Model validation: Difference between revisions
(Created page with 'In fusion plasma physics, rather complex models are used to simulate, e.g., transport. In view of the large number of parameters of such models, the questio…') |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
It is therefore generally considered that NC theory has been validated via the correct prediction of the bootstrap current. | It is therefore generally considered that NC theory has been validated via the correct prediction of the bootstrap current. | ||
Second, the number of experiments for which 'A implies B' holds can be increased. E.g., if a model (A) is found to describe the obervations (B) for a large number of significantly different cases (experimental situations), then the validity of the model is enhanced; although it can never be ''proven'' that the model will always work in this way. Its validity will always remain subject to further testing. | Second, the number of experiments for which 'A implies B' holds can be increased. E.g., if a model (A) is found to describe the obervations (B) for a large number of significantly different cases (experimental situations), without 'tweaking' parameters, then the validity of the model is enhanced; although it can never be ''proven'' that the model will always work in this way. Its validity will always remain subject to further testing. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 10:16, 24 August 2012
In fusion plasma physics, rather complex models are used to simulate, e.g., transport. In view of the large number of parameters of such models, the question arises as to whether these models are 'really true' (accurately describe the physical reality). In other words, the models should be validated. [1]
The logical trap
Anyone would agree that the logical inference 'if A is true, then B must be true' combined with the observation that 'B is true' does not imply that 'A is true'. And yet this mistake appears to be rather common: if a given plasma model (A) describes a given experiment (B), it is inferred that the model must be 'OK' - erroneously, because the agreement may be fortuitous or due to constraints that are hard to identify.
There are several ways of avoiding this trap:
First, the logical inference can be completed with a clause like 'A is the only circumstance for which B can be true'. Then, if B is true, it is obvious that A must be true. An example of this is the bootstrap current, which has been observed and for which Neoclassical theory provides the only available reasonable explanation. It is therefore generally considered that NC theory has been validated via the correct prediction of the bootstrap current.
Second, the number of experiments for which 'A implies B' holds can be increased. E.g., if a model (A) is found to describe the obervations (B) for a large number of significantly different cases (experimental situations), without 'tweaking' parameters, then the validity of the model is enhanced; although it can never be proven that the model will always work in this way. Its validity will always remain subject to further testing.