Difference between revisions of "BBP Pre-release Science Review"
From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search| 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. | # 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) | |
| − | + | ## 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) | |
#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. | #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. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:24, 23 March 2017
Summary of BBP Science Review
- 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 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)
- 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.
