Appendix A: Program Comparison

Comparison of thermobarometric inversion programs, AvPT+ [Green2025], Bingo-Antidote [Duesterhoeft2020], MCMC [Mackay2025], and MC_fit. The comparison is restricted to programs that match observed mineral assemblages directly to thermodynamic models computed by free energy minimization. This restriction, somewhat artificially, excludes the LinaForma [Mackay2024] and IntersecT [Nerone2025] programs in that these programs find the best match between observational data and a pre-computed phase diagram section. In terms of capabilities and limitations, LinaForma and IntersecT are similar to Bingo-Antidote in that they require knowledge of the bulk composition of the system of interest. The more recent contributions ([Mackay2024], [Nerone2025]) have adopted this approach to the simplified problem of minimizing the misfit between observed and predicted in a calculated phase diagram section. MC_fit and avPT+ use Monte Carlo sampling strategies to seek the global minimum of the objective function. MCMC is the only program to implement a Bayesian Markov-Chain Monte Carlo algorithm.

Program

Requires bulk composition

Unmeasured components

Misfit minimizer

Thermodynamic minimizer

Bayesian Option

Thermodynamic Uncertainty[1]

Thermodynamic parameter inversion

AvPT+

❌ No

❌ No

local

local[2]

❌ No

❌ No

❌ No

Bingo-Antidote

✅ Yes

✅ Yes

local

global

❌ No

❌ No

❌ No

MCMC

✅ Yes[3]

✅ Yes

global

global

✅ Yes

❌ No

❌ No

MC_fit

❌ No

✅ Yes

global

global

✅ Yes[4]

✅ Yes

✅ Yes