Challenge LINURApplications · Public portfolio
Compare the time needed to answer a defined question, the quality of the answer, and the conditions of the test. Our application programme measures practical value case by case.
Explore your domain
Validated result
16 / 16
external structures passed
Frozen angular and normalized-topology panel limits · external Zn–S₄ structures
Local coordination topology only—not a complete protein fold, absolute bond length or X-ray electron-density reconstruction.
Read the result & scope
Validated result
0.799dB
mean S11-curve RMSE
Against independent NEC2++ · held-out computational comparison
Zero target-specific fits. This is a computational cross-solver comparison—not antenna hardware validation.
Read the result & scopePerformance
Matched response-time comparisons are being prepared.
Existing timings are retained with their original scope. End-to-end response time and computation-only time are not interchangeable.
Explore by discipline
Discipline is a way to navigate, not a claim that every subject is solved. The 87-scenario campaign and 14 application studies remain separate evidence collections.
14 of 14 unique application studies · primary discipline only
Matched response-time comparisons are being prepared. No comparable discipline averages or speedup ratios are available.
Can a frozen passive-antenna operator agree with an independent solver on held-out cases?
Against independent NEC2++: 0.799 dB mean S11-curve RMSE, 10.42 MHz resonance MAE, 0.0269 dB forward-gain MAE and 0.286 dB front/back MAE.
Limit. Zero target-specific fits. This is a computational cross-solver comparison—not antenna hardware validation.
Detailed evidence ↗Does the passive operator transfer to active beam steering?
32 cases: beam error 19.25° versus 0.25° in NEC; pattern RMSE 6.32 dB. Only the front/back gate passed.
Limit. No array or hardware claim. The result is retained as an explicit missing-operator and problem-definition finding.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a reduced optimization identify promising geometry before a higher-fidelity model or physical test?
Median reduced-model efficiency rose from 2.52% to 6.16%, a median relative uplift of 77.8%.
Limit. Research result only. Segment convergence is insufficient for an absolute continuum-efficiency claim; no skin/proximity, ferrite, shield, tissue, thermal, EMC, power-electronics or hardware authority.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a locked model reconstruct a published linear threshold without target-specific fitting?
QWS threshold 19.81556 mA versus the published 19.78 mA: 0.1798% relative difference.
Limit. Historical reconstruction—not a new blind experiment. No linewidth, thermal, spontaneous-emission, above-threshold power, fabrication or hardware authority.
Detailed evidence ↗
Can a large conventional lattice calculation remain governed across a declared case set?
375 exact-grid cases: 276 certified and 99 failed closed; largest admitted lattice 99,900 sites.
Limit. Conventional Dirac/Floquet/Haldane physics under LINUR certification—not experimental validation, a new microscopic law, a quantum-computer replacement or a comparative speed claim.
Detailed evidence ↗Is the required physical operator available before target data are opened?
Execution stopped before target data were opened because required adsorption, reaction-coordinate, solvent, photochemical-transition, kinetic, selectivity, yield and stability operators were unavailable.
Limit. No CO₂ conversion claim. This is a transparent no-go result, not a successful application.
Detailed evidence ↗Does a six-anchor reduced spectrum reconstruction meet the declared application gate?
Best admitted lane reached median held-out complex NRMSE 0.3196; the stricter lane rejected all 519 spectra.
Limit. Six measured anchors per spectrum are required. No measurement-free chemistry, microscopic uniqueness or pH authority.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a compact impedance readout transfer to closed pH labels after a declared calibration?
Five closed pH labels after four-record calibration: MAE 0.1199 pH and RMSE 0.1606 pH.
Limit. pH keeps its standard definition. This is not a proton-activity derivation, universal chemistry model or first-principles pH result.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a frozen local-topology operator transfer across newly opened rubredoxin structures without target-specific fitting?
All 16 eligible external Zn–S₄ structures passed the frozen angular and normalized-topology panel limits.
Limit. Local coordination topology only—not a complete protein fold, absolute bond length or X-ray electron-density reconstruction.
Detailed evidence ↗Which declared charging protocol reduces simulated charge time while respecting the stated thermal constraint?
Eight held-out discharges: 68.86 mV voltage RMSE and 1.55 °C temperature RMSE. Selected protocol reduced simulated charge time 17.47% under the declared 45 °C constraint.
Limit. Conventional DFN/P2D model only; no new battery microscopic physics, hardware, charging-safety or lifetime authority.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a measurement-free device calculation recover observed output?
The measurement-free device prediction overestimated measured output by 8.018×.
Limit. No admitted physical device-performance or full-3D transport claim. An earlier exact match depended on one calibrated coefficient and is not presented as a prediction.
Detailed evidence ↗Can an inverse controller expose an infeasible request before returning the largest admissible action?
A 10% request is infeasible inside 0.8% symmetric headroom; exact global saturation returns 0.8%. A declared 20% authority envelope delivers the full 10% request.
Limit. Reduced open-loop result only. No plasma deposition, MHD, fast-particle, divertor, hardware, delay/noise or closed-loop robustness validation.
Detailed evidence ↗Can a frozen reduced model compare mass, stability, lifetime and decay mode across a large admitted table?
Binding MAE 58.92 keV/A; stability AUC 0.9041; half-life MAE 2.4455 log₁₀ s; decay-mode accuracy 83.24% on 2,762 labels.
Limit. Mixed result. The zero-fit physical mass, stability, Q-value and lifetime lane remains unavailable; no claim of predicting isotope lifetimes from geometry is made.
Detailed evidence ↗
Can one frozen reduced comparison be audited across galaxy, cluster and expansion cohorts?
Mixed science: conventional RAR slightly beat the closure-shaped mapping in both radial cohorts, and the expansion deformation did not beat flat ΛCDM.
Limit. No new-gravity claim. Weak lensing, BAO/SN distance observables, strong-field and black-hole predictions remain unfinished.
Detailed evidence ↗Tell us the decision you need to make, your current workflow and the accuracy that matters. We can arrange an NDA, agree a comparison protocol and assess a scoped trial.
Discuss a confidential trial ↗Start with a non-confidential description. We can arrange an NDA before exchanging sensitive data.