convergence-study — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited convergence-study (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Provide script-driven convergence analysis for verifying that numerical solutions converge at the expected rate as the mesh or timestep is refined.
math).| Input | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Grid spacings | Sequence of mesh sizes (coarse to fine) | 0.4,0.2,0.1,0.05 |
| Timestep sizes | Sequence of dt values | 0.04,0.02,0.01 |
| Solution values | QoI at each refinement level | 1.16,1.04,1.01,1.0025 |
| Expected order | Formal order of the numerical scheme | 2.0 |
| Safety factor | GCI safety factor (1.25 default) | 1.25 |
| Script | Key Outputs |
|---|---|
scripts/h_refinement.py | results.observed_orders, results.mean_order, results.richardson_extrapolated_value, results.convergence_assessment |
scripts/dt_refinement.py | Same as h_refinement but for temporal convergence |
scripts/richardson_extrapolation.py | results.extrapolated_value, results.error_estimate, results.observed_order |
scripts/gci_calculator.py | results.observed_order, results.gci_fine, results.gci_coarse, results.asymptotic_ratio, results.in_asymptotic_range, results.extrapolated_value, results.notes |
h_refinement.py or dt_refinement.pygci_calculator.pyDo you have 3+ refinement levels?
+-- YES --> Run h_refinement.py or dt_refinement.py
| +-- Observed order matches expected? --> Order agreement; check persistence and error assumptions
| +-- Order too low? --> Check: pre-asymptotic, coding error, insufficient resolution
| +-- Order too high? --> Check: superconvergence or cancellation effects
+-- NO (only 2 levels) --> Use richardson_extrapolation.py with assumed order
(less reliable without order verification)# Spatial convergence with 4 grid levels
python3 scripts/h_refinement.py --spacings 0.4,0.2,0.1,0.05 --values 1.16,1.04,1.01,1.0025 --expected-order 2.0 --json
# Temporal convergence with 3 timestep levels
python3 scripts/dt_refinement.py --timesteps 0.04,0.02,0.01 --values 2.12,2.03,2.0075 --expected-order 2.0 --json
# Richardson extrapolation with assumed 2nd-order
python3 scripts/richardson_extrapolation.py --spacings 0.02,0.01 --values 1.0032,1.0008 --order 2.0 --json
# GCI for 3-mesh verification
python3 scripts/gci_calculator.py --spacings 0.04,0.02,0.01 --values 1.0128,1.0032,1.0008 --json| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
spacings and values must have the same length | Mismatched input arrays | Provide equal-length lists |
At least 2 refinement levels required | Too few data points | Add more refinement levels |
Exactly 3 refinement levels required | GCI needs 3 levels | Provide fine/medium/coarse |
Oscillatory convergence detected | Non-monotone convergence | Check mesh quality or scheme |
| Scenario | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Observed order matches expected | Evidence consistent with the expected error law | Check persistence across levels; label estimates conditional |
| Observed order < expected | Pre-asymptotic or coding bug | Refine further or debug |
| Negative observed order | Solution diverging | Check implementation |
| GCI asymptotic ratio near 1.0 | See caveat below | Confirm with order comparison |
| GCI asymptotic ratio far from 1.0 | Not in asymptotic range | Refine further |
Asymptotic-ratio caveat (constant refinement ratios). When the refinement ratios are equal (r21 == r32, the common case), the asymptotic ratioAR = GCI_coarse / (r^p * GCI_fine)reduces algebraically tof1/f2. It then only measures the relative gap between the two finest QoI values — not whether the data follow the assumed power law — so anARnear 1.0 can give false reassurance even when the observed order is far from expected. Thegci_calculator.pyJSON emits anotesentry flagging this. For a real asymptotic-range determination: 1. Compare the observed orderpto the scheme's theoretical/expected order — a match supports the expected error law but does not establish an asymptotic range. 2. For stronger verification, use 4+ systematically refined grids and check that the observed order is consistent across successive grid triplets (h_refinement.pyreports one order per triplet plusmean_order).
