Fig. 1. Common and newly direct strategies for the assessment of the atomic mobility descriptions and their uncertainties.

Fig. 2. Relations between the atomic mobility descriptions and various diffusion coefficients.

Fig. 3. Illustration of the strategy to evaluate the atomic mobility parameters directly from the composition profiles.

Fig. 4. Histogram of the distribution of the concerned parameters, where 0, 1, 2 and 3 in the legends stand for A0, B0, A1 and B1, respectively. The mean values of the parameters are denoted with the solid lines and the confidence intervals with the quantile of [0.16, 0.84] are plotted with the dashed lines.

Fig. 5. Comparison between the simulated composition profiles and the experimental results for the diffusion couples of the hypothetical binary systems: (a)?(c) the optimized results with one diffusion couple, (d)?(f) for two diffusion couples and (g)?(i) for three diffusion couples.

Fig. 6. Histogram of the distribution of the concerned parameters, where 0, 1 and 2 in the legends stand for A0, A1 and A2, respectively. The mean values of the parameters are denoted with the solid lines and the confidence intervals with the quantile of [0.16, 0.84] are plotted with dashed lines.

Fig. 7. Model-predicted diffusion paths due to the optimization results in the hypothetical ternary system: (a) noise level δ=0; (b) noise level δ=0.001; (c) noise level δ=0.01.

Fig. 8. Corner plot of the atomic mobility parameters of fcc Ni-Al-Ta alloy sampling with 10 Markov chains (1000 iterations for burn-in period).

Fig. 9. Simulated composition profiles of fcc Ni-Ta diffusion couples at different temperatures, compared with the experimental data [30] (denoted in points), and the model-predicted ones (denoted in dashed lines) due to the atomic mobilities assessed by Chen et al. [30] and DICTRA.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the calculated interdiffusion coefficients ($\tilde{D}_{\text{TaTa}}^{\text{Ni}}$) due to the presently obtained atomic mobilities and the experimental results from Ref. [37]. The presently evaluated $\tilde{D}_{\text{TaTa}}^{\text{Ni}}$ based on the experimental composition profiles [30] and Boltzmann-Matano method in combination with the distribution functions [35] are also superimposed for comparison.

Fig. 11. Comparison of the simulated composition profiles and the experimental data [40] for the diffusion couples of Ni-Al-Ta systems: (a-1)?(a-3) Composition profiles at 1473 K; (b-1)?(b-3) Composition profiles at 1523 K; (c-1)?(c-3) Composition profiles at 1573 K.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the interdiffusion coefficients calculated by Matano-Kirkaldy methods (denoted as M-K) and the numerical inverse method (denoted as HitDIC).

Fig. 13. Histogram of the distribution of the rescaled concerned parameter where 0 in the legend stands for $\Phi _{\text{Ta}}^{\text{Ni},\text{Ta},0}$/1000.