April 2004 - Ifeffit - millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

RE: [Ifeffit] a question about background refinement
by Kropf, Arthur Jeremy 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Stanislav, You mention that the amplitude remains consistent at about 0.3. However, what is happening to R and E0? Are these values also reasonable? I have found that, on occasion, a negative DWF is telling me that oxygen may not be the correct nearest neighbor. In these cases, R and E0 are always anomalous for the metal-oxygen path. Jeremy Kropf Chemical Engineering Division Argonne National Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: ifeffit-bounces(a)millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Stoupin, Stanislav A. Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:01 AM To: ifeffit(a)millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Subject: [Ifeffit] a question about background refinement Hello all, Recently, I was able to improve fitting results in one of my projects using background refinement/subtraction in some "strange" way. I have got reasonable results but I was not totally sure if that was a valid approach. So, any feedback is appreciated. Here is the story: The system I am working on is Ru-Pt fcc alloy in a form of nanoparticles which may be oxidized. There is a reason to suspect presence of Ru-O bonds in the system. For the moment I am doing only the first shell analysis and the model I am using includes a part that models alloy first shell structure and also Ru-O path. If I don't use the Ru-O path in my model all the alloy parameters that I get from the fit are reasonable but the fit works bad in low R region. In that region there is a broad peak around 1.3A. The rmin parameter which is responsible for background refinement is set to 1A ( the same value was used when I did initial background subtraction in Athena). What I found a long time ago is that the fit could be significantly improved if I add the Ru-O path in my model (all alloy parameters were even better in that case). However, the DWF of Ru-O bond always went negative (about -0.005). At the same time I got reasonable value for the Ru-O amplitude which was about 0.3. I attempted to get rid of the negative DWF value many times. For example, if I fixed or restrained the DWF to a reasonable value (0.01 is what I expect) it didn't help. Finally, I decided to play with background refinement and what I have done can be described as follows: 1. Set rmin to about 1.5 A 2. Fit with my model which included Ru-O path with fixed delr = 0 and DWF = 0.01 ( the Ru-O amplitude was allowed to vary). Backgound fitting was turned on. 3. Subtracted the background from the data 4. Moved rmin back to 1A and allowed Ru-O delr to vary (the DWF remained fixed to 0.01) 5. Fit again with no background fitting A very decent looking fit came out as a result. (Chi-square was improved) The Ru-O amplitude was about 0.3 (as expected) and I had the DWF set to 0.01. Thanks for you patience if you read it all the way through. My own impression of what I have done is that it looks very artificial and the fact that I use AUTOBK two times bothers me a lot. The second time it is supposed to remove all structural information below 1.5A (rmin value). However, with this approach I hope to get rid of the background that dominates the fine structure in the low R region (Ru-O scattering) using some preliminary knowledge about the compound. I will be happy to hear any point of view. Thank you in advance. If you are interested and want more details please let me know. Stanislav -------------------------------- Stanislav Stoupin Research Assistant/PhD student BCPS Department Illinois Institute Of Technology E-mail:stousta@iit.edu _______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit(a)millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit

1 0

[Ifeffit] Re: from I.Demchenko (PhD student at the Institute of Physics PAS)
by Bruce Ravel 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

