Hi all, Well, I'm understanding my own views on this more clearly as the conversation continues, so it's been helpful to me! There are several different issues that have floated through this thread, but let me focus on one aspect. One possible fitting strategy is a shell-by-shell method, in which each shell is fit more or less independently. In this method, the R- range is chosen to try to correspond to a single shell. Because the first shell is often dominant in the spectrum and can "leak" quite significantly into other shells, it is reasonable to fit the first shell, and then use those parameters to constrain the leakage from the first shell while fitting the second shell. I've rarely used that strategy personally, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, and there are cases where it seems like a very good way to go. There are no problems with free parameters with this method. For instance, if the first shell is fit over the R-range 1.0 to 1.5 angstroms, and the second from 1.5 to 2.0, each with its own parameters, then you're not "cheating" to use the results of the first fit to fix the parameters for the first shell in the second fit, as those parameters came from data you're not currently using. The usual idea that constraints come from prior knowledge is satisfied. On the other hand, I have sometimes seen students in workshops fit the first shell, then extend the R-range so that it includes both shells, fix the first shell parameters to the results from the prior fit, and then do a fit to determine the parameters of the second shell. This is the approach I find troubling. It seems to double count data. To be specific, the first shell fit might be from 1.0 to 1.5 angstroms, and the results would then be used to constrain the first shell in the next fit, which would vary second shell parameters but extend from 1.0 to 2.0. The data from 1.0 to 1.5 has thus been used twice in a manner that would cause me some concern. I am unclear as to which procedure Abhijeet is describing. I initially assumed the second, and Matt initially assumed the first; that was responsible for some of the confusion. --Scott Calvin Sarah Lawrence College On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Matt Newville wrote:
Hi Adam,
I am confused by this thread too!
I find the approach of "fit the first shell, then fix those parameters and fit the second shell" to be a reasonable way to start, so I responded. I would not call this approach "acceptable, but generally not preferred" -- I would say it has actual merit. Yes, it is often a good idea to check a fit to the whole spectrum toward the end of an analysis. But in a fit to the whole spectrum, the quality of the fit to the more subtle features (the finer structure) can often get lost in the fit to the more dominant features of the spectra. That is why we subtract mu0(E), after all. I don't see Fourier filtering as a bad idea for analyzing higher shells.
But perhaps I am just not understanding what Scott and Shelly recommend???
--Matt _______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit