The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Concepts of Model Verification and Validation
Open accessAbstract
Model verification and validation (V&V) is an enabling methodology for the development of computational models that can be used to make engineering predictions with quantified confidence. Model V&V procedures are needed by government and industry to reduce the time, cost, and risk associated with full-scale testing of products, materials, and weapon systems. Quantifying the confidence and predictive accuracy of model calculations provides the decision-maker with the information necessary for making high-consequence decisions. The development of guidelines and procedures for conducting a model V&V program are currently being defined by a broad spectrum of researchers. This report reviews the concepts involved in such a program. Model V&V is a current topic of great interest to both government and industry. In response to a ban on the production of new strategic weapons and nuclear testing, the Department of Energy (DOE) initiated the Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). An objective of the SSP is to maintain a high level of confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. This objective has challenged the national laboratories to develop high-confidence tools and methods that can be used to provide credible models needed for stockpile certification via numerical simulation. There has been a significant increase in activity recently to define V&V methods and procedures. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) is working to develop fundamental concepts and terminology for V&V applied to high-level systems such as ballistic missile defense and battle management simulations. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has recently formed a Standards Committee for the development of V&V procedures for computational solid mechanics models. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has been a proponent of model V&V for all safety-related nuclear facility design, analyses, and operations. In fact, DNFSB 2002-1 recommends to the DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that a V&V process be performed for all safety related software and analysis. Model verification and validation are the primary processes for quantifying and building credibility in numerical models. Verification is the process of determining that a model implementation accurately represents the developer's conceptual description of the model and its solution. Validation is the process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model. Both verification and validation are processes that accumulate evidence of a model's correctness or accuracy for a specific scenario; thus, V&V cannot prove that a model is correct and accurate for all possible scenarios, but, rather, it can provide evidence that the model is sufficiently accurate for its intended use. Model V&V is fundamentally different from software V&V. Code developers developing computer programs perform software V&V to ensure code correctness, reliability, and robustness. In model V&V, the end product is a predictive model based on fundamental physics of the problem being solved. In all applications of practical interest, the calculations involved in obtaining solutions with the model require a computer code, e.g., finite element or finite difference analysis. Therefore, engineers seeking to develop credible predictive models critically need model V&V guidelines and procedures. The expected outcome of the model V&V process is the quantified level of agreement between experimental data and model prediction, as well as the predictive accuracy of the model. This report attempts to describe the general philosophy, definitions, concepts, and processes for conducting a successful V&V program. This objective is motivated by the need for highly accurate numerical models for making predictions to support the SSP, and also by the lack of guidelines, standards and procedures for performing V&V for complex numerical models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering
Roache, P. J. (1998) · Cited by 2,157
Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers
Coleman, H. W., Steck, W. G., & Hurlbut, F. C. (1991) · Journal of Engineering for Industry · doi:10.1115/1.2899692 · Cited by 1,805
(2016) · Systems Engineering for Commercial Aircraft · doi:10.4324/9781315611716-18 · Cited by 804
Code Verification by the Method of Manufactured Solutions
Roache, P. J. (2002) · Journal of Fluids Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.1436090 · Cited by 760
Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics
Oberkampf, W. L., Trucano, T. G., & Hirsch, C. (2004) · Applied Mechanics Reviews · doi:10.1115/1.1767847 · Cited by 719
Terminology for model credibility
(1979) · SIMULATION · doi:10.1177/003754977903200304 · Cited by 413
Terminology for model credibility
Abrahamson, G. (1980) · SIMULATION · doi:10.1177/003754978003500606 · Cited by 350
Code Verification by the Method of Manufactured Solutions
SALARI, K., & KNUPP, P. (2000) · doi:10.2172/759450 · Cited by 313
Verification, validation, and accreditation
Balcı, O. (2002) · Winter Simulation Conference · doi:10.1109/wsc.1998.744897 · Cited by 172
Verification, Validation, and Predictive Capability in Computational Engineering and Physics
Oberkampf, W. L., Trucano, T. G., & Hirsch, C. J. (2003) · OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · doi:10.2172/809603 · Cited by 75
Cited by
Model Evaluation: An Adequacy-for-Purpose View
Parker, W. S. (2020) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/708691 · Cited by 310
Applicability Analysis of Validation Evidence for Biomedical Computational Models
Pathmanathan, P., Gray, R. A., Romero, V. J., & Morrison, T. M. (2017) · Journal of Verification Validation and Uncertainty Quantification · doi:10.1115/1.4037671 · Cited by 68
Kumar, M., & Whittaker, A. S. (2018) · Engineering Structures · doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.047 · Cited by 42
Hariharan, P., D’Souza, G. A., Horner, M., Morrison, T. M., Malinauskas, R. A., & Myers, M. R. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178749 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- B.H.Thacker, S.W.Doebling, F.M.Hemez, Anderson, M. C., Pepin, J. E., & Rodriguez, E. A.
- Published
- 2004-10-30
- OpenAlex
- W1600708622
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 10
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Concepts of Model Verification and Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2172/835920
- The paper
- B.H.Thacker, S.W.Doebling, F.M.Hemez, Anderson, M. C., Pepin, J. E., & Rodriguez, E. A. (2004). Concepts of Model Verification and Validation. https://doi.org/10.2172/835920
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.