[MITgcm-devel] updating AD verification outputs

[Martin Losch]

Hi Patrick and Jean-Michel,

it appears that Ralf changed something in TAF after my test with lab_sea that showed the differences between v1 and his v2 patched version. Now the differences are gone, but I get differences to the reference output that weren't there before.

On March07 I got this (for -v1)

Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea
Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea.evp
Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea.noseaice
Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea.noseaicedyn

Today (after getting the updated verification experiments) I get this (for both -v1 and the "patched" MItgcm with -v2):
Y Y Y Y 16>13<16 pass  lab_sea
Y Y Y Y 16>13<16 pass  lab_sea.evp
Y Y Y Y 16>15<16 pass  lab_sea.noseaice
Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea.noseaicedyn

from Ralfs emai that answered my concern about the differences between v1 and v2 (translated from German): "[…] the patch is Ok but TAF had a problem with the numerics. It should be better with the current TAF […]" 
Obviously, I can confirm that now.
From your emails I have the impression that Ralf's fix to TAF made tlm and adm numerically more consistent; is that right?

Martin

On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Patrick Heimbach <heimbach at MIT.EDU> wrote:

> 
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> before updating, let's first check the TLM to see if there are similar changes,
> and what the gradient checks indicate in terms of actual accuracy changes.
> 
> May have to send a bug report to Fastopt, which I am not sure I can do
> since I am being blocked from their taf-user at fastopt.de list.
> 
> Cheers
> -Patrick
> 
> On Mar 9, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Jean-Michel Campin <jmc at ocean.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Patrick,
>> 
>> Looks like the recent update of TAF version (from 2.3.8 until yesterday
>> to 2.3.10 today) change some output at the level of machine truncation:
>> 
>> On baudelaire with gfortran (no mpi):
>> Y Y Y Y 16>12<16 FAIL  1D_ocean_ice_column
>> Y Y Y Y 16>12<16 FAIL  bottom_ctrl_5x5
>> Y Y Y Y 16>12<16 FAIL  lab_sea.noseaicedyn
>> Y Y Y Y 16>12<16 FAIL  offline_exf_seaice
>> 
>> whereas yesterday the same 4 experiments:
>> Y Y Y Y 16>13<16 pass  1D_ocean_ice_column
>> Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  bottom_ctrl_5x5
>> Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  lab_sea.noseaicedyn
>> Y Y Y Y 16>16<16 pass  offline_exf_seaice
>> 
>> Should we update these 4 experiments AD output ?
>> 
>> Did not check yet the TLM output but will do later today.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jean-Michel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> 
> ---
> Patrick Heimbach | heimbach at mit.edu | http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach
> MIT | EAPS 54-1420 | 77 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge MA 02139 USA
> FON +1-617-253-5259 | FAX +1-617-253-4464 | SKYPE patrick.heimbach
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel