Advertisement

Should Validation and Verification be Separated Strictly?

  • Claus BeisbartEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications book series (SFMA)

Abstract

Verification and validation are methods with which computer simulations are tested. While many practitioners draw a clear line between verification and validation and demand that the former precedes the latter, some philosophers have suggested that the distinction has been over-exaggerated. This chapter clarifies the relationship between verification and validation. Regarding the latter, validation of the conceptual and of the computational model are distinguished. I argue that, as a method, verification is clearly different from validation of either of the models. However, the methods are related to each other as follows: If we allow that the validation of the computational model need not include the comparison between simulation output and measured data, then the computational model may be validated by validating the conceptual model independently and by verifying the simulation with respect to it. This is often not realistic, however, because, in most cases, the conceptual model cannot be validated independently from the simulation. In such cases, the computational model is verified with the aim to use it as an appropriate substitute for the conceptual model. Then simulation output is compared to measured data to validate both the computational and the conceptual model. I analyze the underlying inferences and argue that they require some prior confidence (i) in the conceptual model and (ii) in verification. This suggests that verification precede validation that proceeds via a comparison between simulation output and measured data. Recent arguments to the effect that the distinction between verification and validation is not clear-cut do not refute these results, or so I argue against philosopher E. Winsberg.

Keywords

Computational model Conceptual model Reality Accuracy Comparison simulation output vs. data Inductive inference 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank David Murray-Smith and Nicole J. Saam for useful comments.

References

  1. AIAA. (1998). Guide for the verification and validation of computational fluid dynamics simulations, AIAA G-077-1998. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (2000). Intention. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (first edition 1957).Google Scholar
  3. ASME. (2006). Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME V&V 10-2006.Google Scholar
  4. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Küppers, G., & Lenhard, J. (2005). Computersimulationen: Modellierungen zweiter Ordnung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 36(2), 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Norton, J. D. (2003). A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science, 70, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Oberkampf, W., & Roy, C. (2010). Verication and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Oberkampf, W. L., & Trucano, T. G. (2008). Verification and validation benchmarks. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 238(3), 716–743.Google Scholar
  9. Pace, D. K. (2004). Modeling and simulation verification and validation challenges. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 25(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
  10. Parker, W. S. (2008). Franklin, holmes, and the epistemology of computer simulation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 22(2), 165–183.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roache, P. (1997). Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 29, 123–160.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roy, C. J. (2005). Review of code and solution verification procedures for computational simulation. Journal of Computational Physics, 205(1), 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sargent, R. G. (1984). A tutorial on verification and validation of simulation models. In: S. Sheppard, U. Pooch, & D. Pedgen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th conference on Winter simulation (pp. 115–121). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  14. Schlesinger, S., et al. (1979) Terminology for model credibility. Simulation, 32, 103–104.Google Scholar
  15. Suárez, M. (2004). An inferential conception of scientific representation. Philosophy of Science, 71, 767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weisberg, M. (2007). Who is a Modeler? British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 58, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the age of computer simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Winsberg, E. (2018a). Computer simulations in science. In E. N. Zalta, (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/simulations-science/.
  19. Winsberg, E. (2018b). Philosophy of climate science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy, University of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations