Hi Ed,

While I don't think French and Wilson argue explicitly for the h>-4.0
requirement in their main manuscript, if you look at the source code
included in the supplementary material for this paper, they include this in
their implementation, which is what I worked from.

Charles, do you happen to know why this was included in the first place,
other than it limits the size of the look-up table?

Jeff


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Ed Pozharski <[email protected]>wrote:

> Dear Kay and Jeff,
>
> frankly, I do not see much justification for any rejection based on
> h-cutoff.
>
> French&Wilson only talk about I/sigI cutoff, which also warrants further
> scrutiny.  It probably could be argued that reflections with I/sigI<-4
> are still more likely to be weak than strong so F~0 seems to make more
> sense than rejection.  The nature of these outliers should probably be
> resolved at the integration stage, but these really aren't that
> numerous.
>
> As for h>-4 requirement, I don't see French&Wilson even arguing for that
> anywhere in the paper.  h variable does not reflect any physical
> quantity that would come with prior expectation of being non-negative
> and while the posterior of the true intensity (for acentric reflections)
> is distributed according to the truncated normal distribution N(sigma*h,
> sigma^2), I don't really see why h<-4 is "bad".
>
> From what I understand, Kay has removed h-cutoff from XDSCONV (or never
> included it in the first place).  Perhaps ctruncate/phenix should change
> too?  Or am I misunderstanding something and there is some rationale for
> h<-4 cutoff?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed.
>
>
> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 06:47 +0100, Kay Diederichs wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > what I did in XDSCONV is to mitigate the numerical difficulties
> associated with low h (called "Score" in XDSCONV output) values, and I
> removed the h < -4 cutoff. The more negative h becomes, the closer to zero
> is the resulting amplitude, so not applying a h cutoff makes sense (to me,
> anyway).
> > XDSCONV still applies the I < -3*sigma cutoff, by default.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Kay
>
> --
> I don't know why the sacrifice thing didn't work.
> Science behind it seemed so solid.
>                                     Julian, King of Lemurs
>

Reply via email to