Hi Jatin, The key is that S02 should be the same for all paths. For example: Suppose you are very confident path 1 has a coordination number of 6, because of prior knowledge you have about the system. Paths 2, 3, and 4 have unknown coordination numbers, however. N1 (i.e. the degeneracy of path 1) you set to 6. You guess S02, N2, N3, and N4. Of course, the way Artemis and Ifeffit implement that, you're writing N1*S02 for the S02 field of Path 1, N2*S02 for the S02 field of Path 2, etc., and then setting N1 = 6 and guessing S02, N2, N3, and N4. There is now enough information for S02, N2, N3, and N4 to each be fitted without 100% correlation. —Scott Calvin Sarah Lawrence College

On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal wrote:

Hi Chris,

The term N*S02 is fitted for each path of the FEFF calculation. So my question is, even if we know N with a great certainty for some path, how can we vary both N and S02 for other paths ? or Did I understand it wrong ?

Best regards, Jatin

-----Original Message----- From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Sent: 23 March, 2015 12:16 To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 145, Issue 42

Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Breaking down correlationships between parameters (Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal) 2. Re: Breaking down correlationships between parameters (Chris Patridge)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:00:19 +0000 From: "Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal" To: "ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov" Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Breaking down correlationships between parameters Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Scott,

Thank you for your comments. Can you please elaborate a little bit more on this "In cases like that, both N for all paths but one and S02 can be fit without 100% correlation."

Best regards, Jatin

-----Original Message----- From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Sent: 23 March, 2015 10:16 To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 145, Issue 41

Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

You can reach the person managing the list at ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Breaking down correlationships between parameters (Scott Calvin) 2. Re: Breaking down correlationships between parameters (Matt Newville) 3. Re: Breaking down correlationships between parameters (Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:44:28 -0400 From: Scott Calvin To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Breaking down correlationships between parameters Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

One side-comment from me:

On Mar 22, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Matt Newville mailto:newville@cars.uchicago.edu> wrote:

N and S02 are always 100% correlated (mathematically, not merely by the finite k range).

Matt is saying that N and S02 are always 100% correlated for a single path. But in some situations you might know N for one path but not others. For example, you might know that the absorbing atom is octahedrally coordinated to oxygen but not be as certain as to next-nearest neighbors, or that there are copper atoms on the corners of a simple cubic lattice with a mixture of atoms at other positions. In cases like that, both N for all paths but one and S02 can be fit without 100% correlation.

The degeneracy of multiple-scattering paths can often be constrained in terms of the coordination numbers for direct-scattering paths, which can further reduce (not ?break?) the correlation.

In terms of the main question, I agree with Matt: I don?t think there?s much point in using the line-crossing technique nowadays; fitting using multiple k-weights simultaneously accomplishes the same thing but is a bit easier to interpret statistically.

?Scott Calvin Sarah Lawrence College