Hi Ed
Yes, Rfree: my favourite topic, I'll take this one on! First off, we all
need to be ultra-careful and precise about the terminology here, for fear
of creating even more confusion. For example what on earth is meant by
"reflections ... are uncorrelated"? A reflection can be regarded as a
object that possesses a set of attributes (indices, d spacing, setting
angles, position on detector, LP correction, intensity, amplitude, phase,
errors in those, etc. etc.). An object as such is not associated with any
kind of value (it is rather an instance of a class of objects possessing
the same set of attributes but with different values for those attributes),
so it's totally meaningless to talk about the correlation, or lack thereof,
of two sets of objects (what's the correlation of a bag of apples and a bag
of oranges?). You can only talk about the correlation of the values of the
objects' attributes (e.g. the apples' and oranges' size or weight).
Perhaps you'll say that it was clear from the context that you meant the
correlation of the reflection's measured intensities (or amplitudes). If
that is what you meant then you would be wrong! The fact that it's not
about NCS-related intensities or amplitudes does rather throw a spanner in
the works of those who claim that's it's the correlation of these
quantities that obliges one to choose the test set in a certain way.
Before I say why, I would also point out that R factors are not the
quantities minimised in refinement: for one thing the conventional Rwork
and Rfree are unweighted so all reflections whether poorly or well-measured
contribute equally, which makes no sense. In ML refinement it's the
negative log-likelihood gain (-LLG) that's minimised so that is the
quantity you should be using. This means that one cannot expect Rwork to
be a minimum at convergence since it's not directly related to LLGwork. In
addition one has no idea what is the confidence interval of an R factor so
it's impossible to say whether a given decrease in R is significant or
not. So R factors are entirely unsuited for any kind of quantitative
analysis of model errors, and I despair when I read papers that do just
that. The R factor was devised in the 50's before calculators or computers
became readily available and crystallographic computations were performed
with pencil & paper! So the form of the R factor, i.e. using an unweighted
absolute value instead of a weighted square as would have been appropriate
for least squares refinement, was specifically designed as a
rough-and-ready guide of refinement progress, not a quantitative measure.
To see why it's not about intensities or amplitudes, it's important to
understand the purpose and operation of cross-validation (a.k.a.
'jack-knife test') with a test set set aside for this purpose and using a
statistic such as LLGfree (or Rfree if you must), in order to quantify the
agreement of the model with the test set. In any scientific experiment the
measuring apparatus is never perfect so never reports the true values of
the quantities being measured: measurement errors are an inevitable fact of
life. Cross-validation flags up the impact of these errors on the model
that is used to explain the measurements by some process of best-fitting to
them. Note that by 'model' I mean the mathematical model, i.e. in this
case the structure-factor equation that relates the atomic model to the
measurements. The adjustments in the model's variable parameters (x, y, z,
B etc.) during refinement may give a closer fit between the true and
calculated amplitudes in which case both -LLGwork and -LLGfree will both
decrease (as indicated above Rwork and Rfree may go up or down
unpredictably).
Unfortunately we have only the measured amplitudes, not the true ones, so
in this process of fitting one may go too far and fit to the measurement
errors ('overfitting'), which will obviously introduce errors in the
model. If one only considers the refinement target function (LLG) or
Rwork, it will always appear that the model is improving even when it isn't
(i.e. agreeing better with the measured values but not necessarily with the
true values due to the errors in the measured values). This generally
happens because in the attempt to extract more detail in the model from the
data one has set up a model with more variables (or fewer/too loose
restraints) than the data can support.
Since the changes in the model on overfitting will not be related to
changes required to obtain the true model values but to completely
arbitrary random numbers unrelated to the truth, and provided the
measurement errors in the test set are uncorrelated with those in the
working set, the test-set statistic will most likely go on its own sweet
way (i.e. up) indicating overfitting. If for any reason the measurement
errors of working and test-set reflections are correlated, then the
test-set statistic will be biased towards the working-set value and so will
not be a reliable diagnostic of overfitting. Note that the overfitting
fate is decided at the point where we choose the starting set of parameters
and restraints, though it doesn't become apparent until after the
subsequent refinement run has completed. Then one should redesign the
model with fewer variables and/or more/tighter restraints, and repeat the
last run, rather than proceed further with the faulty model. If
overfitting is diagnosed by the cross-validation test, try something else!
