-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Should we be using 'forecast' year biomass values or model output values for the next year #1113
Comments
This is perhaps a non-issue after I found out that I was dividing the biomass by the initial biomass twice instead of once. Once fixed, the median is almost exactly the same for both of these, but the uncertainty is larger on the model estimate from the main model run when compared to the forecasts. Depletion: main run 2024 median = 0.7636227 main run 2024 95% = 1.7681535 |
I don't know enough about how we do the forecasts to give a good answer. The differences that you are seeing here, are they just because we are running the model again, i.e., different random starts for the chains? |
I just looked at the depletion estimate (...$mcmccalcs$dmed) for the base model and many forecast models and the 2024 median is = 0.7636227 for all of them. Where is the forecast 2024 median of 0.7636235 coming from? |
The depletion values (median = 0.7636235) can be found in R in these objects:
Those quantiles are calculated from columns in the
For 2024, the values are the same for ALL forecasts.
No matter what years and catch are added to the |
@kellijohnson-NOAA I don't believe so because we are only running the |
Could this just be a calculation thing such as the difference between the following two methods: Does that make sense? I've done this for other things and they come out real close but not exact. |
No it isn't, but I'd like to find out what's going on at some point. I will set the milestone to next year as there's no time for 2024 to look at this. |
I remember having this discussion with Jaclyn Cleary about Herring, and she wanted to use the 'forecast' values for the 'next year' (final year in the model) because those values took into account the estimated recruitment and age structure (I believe) estimates for that year, whereas the main model run was just an estimate based on previous years.
This question comes from #1111 in which we could use either value for the 2024 biomass (depletion).
I'm really just curious @aaronmberger-nwfsc and @kellijohnson-NOAA why these are different for this model. It would be good to understand this as it keeps cropping up with every assessment.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: