Difference between revisions of "CSEP Minutes 06-27-2018"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "CSEP Working Group Home Page<br><br> '''Participants''': M. Werner, D. Rhoades, and W. Savran == Minutes == * extract daily rates for each forecast a...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
* check existence of the catalog data | * check existence of the catalog data | ||
** we would need to flag evaluations where catalog could not be downloaded | ** we would need to flag evaluations where catalog could not be downloaded | ||
| + | * competition for fault-based forecasts? | ||
| + | ** some hazard models have the notion of seismic regions | ||
| + | ** new zealand has the issue of faults | ||
| + | ** ucerf3 most advanced | ||
| + | ** WGSEP88 report model (D. Jackson paper in the SRL issue; good example for assessing fault based source model) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Action Items''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Bill: | ||
| + | * provide data set to verify forecasts by extracting the daily-rates for each forecast. | ||
| + | * provide secondary data set to verify evaluations, which consists of forecasts and observations needed and the evaluations to compare against. | ||
| + | * double check run-time estimates for CSEP1 reprocessing estimates. | ||
| + | * generate list of days where observations are missing | ||
Latest revision as of 18:03, 5 July 2018
Participants: M. Werner, D. Rhoades, and W. Savran
Minutes
- extract daily rates for each forecast and plot to verify intregity (first step)
- verify where W, T and R tests are not counted for entire time period
- decipher the timestamp on the evaluation file
- how does the system put together the cumulative tests
- are there cumulative analogs for each evaluation?
- curated csep1.0 data might be needed to compare against csep2.0 forecasts
- verification exercises:
- overlapping window: ETAS extract first month of forecasts and observed catalogs and evaluations
- RELM tests (N, L, CL, M, S)
- start at the beginning of time to verify cumulative tests
- write scripts for this
- overlapping window: ETAS extract first month of forecasts and observed catalogs and evaluations
- scripts to extract evaluation results
- journal for publishing geoscience data (https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/)
- check existence of the catalog data
- we would need to flag evaluations where catalog could not be downloaded
- competition for fault-based forecasts?
- some hazard models have the notion of seismic regions
- new zealand has the issue of faults
- ucerf3 most advanced
- WGSEP88 report model (D. Jackson paper in the SRL issue; good example for assessing fault based source model)
Action Items
Bill:
- provide data set to verify forecasts by extracting the daily-rates for each forecast.
- provide secondary data set to verify evaluations, which consists of forecasts and observations needed and the evaluations to compare against.
- double check run-time estimates for CSEP1 reprocessing estimates.
- generate list of days where observations are missing
