polarization on FEFF calculation
Dear all, i have a question about polarization vector in performing the FEFF calculation in Artemis. I am studying the system CeOBiS2 using Bi L3-edge EXAFS. Starting from *.cif file i'm creating the *.inp file which atoms list come out as follows: ATOMS * this list contains 35 atoms * x y z ipot tag distance 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 bi 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.50509 4 s2.1 2.50509 2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 -2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 -2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 0.00000 -3.31180 4 s1.2 3.31180 ... Bismuth has a S atom sitting on top of him (s2) and it is square coordinated with other four S atoms (s1). I made measurements on single crystals using fluorescence yield. The experimental geometry consist of the x-ray beam coming at (almost) normal incidence which corresponds to electric field vector lying on the crystal's ab plane. If I perform the FEFF calculation without taking account of polarization I obtain the first scattering paths which are 1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 14.78 4) ...... When I insert the line "POLARIZATION 1 0 0" in the imput file i get 1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 3.67 4) ...... which is exactly the same result for the first 2 scatterings, even if the rank of higher shells is changed... Now, my question is: If the components of the polarization vector has to be written in the same reference frame of the atom list i'm expecting to see a strong suppression of the rank factor for the @S2.1@ scattering whose bond is along the z-direction, is it correct? the .cif file is attached Thank you in advance, Eugenio
Eugenio,
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Eugenio Paris
Dear all,
i have a question about polarization vector in performing the FEFF calculation in Artemis. I am studying the system CeOBiS2 using Bi L3-edge EXAFS. Starting from *.cif file i'm creating the *.inp file which atoms list come out as follows:
ATOMS * this list contains 35 atoms * x y z ipot tag distance 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 bi 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.50509 4 s2.1 2.50509 2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 -2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 -2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 0.00000 -3.31180 4 s1.2 3.31180 ...
Bismuth has a S atom sitting on top of him (s2) and it is square coordinated with other four S atoms (s1). I made measurements on single crystals using fluorescence yield. The experimental geometry consist of the x-ray beam coming at (almost) normal incidence which corresponds to electric field vector lying on the crystal's ab plane.
If I perform the FEFF calculation without taking account of polarization I obtain the first scattering paths which are
1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 14.78 4) ......
When I insert the line "POLARIZATION 1 0 0" in the imput file i get
1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 3.67 4) ......
which is exactly the same result for the first 2 scatterings, even if the rank of higher shells is changed...
Now, my question is:
If the components of the polarization vector has to be written in the same reference frame of the atom list i'm expecting to see a strong suppression of the rank factor for the @S2.1@ scattering whose bond is along the z-direction, is it correct?
There are two different things going on that can help explain this. But first: it wasn't clear what you used to specify the polarization in feff.inp. You probably used either POLARIZATION 1. 1. 0. or POLARIZATION 1. 0. 0. If that assumption isn't correct, please clarify. First, Feff's reporting of "Rank" is really "Intensity of this path compared to the most intense path seen so far". The first path is always 100.0, and if any later path is 100.0 it indicates that it had more intensity than the previous highest-intensity path, but you have no idea of how much more intensity. It's a really lame report on intensity and should be fixed. Because of this, the only meaningful number in your list is the Rank of path 3, which does actually go down. Second, you're asking for a calculation of an L3 edge. The L3 edge includes both p->s and p->d transitions, which means the polarization dependence is a mixture of a dipole-like term a constant term. So, polarized measurements at the L3 edge does not completely suppress contributions normal to the polarization vector, as it would for a K or L1 edge. For your system, it looks like the out-of-plane contribution is suppressed by about a factor of 4 relative to the contributions from the S1.1 atoms in the X-Y plane. I think that's not unusual for L3 edges, but the literature on this is scant. Hope that helps, --Matt
Thank you for the answer, now things are more clear.
Now the question is: how to go further on the fitting procedure?
If the Artemis software is weighting the contribution of different paths
using the "Rank" value it sounds like i'm in trouble.
The Fourier transform of my EXAFS signal shows a wide peak between 2 and 3
Angstrom containing contributions from the first 3 scattering paths.
However, it looks like in this geometry i can neglect the 3rd path. That's
the reason why i'm interested in modeling the first two scatterings.
I'll try as follows,
I will import the first 2 scattering paths without taking account of
polarization and try to include such dependency in the S0^2 parameter.
The information that I have now is that the amplitude of the @S1.2@ path is
the key to give the correct weight to the first two paths.
Performing the calculation of the @S1.2@ path with POLARIZATION 1. 0. 0.
and 0. 0. 1. gives Rank = 3.67 and 25.80, respectively.
I wish to assign S0^2 = amp for the @S1.1@ path (in-plane contribution) and
S0^2 = (3.67/25.8)*amp for the @S2.1@ (out-of-plane contribution).
Can this approach be ok?