Hi Iraida, I hope you don't mind that I CC my reply to the ifeffit mailing list. I have some suggestions for you, but I thought it might be helpful to you to see if anyone else has anything to contribute. (The attachments to Iraida's email included a couple of screenshots showing the plotting window with a very good-loooking fit. She also sent the artemis log file showing many of the numbers she quotes below.) On Tuesday 06 April 2004 12:12 pm, Iraida Demchenko wrote: > I have a problem with fitting of my data for 0.5 microns of Ge on > Si(001) substrate (grown by MBE). The spectrum for K-edge of Ge was > collected by TY mode. This sample is a standard for my next > fitting. >From this fitting (for 1 shell) I want to draw > So^2... But, if I apply a "trick" with k-weight determination as 1 > and So^2 value changing from 0.7 to 1.1 and repetition of this > operation for k^1, k^2, k^3, I get three parallel lines for > sigma^2(Ge-Ge) as function of So^2 :(. They aren't crossed in this > area. This is kind of surprising to me. I have used the three-lines trick many times and have never seen the situation of three parallel lines. I am a little confused how that is even possible. One might expect this trick to do strange things in the case of a first shell that is not well separated from higher shells, but my memory of Ge is that the first shell is well separated. Another situation that might lead to trouble is if strain induced by the substrate splits the first shell into two well-separated peaks. However, that does not seem to be the case for you either. 1/2 micron is (I think) thick enough so that the film should be bulk-like. Sadly, I am stumped. Has anyone else ever seen this? > On the other hand, I tried to fit my data (3 shells, k-w=2; dk=2; > Hanning; k(3.5-12.3)) and I've obtained: reduced chi-square=10.33; > R-factor=0.011; So^2=1.22 +/- 0.34; dr_1=0.0107+/-0.006; > sigma^2_1shell=0.0037+/-0.0019; sigma^2_2=0.0068+/-0.0033; > sigma^2_5=0.0096+/-0.0041(3 shell) (of course, that errors were > recalculated(following FEFFIT, p.44). I doubt about the obtained > value for So^2=1.22 +/-0.34. Within the error, of course, I can say, > that this value is in the range from 0.6 to1. But, the correlations > between variables are: amp (So^2) and sigma2_1: 0.916 :(; amp and > sigma^2_2: 0.498; amp and sigma^2_5: 0.49; sigma^2_1 and sigma^2_2: > 0.47; sigma^2_1 and sigma^2_5: 0.45.....all other correlations are > below 0.25. In the attachment there is a log file for this fitting, > as you can see sigma^2_3 is -0.0055+/-0.016 :(. > > Are there any other ways to determine our So^2? Or these actual results > (So^2=1.22) we can consider as good? What do You think about this fit? First, as you say, your value for S02 is not unreasonable in that the error bar covers a value that one might expect. Still, you are right that 1.22 is an oddly large best fit value and suggests that something else might be happening in the data. Second, I wouldn't be so concerned about the high correlation between S02 and sigma^2. It's normal. Here is a nice short piece by Matt about correlations: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/2004-February/000713.html The rest of thread might be of interest to you, as well. At another point in that thread, there is some discussion of how the normalization is done. Have you examined that carefully? If the post-edge line intersects E0 at an oddly low value, then the edge-step used in the normalization might be rather too small. This is certainly a possibility in fluorescence data where the region after the edge sometimes sweeps upward. In that case, the normalization range is such that the regressed post-edge line can be below the data near E0. I explained this in some more detail at http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/2004-February/000711.html That could be the cause of a best-fit S02 that is larger than 1, That's my best guess, given that I have not seen the mu(E) data, for what is happening. I was bit confused by thing about sigma^2_3. I saw in the log file that it was, as you said, negative. But none of the sigma^2 values for the paths were negative. It wasn't clear how that sigma^2 value was being used. Hope that helps, B P.S. I could tell from the log file that you sent me that you are using a *very* old version of Artemis and presumably of ifeffit as well. You may want to download the latest ifeffit installation package from http://cars9.uchicago.edu/ifeffit/download.html and then let the automatic updater bring your computer completely up to date. -- Bruce Ravel ----------------------------------- ravel(a)phys.washington.edu Code 6134, Building 3, Room 405 Naval Research Laboratory phone: (1) 202 767 2268 Washington DC 20375, USA fax: (1) 202 767 4642 NRL Synchrotron Radiation Consortium (NRL-SRC) Beamlines X11a, X11b, X23b National Synchrotron Light Source Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973 My homepage: http://feff.phys.washington.edu/~ravel EXAFS software: http://feff.phys.washington.edu/~ravel/software/exafs/

2 2

simultaneous fitting of multiple data sets in ifeffit
by Stanislav Stoupin 05 Apr '04

05 Apr '04

Hello! First of all I would like to thank Bruce for answering my questions. As a beginner I very much appreciate your help. Now I am trying to compare my results using two possible ways of doing EXAFS analysis : 1. Artemis 2. ifeffit command line (loading input files) Here is my question: When I use ifeffit commands it is not clear to me how to assing different kmin/kmax (rmin/rmax) values to different data sets in a multiple data set fit. My current understanding of the problem is as follows: As ifeffit documentation says all variables are global. At the same time ifeffit tries to evaluate all parameters of feffit() command first and does the fit only after determination of kmin kmax rmin rmax. What happens is that the last given values are assigned to these variables. Could somebody show me an example of a script that allows to assing different values of kmin kmax rmin and rmax for different data sets? Stanislav

3 2