Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 149–168 | Cite as

Verification and Validation of Simulations Against Holism

  • Julie JebeileEmail author
  • Vincent Ardourel
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

It has been argued that the Duhem problem is renewed with computational models since model assumptions having a representational aim and computational assumptions cannot be tested in isolation. In particular, while the Verification and Validation methodology is supposed to prevent such holism, Winsberg (Philos Compass 4:835–845, 2009; Science in the age of computer simulation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010) argues that verification and validation cannot be separated in practice. Morrison (Reconstructing reality: models, mathematics, and simulations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015) replies that Winsberg overstates the entanglement between the steps. The paper aims at arbitrating these two positions, by stressing their respective validity in relation to domains of application. It importantly argues for an increasing use of formal methods in verification, that makes disentanglement possible.

Keywords

Scientific models Computer simulations Verification and validation Duhem problem Holism Formal methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the guest editors Andreas Kaminski and Michael Resch, as well as to the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. The paper has also benefited from conversations with audience members at the SPSP Conference in Ghent, and notably with Johannes Lenhard and Nic Fillion.

References

  1. Baugh, J., & Altuntas, A. (2018). Formal methods and finite element analysis of hurricane storm surge: A case study in software verification. Science of Computer Programming, 158(15), 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borälv, A., & Stalmarck, G. (1999). Formal verification in railways. In M. G. Hinchey & J. P. Bowe (Eds.), Industrial-strength formal methods in practice. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bozzano, M., Bruintjes, H., Cimatti, A., Katoen, J.-P., Noll, T., & Tonetta, S. (2017). Formal methods for aerospace systems—Achievements and challenges. In S. Nakajima, J.-P. Talpin, M. Toyoshima, & H. Yu (Eds.), Cyber-Physical System Design from an Architecture Analysis Viewpoint (pp. 133–159). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, R. W. (2001). What is formal methods? Last Updated: April 10, 2016. Consulted in January 2018. https://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/fm-what.html.
  5. Clarke, E. (2008). The birth of model checking, 25 years of model checking., Lecture notes in computer science Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/2F978-3-540-69850-0_1.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowson, M. (1997). The ARIANE 5 software failure. Software Engineering Notes, 22(2), 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fillion, N. (2017). The vindication of computer simulations. In M. Carrier & J. Lenhard (Eds.), Mathematics as a tool (pp. 137–156). Boston: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frigg, R., & Reiss, J. (2009). The philosophy of simulation: Hot new issues or same old stew? Synthese, 169(3), 593–613.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson, D. (2012). Software abstractions: Logic, language, and analysis. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jebeile, J., & Barberousse, A. (2016). Empirical agreement in model validation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karna, A. K., Chen, Y., Yu, H., Zhong, H., & Zhao, J. (2018). The role of model checking in software engineering. Frontiers of Computer Science, 12(4), 642–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lenhard, J. (2018). Holism, or the erosion of modularity: a methodological challenge for validation. Philosophy of Science, 85(5) 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenhard, J., & Winsberg, E. (2010). Holism, entrenchment, and the future of climate model pluralism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 41(3), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lions, J. L. (1996). Ariane 5 Flight 501 Failure. Ariane 501 Inquiry Board Report (p. 4).Google Scholar
  15. Morrison, M. (2014). Values and uncertainty in simulation models. Erkenntnis, 79(S5), 939–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morrison, M. (2015). Reconstructing reality: Models, mathematics, and simulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Oberkampf, W. L., & Trucano, T. G. (2002). Verification and validation in computational fluid dynamics. Rapport Sandia, SAND2002-0529.Google Scholar
  18. Oberkampf, W. L., Trucano, T. G., & Hirsch, C. (2002). Verification, validation and predictive capacity in computational engineering and physics. Applied Mechanics Review, 57(5), 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science, 263(5147), 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Padilla, J. J., Diallo, S. Y., Lynch, C. J., & Gore, R. (2017). Observations on the practice and profession of modeling and simulation: A survey approach. Simulation, 94(6), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rushby, J. (1995). Formal methods and their role in the certification of critical systems. Technical Report CSL-95-1, March 1995.Google Scholar
  22. Rushby, J. (2007). Automated formal methods enter the mainstream. Communications of the Computer Society of India, Formal Methods Theme Issue, 31(2), 28–32 (Archived in Journal of Universal Computer Science vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 650–660).Google Scholar
  23. Skeel, R. (1992). SIAM News (Vol. 25, No. 4). https://w3.ual.es/~plopez/docencia/itis/patriot.htm. Accessed 20 Nov 2018
  24. Trefethen, L. N. (1994). Finite difference and spectral methods for ordinary and partial differential equations, unpublished text. Available at http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/pdetext.html.
  25. Wiels, V., Delmas, R., Doose, D., Garoche, P. L., & Cazin, J. (2012). Formal verification of critical aerospace software. AerospaceLab, 4, 1.Google Scholar
  26. Winsberg, E. (2009). Computer simulation and the philosophy of science. Philosophy Compass, 4, 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winsberg, E. (2018). Philosophy and climate science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodcock, J., Larsen, P. G., Bicarregui, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (2009). Formal methods: Practice and experience. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(4), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut supérieur de philosophieUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.IHPST, CNRS/Université Paris 1 Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations