Adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) is indispensable for efficient finite element analyses. However, its performance depends not only on the refinement itself but also on strategy to mark elements for refinement and the way it is tuned. This work compares classical marking methods (maximum, Dörfler bulk-chasing, quantile) with non-classical, statistically based approaches (z-score, Isolation Forest), all driven by the residual-based Kelly error estimator and tested on steady solid and fluid mechanics problems. The study finds quantile and z-score markings to be the most robust, Dörfler effective for large bulk parameters, and maximum marking sensitive to irregular fields. Isolation Forest can rival top classical methods with a high contamination level but may fail under aggressive settings. These results offer practical guidance for selecting marking strategies that balance refinement aggressiveness and computational cost in adaptive FEM workflows.

翻译：暂无翻译