[Ifeffit] normalization methods

Wed May 15 13:52:36 CDT 2013

Hi Matthew,

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Matthew Marcus <mamarcus at lbl.gov> wrote:

> You say that the flipping difference (p - n) is 0 in pre-edge and far
> post-edge regions, which is as it should be, but then say that the
> slopes of p- and n- post-edges, considered separately, are different.  I
> must be misunderstanding because those two statements would seem to be
> inconsistent.

Sorry, I think my wording wasn't particularly clear here. What I should
have said is:

"The goal then is to subtract the *normalized* XAS measured in a positive
field (p-XAS) from *normalized* XAS measured in a negative field (n-XAS)
and get something (the XMCD) that is zero in the pre-edge and post-edge
regions. *However, standard normalization does not give this result*"

Italics indicate new text.

> I wonder if the sensitivity of the TEY changes with magnetic field because
> of the effect of the field on the trajectories of
> the outgoing electrons, which would explain the differing curves.

I would agree, I think the effect of the magnetic field on the electrons is
the likely source of the differences in background.

> A possibility - if you divide the p-XAS by n-XAS, do you get something
> which is a smooth curve everywhere but where MCD is expected?  Does that
> curve match in pre- and far post-edge regions?

No, after division of the p-XAS by the n-XAS (before any normalization),
both the pre and post-edge regions are smooth, but one would need a
step-like function to connect them. I've attached a plot showing the result
of division.

If that miracle occurs,
> then perhaps you could fit that to a polynomial, except in the MCD region,
> then divide the p-XAS by that polynomial, to remove the effect of
> the differing sensitivities.
>
> There are people here at ALS, such as Elke Arenholz <earenholz at lbl.gov>,
> who do this sort of spectroscopy.  I suggest asking her.
>         mam

Thanks for the suggestion and your reply.

George

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 5/15/2013 9:58 AM, George Sterbinsky wrote:
>>
>>> The question of whether it is appropriate to use flattened data for
>>> quantitative analysis is something I've been thinking about a lot recently.
>>> In my specific case, I am analyzing XMCD data at the Co L-edge. To obtain
>>> the XMCD, I measure XAS with total electron yield detection using a ~70%
>>> left or right circularly polarized beam and flip the magnetic field on the
>>> sample at every data point. The goal then, is to subtract the XAS measured
>>> in a positive field (p-XAS) from XAS measured in a negative field (n-XAS)
>>> and get something (the XMCD) that is zero in the pre-edge and post-edge
>>> regions. I often find that after removal of a linear pre-edge, the spectra
>>> still have a linearly increasing post edge (with EXAFS oscillations
>>> superimposed on it), and the slope of the n-XAS and p-XAS post-edge lines
>>> are different. In this case simply multiplying the n-XAS and p-XAS by
>>> constants will never give an XMCD spectrum that is zero in the post edge
>>> region. There is then some component of the
>>>
>> XAS background that is not accounted for by linear subtraction and
>>> multiplication by a constant. It seems to me that flattening could be a
>>> good way to account for such a background. So is flattening a reasonable
>>> thing to do in a case such as this, or is there a better way to account for
>>> such a background?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> George
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Matthew Marcus <mamarcus at lbl.gov<mailto:
>>> mamarcus at lbl.gov>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     The way I commonly do pre-edge is to fit with some form plus a
>>> power-law singularity representing the initial rise of the edge, then
>>>     subtract out that "some form".  Now, that form can be either linear,
>>> linear+E^(-2.7) (for transmission), or linear+ another power-law
>>>     singularity centered at the center passband energy of the
>>> fluorescence detector.  That latter is for fluorescence data which is
>>> affected by
>>>     the tail of the elastic/Compton peak from the incident energy.
>>>  Whichever form is taken gets subtraccted from the whole data range,
>>> resulting
>>>     in data which is pre-edge-subtracted but not yet post-edge
>>> normalized.  The path then splits; for EXAFS, the usual conversion to
>>> k-space, spline
>>>     fitting in the post-edge, subtraction and division is done, all
>>> interactively.  Tensioned spline is also available due to request of a
>>> prominent user.
>>>     For XANES, the post-edge is fit as previously described.  Thus,
>>> there's no distinction made between data above and below E0 in XANES,
>>> whereas
>>>     there is such a distinction in EXAFS.
>>>              mam
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 5/15/2013 8:25 AM, Matt Newville wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>>         On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Matthew Marcus <
>>> mamarcus at lbl.gov <mailto:mamarcus at lbl.gov>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             What I typically do for XANES is divide mu-mu_pre_edge_line
>>> by a linear
>>>             function which goes through the post-edge oscillations.
>>>             This division goes over the whole data range, including
>>> pre-edge.  If the
>>>             data has obvious curvature in the post-edge, I'll use a
>>> higher-order
>>>             polynomial.  For transmission data, what sometimes
>>> linearizes the background
>>>             is to change the abscissa to 1/E^2.7 (the rule-of-thumb
>>> absorption
>>>             shape) and change it back afterward.  All this is, of
>>> course, highly
>>>             subjective and one of the reasons for taking extended XANES
>>> data (300eV,
>>>             for instance).  For short-range XANES, there isn't enough
>>> info to do more
>>>             than divide by a constant.  Once this is done, my LCF
>>> programs allow
>>>             a slope adjustment as a free parameter, thus muNorm(E) =
>>>             (1+a*(E-E0))*Sum_on_ref{x[ref]**__*muNorm[ref](E)}.  A sign
>>> that this degree of
>>>
>>>             freedom
>>>             may be being abused is if the sum of the x[ref] is far from
>>> 1 or if
>>>             a*(Emax-E0) is large.  Don't get me started on
>>> overabsorption :-)
>>>                       mam
>>>
>>>
>>>         Thanks -- I should have said that pre_edge() can now do a
>>>         victoreen-ish fit, regressing a line to mu*E^nvict (nvict can be
>>> any
>>>         real value).
>>>
>>>         Still, it seems that the current flattening is somewhere between
>>>         "better" and "worse", which is unsettling...  Applying the
>>>         "flattening" polynomial to the pre-edge range definitely seems
>>> to give
>>>         poor results, but maybe some energy-dependent compromise is
>>> possible.
>>>
>>>         And, of course, over-absorption is next on the list!
>>>
>>>         --Matt
>>>         ______________________________**___________________
>>>         Ifeffit mailing list
>>>         Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.**__gov <mailto:
>>> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.**aps.anl.gov <Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>>
>>>         http://millenia.cars.aps.anl._**_gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit <
>>> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit<http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit>
>>> >
>>>
>>>     ______________________________**___________________
>>>     Ifeffit mailing list
>>>     Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.**__gov <mailto:Ifeffit at millenia.cars.
>>> **aps.anl.gov <Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>>
>>>     http://millenia.cars.aps.anl._**_gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit <
>>> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit<http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Ifeffit mailing list
>>> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov <Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>
>>> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit<http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit>
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> Ifeffit mailing list
>> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov <Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>
>> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.**gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit<http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20130515/21a65ad3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: XASdivision.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42486 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20130515/21a65ad3/attachment.png>