Hi Cameron, Larch implements and exposes the FLUO algorithm for correcting overabsorption in XANES and mu(E). But it doesn't have the EXAFS-facing over-absorption corrections (as list at https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/documents/At... ) I have not looked at this in detail, but I believe that the Booth and "Atoms" (Ravel?) algorithms were reasonably robust and easy to implement (like, tens of lines of code, although I think maybe Booth had a "thin film limit" that was a bit trickier). These should not be too hard to add. But maybe this is a good chance for someone to revisit all of those algorithms and help decide which to implement. I am fine with adding multiple choices, but too many choices and no guidance on which to use might not be the best solution ;). I believe that all the algorithms assume a single pair of angles (in and out), whereas the Trevorah work that Chris referenced allows for different angles to each of a multi-element detector. I think that would be fine to have - lots of EXAFS is measured with multi-element detectors. I don't know very many people (including me) who have good measurements of those angles for each detector element, but maybe that should be encouraged ;). On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 7:31 AM cameron.mollazadeh--- via Ifeffit < ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov> wrote:

Hi Matthew,

I was re-reading the larch documentation as my data is suffering for over absorption and was wondering how I can go about implementing the correction factor. I am primarily using the data for EXAFS analysis and was also wondering if this technique is still questionable for EXAFS.

Thank you! Cameron ifeffit mailing list: https://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman3/lists/ifeffit.millenia.cars.aps.a... to unsubscribe, send mail to ifeffit-leave@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

-- --Matt Newville <newville at cars.uchicago.edu> 630-327-7411