So there you have it: what matters is that the _errors_ in the NCS-related
amplitudes are uncorrelated, or at least no more correlated than the errors
in the non-NCS-related amplitudes, NOT the amplitudes themselves. This is
like when talking about the standard deviation of a quantity, do you mean
the quantity itself (e.g. the electron density in the map), or the _error_
in that quantity (the practice of calling the latter the 'standard
deviation in the error' or 'standard error' to avoid this confusion is to
be commended).
Finally let's examine this: are the _errors_ in the NCS-related amplitudes
expected to be more correlated than errors of non-NCS-related amplitudes,
giving test-set statistic bias if the NCS-related working-set reflection is
selected to be in the test-set. as opposed to having both in the same set?
Clearly counting errors are totally random and uncorrelated with anything
so they will contribute zero correlation to both NCS and non-NCS-related
errors in amplitudes. What other sources of measurement error are there?
- most likely errors in image scale factors, errors due to variability in
the illuminated volume of the crystal and errors due to radiation damage.
Is there any reason to believe that any of these effects could introduce
more correlation of errors of NCS-related intensities compared with
non-NCS-related? I would suggest that this could happen only by a complete
fluke!
Cheers
-- Ian
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 04:34, Edward A. Berry <ber...@upstate.edu> wrote:
> Revisiting (and testing) an old question:
>
> On 08/12/2003 02:38 PM, wgsc...@chemistry.ucsc.edu wrote:
> > *** For details on how to be removed from this list visit the ***
> > *** CCP4 home page http://www.ccp4.ac.uk ***
>
> > On 08/12/2003 06:43 AM, Dirk Kostrewa wrote:
> >>
> >> (1) you only need to take special care for choosing a test set if you
> _apply_
> >> the NCS in your refinement, either as restraints or as constraints. If
> you
> >> refine your NCS protomers without any NCS restraints/constraints, both
> your
> >> protomers and your reflections will be independent, and thus no special
> care
> >> for choosing a test set has to be taken
> >
> > If your space group is P6 with only one molecule in the asymmetric unit
> but you instead choose the subgroup P3 in which to refine it, and you now
> have two molecules per asymmetric unit related by "local" symmetry to one
> another, but you don't apply it, does that mean that reflections that are
> the same (by symmetry) in P6 are uncorrelated in P3 unless you apply the
> "NCS"?
>
> ===================================================
> The experiment described below seems to show that Dirk's initial
> statement was correct: even in the case where the "ncs" is actually
> crystallographic, and the free set is chosen randomly, R-free is not
> affected by how you pick the free set. A structure is refined with
> artificially low symmetry, so that a 2-fold crystallographic operator
> becomes "NCS". Free reflections are picked either randomly (in which
> case the great majority of free reflections are related by the NCS to
> working reflections), or taking the lattice symmetry into account so
> that symm-related pairs are either both free or both working. The final
> R-factors are not significantly different, even with repeating each mode
> 10 times with independently selected free sets. They are also not
> significantly different from the values obtained refining in the correct
> space group, where there is no ncs.
>
> Maybe this is not really surprising. Since symmetry-related reflections
> have the same resolution, picking free reflections this way is one way
> of picking them in (very) thin shells, and this has been reported not to
> avoid bias: See Table 2 of Kleywegt and Brunger Structure 1996, Vol 4,
> 897-904. Also results of Chapman et al.(Acta Cryst. D62, 227–238). And see:
> http://www.phenix-online.org/pipermail/phenixbb/2012-January/018259.html
>
> But this is more significant: in cases of lattice symmetry like this,
> the ncs takes working reflections directly onto free reflections. In the
> case of true ncs the operator takes the reflection to a point between
> neighboring reflections, which are closely coupled to that point by the
> Rossmann G function. Some of these neighbors are outside the thin shell
> (if the original reflection was inside; or vice versa), and thus defeat
> the thin-shells strategy. In our case the symm-related free reflection
> is directly coupled to the working reflection by the ncs operator, and
> its neighbors are no closer than the neighbors of the original
> reflection, so if there is bias due to NCS it should be principally
> through the sym-related reflection and not through its neighbors. And so
> most of the bias should be eliminated by picking the free set in thin
> shells or by lattice symmetry.
