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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
❌ No |
❌ No |
local |
local[2] |
❌ No |
❌ No |
❌ No |
|
✅ Yes |
✅ Yes |
local |
global |
❌ No |
❌ No |
❌ No |
|
✅ Yes[3] |
✅ Yes |
global |
global |
✅ Yes |
❌ No |
❌ No |
|
❌ No |
✅ Yes |
global |
global |
✅ Yes[4] |
✅ Yes |
✅ Yes |