be a focus on the newer activities. could talk with mike blanpied. Want to test operational aftershock forecasting, testing of sequences, but need CSEP1 : style Poisson tests. Need to define what we need by simulation based testing.
: [mw] learned from csep1 that the poisson assumption is too restrictive and need new developments scientifically to implement these new and useful testing.
: [dj] ultimate goal to assign probabilities to things, but the question is what stage to we assign probabilities.
: [mw] csep provides the methods to conduct scientifically interesting experiments. CSEP should continue adhere to prospective testing where we can along with reproducibility and transparency.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 14 March 2018
Line 42:		Line 42:
	== Action Items ==		== Action Items ==
	* [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.		* [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.
		+	* [group] provide feedback on 5 year plan.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 14 March 2018
Line 41:		Line 41:

	== Action Items ==		== Action Items ==
−	: [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.	+	* [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[CSEP_Working_Group|CSEP Working Group Home Page]]<br><br>
-'''Minutes:'''
+== Minutes ==
 ; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement'''
@@ Line 38: / Line 39: @@
 : [dj] ultimate goal to assign probabilities to things, but the question is what stage to we assign probabilities.
 : [mw] csep provides the methods to conduct scientifically interesting experiments. CSEP should continue adhere to prospective testing where we can along with reproducibility and transparency.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 14 March 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Csep call notes (03/14/2018)~~:	+	[[CSEP_Working_Group\|CSEP Working Group Home Page]]<br><br>
		+
		+	'''Minutes:'''

	; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement'''		; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement'''

CSEP Minutes 03-14-2018 - Revision history

Wsavran: /* Action Items */

Wsavran: /* Action Items */

Wsavran at 22:03, 14 March 2018

Wsavran at 21:58, 14 March 2018

Wsavran: Created page with "Csep call notes (03/14/2018): ; Reviews on GEAR1 Global Experiement''' : [as] questions about the reviews of the GEAR paper. more about development of model than results. : [..."