When explaining a refinement result, compare only the dimensionless results.mean_order with the expected order. The results.richardson_extrapolated_value estimates the observable at zero spacing and has the same units as the input observable; it is never the convergence order. Use order_comparison, extrapolation_evidence, and scientific_interpretation from h_refinement.py to keep these roles explicit. For h=(0.2,0.1,0.05) and values=(1.04,1.01,1.0025), p=2 and the extrapolated observable=1. Compare 2 with the expected order, not 1. Keep this guidance in the final synthesis context. A single grid triplet cannot establish stable order across triplets: in_asymptotic_range is null for a positive single estimate. More grids, residual convergence and model validation remain needed.
Use the deterministic explanation renderer for final scientific text from trusted, input-verified h_refinement JSON. An order agreement decision is true when the measured order is within the stated tolerance, even though physical accuracy and asymptotic behavior remain unproven. The relative tolerance 0.1 means 10%, not 0.1%.
h_refinement.py / dt_refinement.py can report a results.mean_order; recorded the per-triplet results.observed_orders (a single-pair Richardson run does not verify order).results.mean_order and confirmed results.convergence_assessment reads PASS (observed order within 10% of the scheme's expected order); a FAIL or unknown means the result is not yet verified.results.in_asymptotic_range and all notes. Null means insufficient evidence; true is only a successive-order heuristic, not proof. Label any quoted extrapolation conditional on the power-law error assumption, and suppress it for invalid or diverging sequences.r21/r32 from gci_calculator.py are >= 1.3 (round-off noise floor) and that no Oscillatory convergence detected error was raised.results.gci_fine (with the safety factor used: 1.25 for >= 3 grids with verified order, 3.0 for 2 grids with assumed order) as the reported discretization uncertainty, plus results.extrapolated_value as the best estimate.asymptotic_ratio near 1.0 as proof of asymptotic range (it degenerates to f1/f2); confirmed the asymptotic range via observed-order-vs-expected and read the gci_calculator.py notes caveat.| Tempting shortcut | Why it's wrong / what to do |
|---|---|
| "Two grids agree closely, so it's converged" | Two levels cannot estimate observed order. Run h_refinement.py/dt_refinement.py with >= 3 levels; a 2-grid Richardson run uses an assumed order and needs safety factor 3.0, not 1.25. |
| "The asymptotic ratio is ~1.0, so we're in the asymptotic range" | With constant refinement ratios AR = GCI_coarse/(r^p*GCI_fine) reduces to f1/f2 and only measures the gap between the two finest QoI values. Verify the asymptotic range by comparing observed order to the expected order (and 4+ grid consistency). |
| "GCI_fine is tiny, so the solution is grid-independent" | A near-zero GCI can also mean the QoI is insensitive to refinement or the differences are in round-off noise (ratios < 1.3). Confirm in_asymptotic_range is true and refinement ratios are >= 1.3 first. |
| "Observed order is higher than expected, even better" | Order well above the formal order usually signals superconvergence or error cancellation, not extra accuracy. Treat it as a flag (convergence_assessment is FAIL when >10% off) and verify with more grid levels. |
| "The script printed an extrapolated value, so use it" | When the observed order is non-positive the solution is diverging and h_refinement.py returns richardson_extrapolated_value = null with a diverging note. Do not quote an extrapolated value or GCI in that case. |
| "Implicit/stable solver, so any timestep is fine for the study" | Temporal stability is not temporal accuracy. dt_refinement.py still needs >= 3 systematically reduced timesteps to recover the scheme's order; a too-coarse dt sequence stays pre-asymptotic. |
spacings, timesteps, values, expected-order, order) are validated as finite positive numbersh_refinement.py, dt_refinement.py, richardson_extrapolation.py, gci_calculator.py) with explicit argument listseval(), exec(), or dynamic code generationshell=True)math module); no pickle loading or deserialization of untrusted datareferences/convergence_theory.md - Formal convergence order, log-log analysis, asymptotic rangereferences/gci_guidelines.md - Roache's GCI method, ASME V&V 20, safety factors~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.