[Ifeffit] DWF's for amorphous InP
Bruce Ravel
bravel at anl.gov
Thu Mar 29 09:31:36 CDT 2007
On Thursday 29 March 2007 02:57, Claudia Schnohr wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> I am a PhD student and I have encountered a problem with analysing the
> EXAFS of amorphous InP.
>
> For amorphous InP the first shell around an In atom is comprised of both P
> and In atoms. The In leads to a small peak in the R-spectrum that strongly
> overlaps with the bigger peak due to scattering from P. If I use two
> different Debye-Waller-factors, one for each scatterer, and let them both
> float during the fit I get weird values since the coordination numbers for
> both peaks have to be floated as well. Therefore, some restraint is needed
> for the DWF's.
>
> Is there any correlation between the two DWF's following from theory or
> experiment that I could use to restrain my fitting parameters ?
> Are there other possibilities to handle such a situation ?
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help,
Hi Claudia,
If I understand your explanation, I suspect that the problem is that
your fit has more freedom in its parameters than the data can
support. It is always the case that coordination number and sigma^2
are highly correlated. They are both terms that affect the amplitude
of chi.
I doubt that the solution is somehow to constrain the sigma^2 values.
Without doing some serious theory to figure out how those two values
might be related, I would not know what constraint to apply. What
would be a lot more reasonable would be to constrain the total number
of atoms in the coordination shell. I don't know what kind of crystal
InP forms, but I would assume that the In is either 4- or
6-coordinated with P in the crystal. It seems reasonable to enforce
that coordination in the amorphous material. That is, require that
the sum of In and P atoms in the first coordination shell be 4 (or 6
or whatever).
Make a guess parameter that describes the amount of the In:
set n = 4 # (or 6 or whatever)
guess x_in = 0.1
def x_p = n - x_in
then define you sigma^2 parameters as before:
guess ss_in = 0.003
guess ss_p = 0.003
That reduces the number of parameters in the fit by one, enforces a
physically reasonable constraint on the total number of parameters,
and -- hopefully -- helps to stabilize your fit by removing one of the
highly correlated guess parameters.
As I re-read what I wrote, it occurs to me that another reasonable
constraint might be to require that sigma^2 for the In-P bond be the
same in the amorphous material as in the crystal. Did you measure
crystalline InP as well?
Hope that helps,
B
--
Bruce Ravel ---------------------------------------------- bravel at anl.gov
Molecular Environmental Science Group, Building 203, Room E-165
MRCAT, Sector 10, Advanced Photon Source, Building 433, Room B007
Argonne National Laboratory phone and voice mail: (1) 630 252 5033
Argonne IL 60439, USA fax: (1) 630 252 9793
My homepage: http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~ravel
EXAFS software: http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~ravel/software/exafs/
More information about the Ifeffit
mailing list