Difference between revisions of "CSEP2 Experiment Planning"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
= Meeting Presentation = | = Meeting Presentation = | ||
| − | The presentation from today's call can be downloaded [[Media:Csep2_call_08_01_18.pptx|here]]. | + | The presentation from today's call can be downloaded [[Media:Csep2_call_08_01_18.pptx|here]]. This page will be updated with more information as it becomes available. |
= Minutes = | = Minutes = | ||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 1 August 2018
Contents
Meeting Presentation
The presentation from today's call can be downloaded here. This page will be updated with more information as it becomes available.
Minutes
- Models within an experiement should produce shared outputs
- Stochastic event sets provide additional value over grid-based forecasts
- However, stochastic event sets are not complete catalogs which might need to be considered
- The utility exists in understanding spatial hazard. Not as scientifically interesting, but useful.
- Might consider adding classic ETAS to the list of initial models to provide important link to CSEP1
- U3ETAS-NoFault similar to classic ETAS
- Might consider starting with simpler models than U3ETAS
- Need to carefully consider handling external forecasts
- International collaborations are important and we need to work to maintain them.
Proposed Groups
Below are the proposed working groups to help define experiments.
UCERF3 / Fault Based Forecasts
N. Field, M. Page, D. Jackson, and K. Milner
Aftershock Forecasts
A. Michael, J. Hardebeck, M. Page and N. van der Elst
