Hello,
In what case smoothing of the data is OK? My data have a lot of noise and
smoothing really helps (visually). I compared fit done in Artemis for
smoothed and non-smoothed data sets and the result is very similar, however
when I searched about it online, it looks like it is not recommended.
What is a good way to justify it?
Thank you!
-Daria
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20200122/f5449543/attachment-0001.html>
--
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 20
I agree with all of the comments. If I take data using step scans, then I
never smooth. However, in continuous scan mode where the data is
oversampled, a boxcar average in the EXAFS region is OK. The alternative
is that the fitting software interpolates using an algorithm which
Not only can smoothing XANES data attenuate sharp features, it can also shift
them, since many XANES features, particularly in the “pre-edge” region, are
significantly asymmetric about their peak. That can make analysis quite
confusing, since, e.g., the size of the boxcar ends up affecting the
At this juncture, I'd like to bring up a "rule" I've made for myself regarding
data quality and smoothing: I'd rather walk away from a beam run with one good
spectrum than a hundred poor ones.
Meaning, for me anyway, if the data aren't smooth enough on their own, I'd
rather spend more precious
Hi Daria:
I smooth (or boxcar average) the data which it is oversampled, such as in
a continuous scan where the data in the exafs region is spaced closer than
the usual delta k of 0.05.
I generally don't like to smooth XANES data since smoothing does tend to
attenuate sharp features such
I entirely agree with Mike and Scott.
I never smooth data because it is a slippery slope to start on! How much should
you smooth? Should you only smooth data if it looks "bad"? What does "bad data"
look like anyway?
If the only point of smoothing is to improve the visual look of data, then you