>
> Also, since the "ncs" is really crystallographic, we have the control of
> refining in the correct space group where there is no ncs. The R-factors
> were not significantly different when the structure was refined in the
> correct space group. (Although it could be argued that that leads to a
> better structure, and the only reason the R-factors were the same is
> that bias in the lower symmetry refinement resulted in lowering Rfree
> to the same level.)
>
> Just one example, but it is the first I tried- no cherry-picking. I
> would be interested to know if anyone has an example where taking
> lattice symmetry into account did make a difference.
>
> For me the lack of effect is most simply explained by saying that, while
> of course ncs-related reflections are correlated in their Fo's and Fc's,
> and perhaps in in their |Fo-Fc|'s, I see no reason to expect that the
> _changes_ in |Fo-Fc| produced by a step of refinement will be correlated
> (I can expound on this). Therefore whatever refinement is doing to
> improve the fit to working reflections is equally likely to improve or
> worsen the fit to sym-related free reflections. In that case it is hard
> to see how refinement against working reflections could bias their
> symm-related free reflections. (Then how does R-free work? Why does
> R-free come down at all when you refine? Because of coupling to
> neighboring working reflections by the G-function?)
>
> Summary of results (details below):
> 0. structure 2CHR, I422, as reported in PDB, with 2-Sigma cutoff)
> R: 0.189 Rfree: 0.264 Nfree:442(5%) Nrefl: 9087
>
> 1. The deposited 2chr (I422) was refined in that space group with the
> original free set. No Sigma cutoff, 10 macrocycles.
> R: 0.1767 Rfree: 0.2403 Nfree:442(5%) Nrefl: 9087
>
> 2. The deposited structure was refined in I422 10 times, 50 macrocycles
> each, with randomly picked 10% free reflections
> R: 0.1725±0.0013 Rfree: 0.2507±0.0062 Nfree: 908.9± Nrefl: 9087
>
> 3. The structure was expanded to an I4 dimer related by the unused I422
> crystallographic operator, matching the dimer of 1chr. This dimer was
> refined against the original (I4) data of 1chr, picking free reflections
> in symmetry related pairs. This was repeated 10 times with different
> random seed for picking reflections.
> R: 0.1666±0.0012 **Rfree:0.2523±0.0077 Nfree: 1601.4 Nrefl:16011
>
> 4. same as 3 but picking free reflections randomly without regard for
> lattice symmetry.
> On average 15 free reflections were in pairs, 212 were invariant under
> the operator (no sym-mate) and 1374 (86%) were paired with working
> reflections.
> R: 0.1674±0.0017 **Rfree:0.2523±0.0050 Nfree: 1600.9 Nrefl:16011
>
> (**-Average Rfree almost identical by coincidence- the individual
> results were all different)
>
> Detailed results from the individual refinement runs are available in
> spreadsheet in dropbox:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwk6q90xbc5r8n1/NCSbias.xls?dl=0
> Scripts used in running the tests are also there in NCSbias.tgz:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/sul7a6hzd5krppw/NCSbias.tgz?dl=0
>
> ========================================
>
> Methods:
> I would like an experiment where relatively complete data is available
> in the lower symmetry. To get something that is available to everyone, I
> choose from the PDB. A good example is 2CHR, in space group I422, which
> was originally solved and the data deposited in I4 with two molecules in
> the asymmetric unit(structure 1CHR).