Eugenio
2015-05-24 13:42 GMT+02:00 Matt Newville
Eugenio,
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Eugenio Paris
wrote: Dear all,
i have a question about polarization vector in performing the FEFF calculation in Artemis. I am studying the system CeOBiS2 using Bi L3-edge EXAFS. Starting from *.cif file i'm creating the *.inp file which atoms list come out as follows:
ATOMS * this list contains 35 atoms * x y z ipot tag distance 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 bi 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.50509 4 s2.1 2.50509 2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 -2.81711 0.00000 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 -2.81711 -0.12006 4 s1.1 2.81967 0.00000 0.00000 -3.31180 4 s1.2 3.31180 ...
Bismuth has a S atom sitting on top of him (s2) and it is square coordinated with other four S atoms (s1). I made measurements on single crystals using fluorescence yield. The experimental geometry consist of the x-ray beam coming at (almost) normal incidence which corresponds to electric field vector lying on the crystal's ab plane.
If I perform the FEFF calculation without taking account of polarization I obtain the first scattering paths which are
1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 14.78 4) ......
When I insert the line "POLARIZATION 1 0 0" in the imput file i get
1) @S2.1@, Degen = 1, Reff = 2.5051, Rank = 100 2) @S1.1@, Degen = 4, Reff = 2.8197, Rank = 100 3) @S1.2@, Degen = 1, Reff = 3.3118, Rank = 3.67 4) ......
which is exactly the same result for the first 2 scatterings, even if the rank of higher shells is changed...
Now, my question is:
If the components of the polarization vector has to be written in the same reference frame of the atom list i'm expecting to see a strong suppression of the rank factor for the @S2.1@ scattering whose bond is along the z-direction, is it correct?
There are two different things going on that can help explain this. But first: it wasn't clear what you used to specify the polarization in feff.inp. You probably used either POLARIZATION 1. 1. 0.
or POLARIZATION 1. 0. 0.
If that assumption isn't correct, please clarify.
First, Feff's reporting of "Rank" is really "Intensity of this path compared to the most intense path seen so far". The first path is always 100.0, and if any later path is 100.0 it indicates that it had more intensity than the previous highest-intensity path, but you have no idea of how much more intensity. It's a really lame report on intensity and should be fixed. Because of this, the only meaningful number in your list is the Rank of path 3, which does actually go down.
Second, you're asking for a calculation of an L3 edge. The L3 edge includes both p->s and p->d transitions, which means the polarization dependence is a mixture of a dipole-like term a constant term. So, polarized measurements at the L3 edge does not completely suppress contributions normal to the polarization vector, as it would for a K or L1 edge. For your system, it looks like the out-of-plane contribution is suppressed by about a factor of 4 relative to the contributions from the S1.1 atoms in the X-Y plane. I think that's not unusual for L3 edges, but the literature on this is scant.
Hope that helps,
--Matt
_______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Hi Eugenio,
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Eugenio Paris
Thank you for the answer, now things are more clear.
Now the question is: how to go further on the fitting procedure?
If the Artemis software is weighting the contribution of different paths using the "Rank" value it sounds like i'm in trouble.
Fortunately, it doesn't do this. The "Rank" reported by Feff is an estimate of how important a Path is. The Rank (or, "Zabinsky Curved Wave Importance Factor") is *not* actually the calculation. When you set the POLARIZATION, the path contributions in feffNNNN.dat do correctly include the effect of polarization on the EXAFS amplitude. Well, "correctly" might sound optimistic, and there might be subtleties and there might be small errors, but polarization really is taken into account at the quantum mechanical level.
The Fourier transform of my EXAFS signal shows a wide peak between 2 and 3 Angstrom containing contributions from the first 3 scattering paths. However, it looks like in this geometry i can neglect the 3rd path. That's the reason why i'm interested in modeling the first two scatterings.
I'll try as follows, I will import the first 2 scattering paths without taking account of polarization and try to include such dependency in the S0^2 parameter.
The information that I have now is that the amplitude of the @S1.2@ path is the key to give the correct weight to the first two paths.
Performing the calculation of the @S1.2@ path with POLARIZATION 1. 0. 0. and 0. 0. 1. gives Rank = 3.67 and 25.80, respectively.
I wish to assign S0^2 = amp for the @S1.1@ path (in-plane contribution) and S0^2 = (3.67/25.8)*amp for the @S2.1@ (out-of-plane contribution).
Can this approach be ok?
I recommend using the feff paths from a calculation with POLARIZATION set. Basically, if you do the calculation with a POLARIZATION that corresponds to the measurement, there is nothing further or special you need to do in the analysis. The EXAFS is still the sum of those paths. Specifically, S02 should not depend on path geometry. If I understand your problem correctly, the amplitude of the first and third path (both along the z axis, and the same atomic species) should be comparable. With a polarization vector in the xy plane, this should be smaller than the contribution from the 4 @S1.1@ paths, but probably not actually zero (the estimate was 4%, right?). I'm not sure whether you'd see those or not -- that's generally right around the scale of "not obviously detectable", and with the two distances (~2.5 and 3.3A) the contributions from paths 1 and 3 might wash out. I'd recommend trying to look at the contributions from all three paths (prior to a fit) in both k and R space. Artemis used to make this very easy (sum paths without fitting), but I don't recall how to do this in the latest version. --Matt
participants (2)
-
Eugenio Paris
-
Matt Newville