[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [sdpd] TOPAS A
Armel,
>Hum. The paper submitted to Z. Kristallogr. is accepted.
>The two referees had not at all the same conception as yours
>about how indexing programs have to be compared.
>So, the paper content is THE TRUTH now... This was not
>decided by any mailing list, you can be happy.
This brings up another question. Are refereed papers being scrutinized
the way they ought to.
But I don't want to talk about that Armel. I want to get back to data
set C1 in the benchmarks and whether any lines were removed in order for
TAUP to be successful in the CRYSFIRE results.
This should interest a scientist as we try to uncover the mysteries of
indexing.
You see I did some tests where I started with the true solution and then
fitted 100s of thousands of fits around the true solution on data set
C1.
If I removed no lines then the best FOM I get is 1.34.
If I do indexing on the data set then I get over 70 other totally
unrelated solutions in the range 800-1200 Angstroms with FOMs better
than 1.34. Many of those solutions contained many impurity lines. Thus
if TAUP got the right solution without removing lines automatically then
it did so by missing many other solutions and it should have retured an
FOM of 1.34.
If I disallow impurities then I equally get many many solutions totally
unrelated with FOMs greater than 1.34.
Thus if TAUP is exhaustive as the manual claims then the only way it
could have produced the right solution is to automatically remove
impurity lines.
Surely Armel as a scientist you should be interested in getting to the
bottom of this anomaly ie. were any lines removed.
all the best
and until I receive a satisfactory answer
alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Armel Le Bail [mailto:alb...@cristal.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 7:14 PM
To: sdpd...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [sdpd] TOPAS A
>So you see Armel I am starting to ask the kind of questions a referee
>would. It may not be a perfect system but lets hope that we never leave
>it up to a mailing list to decide what the TRUTH is.
Hum. The paper submitted to Z. Kristallogr. is accepted.
The two referees had not at all the same conception as yours
about how indexing programs have to be compared.
So, the paper content is THE TRUTH now... This was not
decided by any mailing list, you can be happy.
Armel
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129621tvp/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/
D=groups/S=1705083412:HM/EXP=1096305278/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*htt
p://companion.yahoo.com> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=group
s/S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=316325077>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdpd/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sdpd-unsubscribe...@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:sdpd-unsubscribe...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdpd/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sdpd-unsubscribe...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/