Hi Frank,

This is an interesting point, and also relates to the knee-jerk
reactions to e.g. Rmerge > 100%. Certainly for the sqrt(1/(n-1)) term
the assumption is that the meaurements come from the same underlying
population so that increasing the number of observations should increase
the accuracy of the mean value. Your example of merging data in the
wrong symmetry would contradict this.

One thing though - although it may increase the accuracy, I guess it may
not necessarily increase the rightness (for want of a better word) of
the mean, as any tiny systematic error will begin to dominate the
results. The correct way to handle this may be to confirm that the
measurements still conform to the Wilson distribution... But there are
almosty certainly better qualified people to comment.

Anyway, as I said this also relates to Rmerge. Despite the well
documented limitations of this statistic it is certainly one which
people look at. I have processed data with comical levels of
multiplicity where the measurements at high resolution are probably good
- but they have an Rmerge > 100% because the individual measurements are
pretty poor, and Rmerge is proportional (ish) to 0.8/(i/sigma) where the
i/sigma is for the individual reflections. [straightforward to calculate
and stated in the paper mentioned below]. People are often unhappy with
this.

So one statistic in isolation is never helpful... And no amount of
weighting will get you out of the hole.

Cheers,

Graeme


-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank von Delft
Sent: 07 December 2008 22:16
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] R pim and Rmeans

Hi Manfred

I've been using and thinking Rmeas ever since I first saw it; but
(embarrassingly) I've only just woken up to Rpim -- so thanks for the
prompt. So I trawled the original references (Weiss and Hilgenfeld,
1997) to find out why it has the form it does, but I must have skimmed
too quickly, because I couldn't find the explanation.

Rpim, as I understand it, is trying to do two things (See Eq 3 in link
below):
1) penalise me for bad data
2) reward me for high redundancy

But why that *particular* balance of redundancy vs badness? And how do
we know that it was the best one?

And is this really waterproof? Since the redundancy factor (1/(N-1))
tends to zero for large N, does it not dominate for large redundancy? 
For instance, for terrible data (e.g. wrong symmetry) but very high
redundancy, then Rpim will still tend to zero, won't it?

So to counteract that, N might be downweighted it turn by the data
badness. Which could in its turn again be.... I don't think I like where
this is going :)

Cheers
phx.








Manfred S. Weiss wrote:
> Dear Deb,
>
> R_meas or R_rim is a merging R-factor which is independent of the 
> redundancy or multiplicity of the data (hence its name), R_pim stands 
> for precision indicating merging R-factor. R_pim gives you the 
> precision of the averaged measurement, which is the one you are 
> actually using for structure solution and refinement.
>
> SCALA will calculate both R_rim (R_meas) and R_pim, XDS/XSCALE will 
> calculate R_rim (R_meas) only, and SCALEPACK neither of the two. 
> However, you may produce a file from SCALEPACK with scaled but 
> unmerged intensities (option NO MERGE ORIGINAL INDEX) and then 
> download a program from my site called RMERGE or RMERGE_4LINUX, which 
> will do the job for you.
>
> If you have further questions, please see the page 
> http://www.embl-hamburg.de/~msweiss/projects/msw_qual.html
> or ask me.
>
> Cheers, Manfred
>
> ********************************************************************
> *                                                                  *
> *                    Dr. Manfred S. Weiss                          *
> *                                                                  *
> *                         Team Leader                              *
> *                                                                  *
> * EMBL Hamburg Outstation                    Fon: +49-40-89902-170 *
> * c/o DESY, Notkestr. 85                     Fax: +49-40-89902-149 *
> * D-22603 Hamburg                   Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
> * GERMANY                       Web: www.embl-hamburg.de/~msweiss/ *
> *                                                                  *
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Debajyoti Dutta wrote:
>
>   
>>   
>>     
> Dear members,
>
> I have a little query hare about Rpim and Rmeans. How these are used
to mark data quality, and how can one calculate it.
>
> Thak you for your reply in advance.
>
> Sincerely
> Deb
>   

Reply via email to