Repository navigation
docs(benchmarking): add coverage and review summary table - #31
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The centre label read 70% while the legend and the data give 69% (61 of 88 sectors). Redrawn from a script so it can be regenerated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
18 of 88 sectors is 20.45%, which rounds to 20%, not 21%. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
briantobin-99
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 26, 2026 18:34
bl-young
reviewed
Oct 26, 2026
Comment on lines
+95
to
+101
| | Measure | Sectors | Share of the 88 sectors | Share of global direct emissions | | ||
| |---|---|---|---| | ||
| | Within 25% of the benchmark | 61 | 69% | 46% | | ||
| | Manually reviewed | 47 | 53% | 36% | | ||
| | Manually reviewed, or within 25% of the benchmark | 78 | 89% | 50% | | ||
|
|
||
| A sector counts as manually reviewed when someone investigated its gap and reached one of the three outcomes above: a sharper benchmark, a model improvement, or a documented difference. Sectors within 25% of the benchmark were not all reviewed in this depth, because the gap gave no reason to. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we want to include this content or if this just adds confusion (distinguishing between manually reviewed or not). @Yohanna1906 @WesIngwersen what do you think?
Member
|
Thank you for this! Left a comment for us to consider but thanks for updating the figure. |
Member
|
@bl-young @briantobin-99 I prefer to have this content in https://docs.cornerstonedata.org/eeio/releases/rc/ because its a result. We don't have any results in other sections under Technical Documentation at this point, so I'd rather keep it in the release details content |
Resolve conflicts by keeping the corrected 69%/88-sector results and adopting main's 2026-rc figure naming. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
bl-young
reviewed
Oct 27, 2026
|
|
||
| Together these make the 2017–2026 time series possible. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Benchmarking results |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #22.
figures/diagrams/benchmark-2026-rc1.png) from a script,figures/scripts/benchmark_figures.py, in the same style as before. The centre label read 70%, but the legend and the data give 69% (61 of 88 sectors). The caption and alt text now say 69% and "the 88 benchmarked sectors".Where the numbers come from
Model
Dvalues are from the v1.0 release diagnostics (cornerstone_2026_v0_7, ceda commit03facf41). The gap is |model − benchmark| ÷ benchmark. Shares of global emissions are each sector's direct emissions over the model's global total of 42,625 Mt CO2e.The donut rounds each gap band to the nearest whole percent (69% / 20% / 10%), so the labels add to 99%.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code