Difference between revisions of "CSEP Minutes 03-14-2018"

From SCECpedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(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. : [...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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'''
Line 36: Line 39:
 
: [dj] ultimate goal to assign probabilities to things, but the question is what stage to we assign probabilities.
 
: [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.
 
: [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.
 +
 +
== Action Items ==
 +
* [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.
 +
* [group] provide feedback on 5 year plan.

Latest revision as of 22:04, 14 March 2018

CSEP Working Group Home Page

Minutes

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
  1. difference between CSEP Mw threshold and gear1 mw threshold. This causes a difference in eq. rates but does not affect the results. [why?]
  2. sensitivity of seismic rates that come from strain-rate models. Fitting corner magnitudes of tectonic region fixes this.
  3. 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.

Action Items

  • [bs] get CSEP landing page live and share with the group.
  • [group] provide feedback on 5 year plan.