I am a big fan of the RvR statistic (http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2006/01/00/ba5089/index.html) This statistic is very usefull when a model is available.
When no model is present, the L test is nice as well and is relatively robust in the presence of pseudo centring. P 2007/10/31, Eleanor Dodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The cumulative intensity depends on correctly estimating weak > reflections, so it is a bit vulnerable to the integration procedures. > > I prefer the 4th moment of E - 2nd moment of I. Providing there is no > pseudo-translation they are pretty reliable indicators of twinning > Eleanor > > Bryan W. Lepore wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Iain Kerr wrote: > >> The cumulative intensity distribution plot from crystal A did suggest > >> partial twinning (attached, doesn't look too bad though..) > > > > notwithstanding other plots/statistics, does the cum. intens. dist. > > plot (e.g. from truncate) really show a continuum from untwinned to > > twinned? > > > > i.e, if the plots are 'overlapped in the middle', no question - > > twinned. but, if the plots are 'a little off, but not in the middle' > > can this result (alone) really mean the data is - as we want to say - > > partially twinned? i.e. is the plot robust only for the detection of > > perfect twinning? > > > > -bryan > > > > >
