-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Metadata regarding type of ensemble #299
Comments
A bit more complex perhaps, but it would also be very useful to have metadata answering e.g. which history matching ensemble is a given prediction ensemble based on. |
Some user stories on parent-child-linking of ensembles:
|
This links to #291 perhaps |
I have tried to run drogon_pred_ref.ert and found that the results for pred_ref ensemble are uploaded to iter-0. From discussion with @perolavsvendsen apparently, dataio assumed iter-0 as default ensemble name and used them to generate ID. See case 01_drogon_ahm_sumo in sumo prod |
Yes, we currently don't get any information on type of ensembles within a case, and as far as I know no such definition exists either. This obviously maps to ERT quite fast. If not, we would have to do something rule-based based on iteration names. Is there a standard (convention) on iteration names? |
No strict/official rules for iteration names to my knowledge (AHM runs typically go I agree this information/metadata should come from ERT. Knowing the workflow method used by ERT for generating the ensemble would probably be a good start (https://ert.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/running_ert.html - Within an assisted history matching run it would also be useful for clients of the data sets to know which ensembles are part of the same assisted history matching run (i.e. Pinging @asnyv in case there are details / use cases you want to mention I haven't. |
Think @anders-kiaer has covered most of it, but for predictions I think we (at least me) often skip the term "pred" and use some more or less descriptive name dependent on whatever we are simulating. From a technical perspective: completely arbitrary. Also: for a while I think it was fairly common to have a structure like: History matching: Predictions:
Now it seems like more are going towards a structure where the prediction case is placed on the "iteration level" like you mention, so:
The advantage with the latter is that it is clearer what the basis for the prediction is, whilst the advantage of the first one is that it is easier to see all cases in a folder structure + it is a more natural structure for models without any history. But many of the models without history have now ended with the structure: |
Suggest we first try to accurately reflect the I assume that ERT internally has an iteration ID which we cannot know if the iteration is called something other than e.g. An alternative is to take away all logic placed on the iteration |
Drafting a possible PR, quick and dirty 👆. This needs discussions, as I am a bit unsure of the consequences. But possibly, the iteration name is a better option (outside the ERT context) than iteration id. E.g. the name is used as an identifier, not the ID. (This is similar to the current practice for the case.name, where no ID exists. For the third similar object, |
This is also a feature request from SSDL, ref discussions with @bous251 |
#368 could possibly be relevant for this |
E.g. is it a
The "ensemble type" (better terminology might/probably exist) will be used by clients in order to filter out ensembles not relevant in a given analysis dashboard/pattern.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: