Open hkershaw-brown opened 1 month ago
there are some early returns in probit_transform_mod
I think this may be a reproducer for at least part of #681 and also why #709
whole ensemble:
before line 559
"i","value" 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0 11,0 12,0 13,0 14,0 15,0 16,0 17,0 18,0 19,0 20,0 21,0 22,0 23,0 24,0 25,0 26,0 27,0 28,0 29,0 30,0 31,0 32,0 33,0 34,0 35,0 36,0 37,0 38,0 39,0 40,0 41,0 42,0 43,0 44,0 45,0 46,0 47,3.2342393548165711e-191 48,0 49,0 50,0 51,0 52,0 53,0 54,0 55,0 56,0 57,0 58,0 59,0 60,0 61,0 62,0 63,0 64,0 65,1.5319740054648927e-206 66,1.3760414660445314e-201 67,0 68,0 69,0 70,1.0275904858792872e-161 71,0 72,0 73,0 74,0 75,0 76,0 77,0 78,0 79,6.9040677117309552e-162 80,0
after inflation
"i","value" 1,-4.0091235201174199e-164 2,-4.0091235201174199e-164 3,-4.0091235201174199e-164 4,-4.0091235201174199e-164 5,-4.0091235201174199e-164 6,-4.0091235201174199e-164 7,-4.0091235201174199e-164 8,-4.0091235201174199e-164 9,-4.0091235201174199e-164 10,-4.0091235201174199e-164 11,-4.0091235201174199e-164 12,-4.0091235201174199e-164 13,-4.0091235201174199e-164 14,-4.0091235201174199e-164 15,-4.0091235201174199e-164 16,-4.0091235201174199e-164 17,-4.0091235201174199e-164 18,-4.0091235201174199e-164 19,-4.0091235201174199e-164 20,-4.0091235201174199e-164 21,-4.0091235201174199e-164 22,-4.0091235201174199e-164 23,-4.0091235201174199e-164 24,-4.0091235201174199e-164 25,-4.0091235201174199e-164 26,-4.0091235201174199e-164 27,-4.0091235201174199e-164 28,-4.0091235201174199e-164 29,-4.0091235201174199e-164 30,-4.0091235201174199e-164 31,-4.0091235201174199e-164 32,-4.0091235201174199e-164 33,-4.0091235201174199e-164 34,-4.0091235201174199e-164 35,-4.0091235201174199e-164 36,-4.0091235201174199e-164 37,-4.0091235201174199e-164 38,-4.0091235201174199e-164 39,-4.0091235201174199e-164 40,-4.0091235201174199e-164 41,-4.0091235201174199e-164 42,-4.0091235201174199e-164 43,-4.0091235201174199e-164 44,-4.0091235201174199e-164 45,-4.0091235201174199e-164 46,-4.0091235201174199e-164 47,-4.0091235201174199e-164 48,-4.0091235201174199e-164 49,-4.0091235201174199e-164 50,-4.0091235201174199e-164 51,-4.0091235201174199e-164 52,-4.0091235201174199e-164 53,-4.0091235201174199e-164 54,-4.0091235201174199e-164 55,-4.0091235201174199e-164 56,-4.0091235201174199e-164 57,-4.0091235201174199e-164 58,-4.0091235201174199e-164 59,-4.0091235201174199e-164 60,-4.0091235201174199e-164 61,-4.0091235201174199e-164 62,-4.0091235201174199e-164 63,-4.0091235201174199e-164 64,-4.0091235201174199e-164 65,-4.0091235201174199e-164 66,-4.0091235201174199e-164 67,-4.0091235201174199e-164 68,-4.0091235201174199e-164 69,-4.0091235201174199e-164 70,1.215420420032912e-161 71,-4.0091235201174199e-164 72,-4.0091235201174199e-164 73,-4.0091235201174199e-164 74,-4.0091235201174199e-164 75,-4.0091235201174199e-164 76,-4.0091235201174199e-164 77,-4.0091235201174199e-164 78,-4.0091235201174199e-164 79,8.1528847158862943e-162 80,-4.0091235201174199e-164
from_probit_bounded_normal_rh state_ens gets set to probit_ens
not sure why the more_params(7) tail_sd_eft is negative? get_bnrh_sd(p) https://github.com/NCAR/DART/blob/464aa57a1261fa098e5f0f999bad41a464f8d7db/assimilation_code/modules/assimilation/bnrh_distribution_mod.f90#L91-L100
The sd == 0 so you never transform into (or back out of) probit space.
Inflation pushes the
I think in this case
ens = (ens - mean) * sqrt(inflate) + mean
if your ens(i) == mean
then you can not inflate, but this is only going to work for multiplicative inflation. If you're adding noise or whatever various inflation methods do, I think you will have to enforce the bounds. Is this ok? clamping rather than qceff enforced bounds.
555 ! Spread the ensemble out linearly for deterministic
556 sd_inflate = sqrt(inflate)
557 ! HK if ens == mean do nothing
558 where ((ens - mean) > epsilon(mean) )
559 ! Following line can lead to inflation of 1.0 changing ens on some compilers
560 !!! ens = (ens - mean) * sqrt(inflate) + mean
561 ! Following gives 1.0 inflation having no impact on known compilers
562 ens = ens * sd_inflate + mean * (1.0_r8 - sd_inflate)
563 endwhere
:bug: Your bug may already be reported! Please search on the issue tracker before creating a new issue.
Describe the bug
List the steps someone needs to take to reproduce the bug.
Run CAM-FV reanalysis single run of filter example /glade/derecho/scratch/hkershaw/DART/CAM-out-of-bounds/Rean_run inf_flavor 2
What was the expected outcome? Run to completion
What actually happened?
filter errors out:
Error Message
Please provide any error messages.
Which model(s) are you working with?
CAM-FV
Screenshots
Here are the lines of code: https://github.com/NCAR/DART/blob/464aa57a1261fa098e5f0f999bad41a464f8d7db/assimilation_code/modules/assimilation/adaptive_inflate_mod.f90#L559-L560
Version of DART
Which version of DART are you using? v11.8.1
Have you modified the DART code?
No
Here is a small reproducer
Or you can run CAM-FV filter /glade/derecho/scratch/hkershaw/DART/CAM-out-of-bounds/Rean_run
The numbers for the test_maths.f90 program are from proc3 (out of 128) j==61138
Build information
Please describe:
also mac gfortran GNU Fortran (MacPorts gcc13 13.2.0_4+stdlib_flag) 13.2.0