Self-convergence, grid refinement and CPU-to-GPU parity all test consistency. None of them can tell you the method is right, because a wrong method converges just as cleanly as a correct one.
is what self-convergence measures. A method can converge beautifully to the wrong answer, and the convergence rate will look excellent while it does. Validation methodology · our position
is what validation requires - a reference the code did not produce and was not fitted to. Analytic zeros and published benchmarks qualify; your own previous run does not. Validation methodology · our position
an empirical potential tuned to reproduce a lattice constant will reproduce it. That is the design point, not a validation. Validation methodology · our position
the trust verdict bounds how much numerical precision survived a computation. It says nothing about whether the model describes nature. GeoNum trust index · our position
Every solver here is checked against an analytic solution or a published benchmark, and where a check is only a consistency check it is labelled as one. That labelling is the difference between a validation suite and a dashboard.
Six that close the biggest gaps. 54 in the full computational science and physics library.
The gap it closes. Taylor-Green has an analytic early-time solution, so the error is measured against something the code did not produce.
See it run in your browser →The gap it closes. Spin-weighted spherical harmonic decomposition checked against the known mode structure, not against a previous run of itself.
See it run in your browser →The gap it closes. Standard shock-tube problems with published reference solutions - the classic discriminating test for an MHD solver.
See it run in your browser →The gap it closes. Manufactured solutions give an exact answer to compare against, which turns a convergence plot into an error measurement.
See it run in your browser →The gap it closes. MBB, cantilever and L-bracket benchmarks carry published compliance values that nothing in the code was fitted to.
See it run in your browser →The gap it closes. Shows where naive floating-point accumulation stops being trustworthy, which is the mechanism behind every trust verdict on this platform.
See it run in your browser →These are research and teaching solvers that run in a browser as the stage before a cluster, not replacements for production HPC codes or for the accepted tool in a regulated submission. Each states what it was checked against, and where a check only establishes internal consistency it says so rather than presenting it as validation.
Every tool above runs entirely in this browser tab. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is sent to a model, and each result cites the rule it applied.
Free tier, no card, no install. An account saves your work and lets you export a citable record of a run. See all 54 computational science and physics tools.