[Ifeffit] Ifeffit Digest, Vol 153, Issue 30

Christopher Thomas Chantler chantler at unimelb.edu.au
Mon Nov 16 14:04:23 CST 2015

With Ifeffit-like, you can test these assumptions with an explicit chi^2_r, and indeed the answer does and must depend upon your actual individual error bars. The other factor here is how correlated your choice of parameters are which of course reaches that limit much faster.

Christopher Chantler, Professor, FAIP
Editor-in-Chief, Radiation Physics and Chemistry
Chair, International IUCr Commission on XAFS
President, International Radiation Physics Society
School of Physics, University of Melbourne
Parkville Victoria 3010 Australia
+61-3-83445437 FAX +61-3-93474783
chantler at unimelb.edu.au chantler at me.com

From: ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [ifeffit-bounces at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] on behalf of ifeffit-request at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [ifeffit-request at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2015 5:00 AM
To: ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 153, Issue 30

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

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

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ifeffit-owner at 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: Problem with Perl interpreter (Bruce Ravel)
   2. Re: Hello (Matt Newville)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:48:54 -0500
From: Bruce Ravel <bravel at bnl.gov>
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit <ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Problem with Perl interpreter
Message-ID: <5649D0B6.3050108 at bnl.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

On 11/16/2015 02:53 AM, Wojciech Olszewski wrote:
> The timeline of this problem was as follows:
> 1) Demeter was working fine;
> 2) One day I couldn't run any of the Demeter software - error message "Per interpreter has stopped working;
> 3) Reinstallation of Demether - the problem is still there;
> 4) Installation of perl (in other folder, not the same as Demeter) - the problem is still there;
> 5) Mail to mailing list;
> 6) Deinstallation of Demether and Perl;
> 7) Installation of Demeter.
> Unfortunately the problem is still there. I receive the same error message.


Step 2 really suggests that this is a problem local to your computer.
In recent weeks, there have been a few reports of anti-virus software
blocking some component of perl or Demeter.

In the time period between steps 1 and 2, was AV updated on this
computer?  Could you disable AV (as a test of course)?  Or configure AV
to explicitly allow Demeter to run?


  Bruce Ravel  ------------------------------------ bravel at bnl.gov

  National Institute of Standards and Technology
  Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II
  Building 535A
  Upton NY, 11973

  Homepage:    http://bruceravel.github.io/home/
  Software:    https://github.com/bruceravel
  Demeter:     http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/


Message: 2
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:18:56 -0600
From: Matt Newville <newville at cars.uchicago.edu>
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit <ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] Hello
        <CA+7ESbrzTzUkpPHj0CFZ6HErN5Hp_jMHJynJa0rUZ+XSM3dqPA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Riti,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Ritimukta Sarangi <ritimukta at gmail.com>

> Hi Bruce and Matt,
> Are there any obvious examples of where Sterns criteria is shown to be
> incorrect? Meaning that 2delkdelR/pi +2 has been shown to over predict the
> number of available independent parameters? I have often been asked this by
> students/users and failed to explain it well, except for taking of talking
> sources or error such as systematic, spline, etc.
> Thanks!
> -Riti
That's an excellent question.   To be honest, I don't think this has been
tested in great detail, with the main issue being "when can you truly tell
that you've used too many parameters".
We typically rely on "when adding a variable doesn't improve reduced
chi-square" as that measure.  But, the definition of reduced chi-square
that we use includes a value for N_idp already, so we're more or less
*imposing* the Stern rule.

I think lots of us have observed cases where the Stern rule is definitely
optimistic.  And that might be understandable because the Stern rule
doesn't include a separate measure of the noise in the data, or what the
distribution of "the effect" of the parameters would be on the signal.
That is, one can always increase the R range to 20 Angstroms, and so
increase N_idp.  But if you're trying to fit 25 variables for the part of
the signal between 1.5 and 2.5 Ang, there is probably going to be very hard
to get good measures of all 25 variables.   The Stern rule sort of doesn't
account for this, except in the sense of giving guidance.

It would be interesting the revisit this with a better statistical
treatments of information.  There are, for example, statistical values like
the Akaike Information criterion (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion) and related
values that might be useful for better understanding when one is using too
many parameters.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20151116/4df23087/attachment.html>


Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit

End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 153, Issue 30

More information about the Ifeffit mailing list