Real solver vs. physics-AI
Why not a physics-AI model?
We use AI too. The difference is where we point it: a physics-AI model predicts a flow field from past data; ours is an agent driving a real solver. When a part's survival or a data center's limits are on the line, a plausible guess is worse than no answer.
The proof, in the same breath
We don't ask you to take it on faith.
A surrogate can't tell you its error. Ours is measured against answers known exactly, and published: observed orders of 1.97 to 2.05 against a theoretical 2.00.
4Cases with a closed-form exact answer
2.00Theoretical order of accuracy, matched within a few percent
HundredsOf cases re-run on every change to the solver
A surrogate predicts. Ours computes.Same AI, pointed at a solver, not a guess.
Never confidently wrong.A solver can't invent a flow that isn't there.
Validated, not vibes.Checked against answers known exactly.
Yours to audit and rerun.A case you can open, edit, and rerun.
Don't take our word for it.
The full validation studies are published, with the method, the tables, and the plots, so you can check the numbers yourself instead of trusting the answer.