Dear Crystallographers,

This is more general than crystallography, but has applications therein, 
particularly in understanding fine phi-slicing.

The general question is:

Given one needs to collect data to fit parameters for a known function, and 
given a limited total number of measurements, is it generally better to measure 
a small group of points multiple times or to distribute each individual 
measurement over the measureable extent of the function? I have a strong 
intuition that it is the latter, but all errors being equal, it would seem 
prima facie that both are equivalent. For example, a line (y = mx + b) can be 
fit from two points. One could either measure the line at two points A and B 
five times each for a total of 10 independent measurements, or measure ten 
points evenly-spaced from A to B. Are these equivalent in terms of fitting and 
information content or not? Which is better? Again, conjecture and intuition 
suggest the evenly-spaced experiment is better, but I cannot formulate or prove 
to myself why, yet.

The application of this to crystallography might be another reason that fine 
phi-slicing (0.1 degrees * 3600 frames) is better than coarse (1 degree * 3600 
frames), even though the number of times one measures reflections is tenfold 
higher in the second case (assuming no radiation damage). In the first case, 
one never measures the same phi angle twice, but one does have multiple 
measurements in a sense, i.e., of different parts of the same reflection.

Yes, 3D profile-fitting may be a big reason fine phi-slicing works, but beyond 
that, perhaps this sampling choice plays a role as well. Or maybe the 
profile-fitting works so well precisely because of this diffuse-single type of 
sampling rather than coarse-multiple sampling?

This general math/science concept must have been discussed somewhere--can 
anyone point to where?

JPK

*******************************************
Jacob Pearson Keller, PhD
Looger Lab/HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
email: kell...@janelia.hhmi.org
*******************************************

Reply via email to