You need to agree to share your contact information to access this dataset

This repository is publicly accessible, but you have to accept the conditions to access its files and content.

Log in or Sign Up to review the conditions and access this dataset content.

MFFP benchmark — 42 datasets (corrected release)

Multi-fidelity field prediction: recover a high-fidelity (fine-grid) PDE solution field from cheap low-fidelity (coarse-grid) fields plus a small condition vector, with few HF samples.

Everything lives under benchmark_42/, split into three collections — core/ (15), ext/ (8), sharp/ (19). Per-dataset statistics are in benchmark_42/MANIFEST.csv; the collection tables and the full revision history are in benchmark_42/README.md.

Relationship to nicksung/mf_field

This repo supersedes the 2026-07-28 release at nicksung/mf_field. It exists as a separate repo only because HF personal repos could not be shared as collaborators; it is the same benchmark, with three defect classes corrected.

Do not mix the two. Seven datasets differ:

dataset what changed
sharp/allen_cahn_1d condition vector now encodes the IC (cond dim 3 → 19)
sharp/allen_cahn_2d IC-encoded (3 → 19); LF–HF corr 0.984 → 0.993
sharp/fisher_kpp_1d IC-encoded (2 → 18); no longer flagged operator-hard
sharp/fisher_kpp_2d IC-encoded (2 → 50); LF–HF corr 0.758 → 0.984
sharp/phase_field_crystal_2d IC-encoded (2 → 18)
core/ifc_heat fidelity levels re-paired to be nested; corr 0.940 → 0.956
core/ifc_poisson fidelity levels re-paired to be nested; corr 0.827 → 0.909

The other 35 datasets are byte-identical to the 2026-07-28 release.

Separately, the grid-registration ("half-pixel") defect affected the pre-aligned /fields_hf/res_R copies produced by the sharp-field generator and the fidelity-gap metrics the datasets reported about themselves. Aligned copies were built with a cell-centred coordinate map even for node-sampled solvers, displacing every output pixel by (r-1)/2 HF cells. Raw native-grid arrays were never affected. See benchmark_42/README.md for the full statement.

⚠️ 14 of the 42 datasets are degenerate

They ship, but they are labelled. A degenerate dataset is not broken — it is unsuitable for measuring what this benchmark claims to measure, and a model can post an excellent score on it without doing anything interesting. Every flagged dataset carries a warning at the top of its own README.md; criteria and caveats are in benchmark_42/README.md.

flag criterion count
operator_hard the condition vector barely predicts the field 10
copy_lf_trivial lifting LF to the HF grid already reproduces HF to < 1% rel-L2, structure included 6
level_dominated copying LF looks near-perfect, but only because the field is nearly uniform 2
mf_useless LF carries essentially no information about HF 2

The sharpest cases: ext/kuramoto_sivashinsky_1d has an LF–HF correlation of -0.057, and sharp/kuramoto_sivashinsky_2d is reproduced by copying the coarse field to 0.47%.

level_dominated is worth understanding before trusting any score on this benchmark. sharp/fisher_kpp_2d reads a copy error of 0.0006 -- apparently solved by copying -- but its field only spans [0.79, 1.00], so that number is almost entirely the constant offset, which LF gets for free. Remove each sample's spatial mean and the copy error is 0.0216, 35x larger. sharp/allen_cahn_2d goes 0.0069 -> 0.1465, a 21x gap and 15% structural error. On these two the headline relative-L2 metric mostly measures getting the mean right.

Both flags are reported in MANIFEST.csv as copy_lf_rel_l2 and copy_lf_rel_l2_detrended. Note that operator_hard is diluted by the IC-encoded condition vectors introduced in this release -- see the caveats before excluding anything on that basis alone.

Methodology note

Low fidelity is always a real coarse consistent solve — never a downsampled or noised high-fidelity field. Downsampling injects Gibbs and aliasing artifacts and invalidates the benchmark. Fidelity levels are aligned/nested: the same parameter vector is solved on a coarse and a fine grid, so HF - LF residuals are well defined.

Prefer a metric panel over rel-L2 alone — rel-L2 averages over the smooth bulk and hides blur in thin sharp regions.

Layout

benchmark_42/
  MANIFEST.csv                 per-dataset stats for all 42
  README.md                    collection tables + revision history
  core/<dataset>/              train_l*.npz / test_l*.npz  (x, y)
  ext/<dataset>/               train_l*.npz / test_l*.npz
  sharp/<dataset>/             train_l*.npz / test_l*.npz  + meta.json
  core/ifc_{heat,poisson}/     train/fidelity_<F>/{Xs,ys}.npy + test/fidelity_64/

l1 is the coarsest rung. The two ifc_* datasets use the raw per-fidelity layout rather than npz; everything else uses train_l*.npz / test_l*.npz with keys x (conditions) and y (fields).

Licenses vary per dataset — see each dataset's own README.md.

Changelog

  • 2026-08-08 — pfc regenerated (crystalline box) + allen_cahn_2d test trim. sharp/phase_field_crystal_2d: all arrays regenerated from an all-crystalline sampling box (r ∈ [-0.4,-0.3], mean_density ∈ [-0.25,-0.2]; MFFP ADR r3-0002) — the previous box left ~half the samples in the uniform phase with no fidelity gap. Additionally its top rung pair (L2→L3) is documented as spectrally converged (no prediction task; use L1 as the LF input — MFFP ADR r3-0004; see the dataset README). sharp/allen_cahn_2d: test split trimmed 100 → 78 rows (22 task-void rows with no copy-LF gap; MFFP ADR r3-0003; dropped indices in meta.json). Train split unchanged. benchmark_42/MANIFEST.csv recomputed for the pfc row (all other rows byte-identical). Scores computed against the 2026-08-05 revision are not comparable on these two datasets. The previous revision remains available via this repository's git history.
Downloads last month
28