>
> 2CHR statistics from the PDB:
> R R-free complete (Refined 8.0 to 3.0 A
> 0.189 0.264 81.4 reported in PDB, with 2-Sig cutoff)
> Nfree=442 (4.86%)
> Further refinement in phenix with same free set, no sigma cutoff:
> 10 macrocycles bss, indiv XYZ, indiv ADP refinement; phenix default
> Resol 37.12 - 3.00 A 92.95% complete, Nrefl=9087 Nfree=442(4.86%)
> Start: r_work = 0.2097 r_free = 0.2503 bonds = 0.008 angles = 1.428
> Final: r_work = 0.1787 r_free = 0.2403 bonds = 0.011 angles = 1.284
> (2chr_orig_001.pdb,
>
> The number of free reflections is small, so the uncertainty
> in Rfree is large (a good case for Rcomplete)
> Instead for better statistics, use new 10% free set and repeat 10 times;
> 50 macrocycles, with different random seeds:
> R: 0.1725±0.0013 Rfree: 0.2507±0.0062 bonds:0.010 Angles:1.192
> Nfree: 908.9±0.32 Nrefl: 9087
>
> For artificially low symmetry, expand the I422 structure (making what I
> call 3chr for convenience although I'm sure that ID has been taken):
>
> pdbset xyzin 2CHR.pdb xyzout 3chr.pdb <<eof
> exclude header
> spacegroup I4
> cell 111.890 111.890 148.490 90.00 90.00 90.00
> symgen X,Y,Z
> symgen X,1-Y,1-Z
> CHAIN SYMMETRY 2 A B
> eof
>
> Get the structure factors from 1CHR: 1chr-sf.cif
> Run phenix.refine on 3chr.pdb with 1chr-sf.cif.
> This file has no free set (deposited 1993) so tell phenix to generate
> one. I don't want phenix to protect me from my own stupidity, so I use:
> generate = True
> use_lattice_symmetry = False
> use_dataman_shells = False
> (the .eff file with all non-default parameters is available as
> 3chr_rand_001.eff in the .tgz mentioned above)
>
> For more significance, use the script multirefine.csh to repeat the
> refinement 10 times with different random seed.After each run, grep
> significant results into a log file.
>
>
> To check this gives free reflections related to working reflections, I
> used mtz2various and a fortran prog (sortfree.f in .tgz) to separate the
> data (3chr_rand_data.mtz) into two asymmetric units: h,k,l with h>k
> (columns 4-5) and with h<k (col 6-7), listed the pairs, thusly:
>
> mtz2various hklin 3chr_rand_data.mtz hklout temp.hkl <<eof
> LABIN FP=F-obs DUM1=R-free-flags
> OUTPUT USER '(3I4,2F10.5)'
> eof
> sortfree <<eof >sort3.hkl
>
> sort3.hkl looks like:
> ______h>k______ ______h<k______
> h k l F free F* free*
> 1 2 3 208.97 0.00 174.95 0.00
> 1 2 5 226.85 0.00 191.65 0.00
> 1 2 7 144.85 0.00 164.86 0.00
> 1 2 9 251.26 0.00 261.71 0.00
> 1 2 11 333.84 0.00 335.18 0.00
> 1 2 13 800.37 0.00 791.77 0.00
> 1 2 15 412.92 0.00 409.90 0.00
> 1 2 17 306.99 0.00 317.53 0.00
> 1 2 19 225.54 0.00 220.91 0.00
> 1 2 21 101.20 1.00* 104.84 0.00
> 1 2 23 156.27 0.00 156.49 0.00
> 1 2 25 202.97 0.00 202.23 0.00
> 1 2 27 216.10 0.00 219.28 0.00
> 1 2 29 106.76 0.00 100.93 0.00
> 1 2 31 157.32 0.00 154.37 1.00*
> 1 2 33 71.84 0.00 20.78 0.00
> 1 2 35 179.05 0.00 165.67 0.00
> 1 2 37 254.04 0.00 239.96 1.00*
> 1 2 39 69.56 0.00 30.61 0.00
> 1 2 41 56.20 0.00 51.02 0.00
>
> , and awked for 1 in the free columns. Out of 6922 pairs of reflections,
> in one case:
> 674 in the first asu (h>k) are in the free set,
> 703 in the second asu (h<k) are in the free set
> only 11 pairs have the reflections in both asu free.
>
> out of 16011 refl in I4,
> 6922 pairs (=13844 refl), 1049 invariant (h=k or h=0), 1118 with absent
> mate.
>
> out of 1601 free reflections:
> On average 15 free reflections were in pairs, 212 were invariant under
> the operator (no sym-mate) and 1374 (86%) were paired with working
> reflections.
>
> Then do 10 more runs of 50 macrocycles with:
> use_lattice_symmetry = False
> collecting the same statistics
> (also scripted in multirefine.csh)
>
> Finally, use ref2chr.eff to refine (as previously mentined) a monomer in
> I422 (2chr.pdb) 10 times with 10% free, 50 macrocycles
> (also scripted in multirefine.csh)
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
