Hi Yuanyun and Bruce,
Your test is a very nice way to check the effect of the muffin tin radius on the fit value of the amplitude fator.
Although I hadn't run your test myself I would have expected that the error bars produced by the fit of a theory to "theoretically generated data" would have been huge because you haven't added noise to the "data". Or have you? It is not clear why the uncertainties reported by Yuanyun are so small, given that the analysis method uses the high r signal in the data as a measure of noise. Since the data had no noise the high r amplitude should be essentually zero and that would renormalize error bars to huge values.
I may have misunderstood what was done in this test, and, perhaps, the noise was added automatically as one of the option that Yuanyun chose. Or there was some other reason why errors came out to be small? Thanks for your comments,
Anatoly
________________________________________
From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] on behalf of huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca [huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:46 PM
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] amplitude parameter S02 larger than 1
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the comments.
Just to make an end to this topic so far: the samples which give large
amplitude are suspected to be more complicated than the normal
skutterudites I showned to you last fall. Normal skutterudites data
actually didn't cause me worried because its S02 is fitted in a
typical range. In addition, there is one example on the paper PRB 86,
174106(2012) which has >3 angstrom nearest distance and the authors
reports very normal s02 values. Therefore, I will keep tracking down
why the amplitude is fitted to large and how to relate this amplitude
to what we found here for my specific case.
Thank you everyone.
Best,
Yanyun
Anyway, this test result gave me some hints to tracking down why there is
Quoting Bruce Ravel
On 03/23/2015 04:10 PM, huyanyun@physics.utoronto.ca wrote:
This is to follow up the *test* experiment you suggested. Attached are three Artemis files.
I chose the Fe (im-3m) structure to do the test. The normal crystal structure has its first-shell distance at 2.48 angstrom. A large structure was created so that the first-shell distance reaches 3.11 angstrom.
Both normal and large structure are calculated in JFEFF in the same manner (i.e., same path number, same calculation procedure, same sigma2=0.0045 for all paths) to generate the calculated chi data.
File #1 attached was exactly following the procedure you mentioned. The quick first shell fits very well, four parameters except S02 give normal results. The amplitude parameter S02 is very large (2.2+/-0.14).
I extended the test in #2 and #3 for comparison. In #2, calculated data based on large structure is presented to fit to the same large structure. As expected, we get reasonable fit looking with other parameters normal. However, amplitude S02 fits to 1.80+/-0.03. In #3, both data and structure are normal. In this case, it is not surprising to get good fit and all parameters including S02 turn out to be close to their true values.
I think it is clear that first-shell distance larger than 3 angstrom does has effect in making amplitude artificialy large.
Yanyun,
Very interesting! It's rather difficult to understand how to relate what you have found to your actual sample. That is certainly true in a quantitative sense. I don't think this tells you how to interpret the actual value that you are finding for S02. But I think it does give a hint for why you are getting such a large value in your case.
I will be very interested to see how you address this when you publish your results.
For everyone else, I would caution against reading too much into what Yanyun has found. (Even more so than I would caution her!) She is looking at a really unusual situation. Her materials really do have extraordinarily long near neighbor distances. In fact, last fall when she showed me her data, I was quite shocked that such a thing exists. In all my years doing XAS and being a beamline scientist, I had never seen such a long near-neighbor distance. The FT of the data was really quite remarkable!
Trying to understand a large S02 is a common question on this mailing list and elsewhere. However, I don't think that Yanyun's experience gives much insight to most such problems. Her situation is quite unusual. If you are seeing an oddly large S02, that is something you need to figure out about your sample or your data. In most cases, you cannot explain it away by asserting that Feff made a mistake with the muffin tin radii.
As an example, I rather doubt that Yanyun's experience can shed much light on the questions that Jatin Rana was asking over the weekend.
Anyway, wow! What an interesting day on the mailing list!
B
-- Bruce Ravel ------------------------------------ bravel@bnl.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II Building 535A Upton NY, 11973
Homepage: http://bruceravel.github.io/home/ Software: https://github.com/bruceravel Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/ _______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
_______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit