Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Parameter change summary file (pcs) #264

Open
wkitlasten opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 8 comments
Open

Parameter change summary file (pcs) #264

wkitlasten opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 8 comments

Comments

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor

In the parameter change summary file (pcs) I'm getting 9 column headers:
group,mean_change, std_change, num_at_near_lbound, percent_at_near_lbound, num_at_near_ubound ,percent_at_near_ubound, initial_cv, current_cv

but only 8 columns of data:
drn_elev_layer1_199, 1867.12, 52.0759, 9, 0, 0, 37.8467, 1.06595

Comparision with the rec file suggests one of the ubnd results is missing?

version 5.2.5, compiled 29 June 2023

@jtwhite79
Copy link
Collaborator

this is fixed on hotfix_mourestart and will be merged in to develop in the next couple of days...

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for fixing that. I can't for the life of me figure out why so many of my pars are at/near lower bounds, including ones I expect to go up. And NONE are ever at/near upper bounds. Is there a pyemu method by chance?

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor Author

Maybe I am looking at this the wrong way? I don't see much about pcs in the manual.

The attached zip contains a short notebook plus the files needed to explore my parubnd issue. Super psyched if someone can set me straight!
ens_par_bnds.zip

@jtwhite79
Copy link
Collaborator

Exception: Matrix.read_binary(): filename 'head_fixdrnelev_fixstage_balgp_0.0.par.jcb' not found

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, couldn't include both ensembles... thought I changed that to 'head_fixdrnelev_fixstage_balgp_0.1.par.jcb'. I think B found something.

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey, num_at_near_*bnd seems to be fixed, but all my % at *bnd fields are 0. Based on my calcs some of them should be above 0%. Any chance someone could check that calc at some point (sorry, I don't speak computer)? No rush, obviously.

@jtwhite79
Copy link
Collaborator

@wkitlasten in an effort to limit output line widths, the percentages were being stored/written as ints. Any chance your expected percent at/near bound would be less than 1%? I'll convert them to floating points anyway, just curious if that is the issue...

@wkitlasten
Copy link
Contributor Author

Better than int precision for percents might be useful, if not overkill. But it would also help if I multiplied by the correct number of realizations (facepalm). Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants