10. Indexing¶
Refinement starts from a cell. Indexing produces one — from nothing but a list of line positions — and the chapter’s organising fact is how little information that list contains: a powder pattern carries the length of each reciprocal-lattice vector and nothing about its direction. Everything below follows from that, including the two places where the honest answer is a refusal.
10.1. The quadratic form¶
With \((h,k,l)\) assigned to a line, the measured quantity is
Source: rietx.crystallography.lattice.inv_d_squared
where the six coefficients are the reciprocal metric tensor’s components
Source: rietx.indexing.qspace.design_matrix
\(Q\) is linear in \((A \ldots F)\) [ACMR19], and that is load-bearing three times over: fitting a cell to assigned lines is a weighted linear least-squares problem; a trial-and-error engine solving for \(n\) metric parameters from \(n\) base lines is an exact \(n \times n\) solve; and a dichotomy engine’s bounds on \(Q\) over a box of cell parameters are attained at box corners, so the search runs in \((A \ldots F)\). Neither \(d\) nor \(2\theta\) is linear in the metric — which is why indexing works in \(Q\) and reports in \(Q\), converting to a cell only at the end.
Positions and their esds enter as \(Q\) and \(\sigma(Q)\), propagated by the exact derivative
Source: rietx.schemas.indexing.q_esd_of_two_theta
whose constant is worth reading twice: differentiating \(Q = 4\sin^2\theta / \lambda^2\) with respect to \(2\theta\) in degrees picks up both the \(\theta = (2\theta)/2\) chain and the degree conversion, and applying only one of the two gives \(\pi/180\) — a factor-of-two error that makes every line’s weight four times too confident.
10.2. The symmetry-allowed subspace¶
A crystal system constrains the metric. The allowed \(G^*\) patterns are the invariants of the lattice point group acting as \(A(R)[U] = R\,U\,R^\top\),
Source: rietx.indexing.qspace.metric_basis
which is the same exact-rational nullspace the anisotropic-ADP basis uses one rank down, called with the transposed rotations because the reciprocal-space symmetry action is \(R^\top\). Its dimension is the number of free metric parameters: 1 cubic, 2 tetragonal, 2 hexagonal, 2 trigonal, 3 orthorhombic, 4 monoclinic, 6 triclinic. Deriving rather than tabulating it is what keeps a non-standard setting — rhombohedral axes, a \(b\)-unique monoclinic cell — correct with no case table.
10.3. What a peak list can and cannot support¶
A line count is not a criterion on its own: 5.0 usable lines per free metric parameter means 20 lines is 20-fold over-determined for a cubic cell and 3.3-fold for a triclinic one, so the data-quality report names the systems it can support rather than answering yes or no. Positional precision enters as a resolving power, median \(\sigma(Q)/Q\), above 0.001 at which two cells differing by 0.1 % in a lattice parameter are indistinguishable — the scale at which derivative-lattice ambiguity lives.
10.3.1. Which lines drive the search¶
A search is driven by 20 lines and scored against every usable one. Conograph argues the driven set should be large — 48 rather than the 20–30 its contemporaries used — on the grounds that a missing line costs success while a false line costs only computation, because its enumeration succeeds by a membership condition on the observed \(q\) set and adding elements cannot break one [OT14].
That asymmetry does not transfer here, and the reason is worth stating because it is a property of the acceptance rule rather than of the enumeration. A candidate is accepted only if it indexes all but 2 of the driven lines — an absolute budget, not a membership test — so each foreign line admitted spends that budget, and past it the true cell is refused rather than out-ranked. Enlarging the driven set therefore has a failure mode Conograph’s does not, and measurement bears it out: on a 68-line lab pattern carrying 16 foreign lines, going from 20 driven lines to 32 loses the certified lattice from the candidate list altogether.
What does pay is which lines, not how many. The driven set is taken in order of integrated intensity, with ties broken by \(Q\), so a pattern whose low-angle range opens on background does not spend its whole budget there — on a synchrotron pattern beginning at \(0.76^\circ\ 2\theta\) the twenty lowest-angle components contain six of the true cell’s lines, where the strongest twenty contain eighteen. A list of bare positions carries no measured intensities, so every line ties and the order reduces exactly to ascending \(Q\): an assumed intensity may no more reorder a search than an assumed \(\sigma\) may refuse one.
The rank is applied within the lowest 2\(N\) lines rather than over the whole list, and the reason is cost rather than physics. A branch-and-bound search sizes the trial reflection set it tests each box against by the largest \(Q\) among the driven lines, so letting the rank reach a lab pattern’s high-angle tail enlarges that set for every box in the recursion. The bound recovers about half of what the rank costs, at a few lines of selection quality: unbounded, the same synchrotron list scores twenty of twenty.
A systematic \(2\theta\) shift is the failure mode both indexing benchmarks single out [BLBSZ04]. Three physical causes give three angular dependences — a constant (detector zero point), \(\cos\theta\) (specimen displacement), \(\sin 2\theta\) (specimen transparency) — and they are fitted one at a time, never jointly, because a joint fit of collinear templates returns physically absurd cancelling amplitudes. A cause is named only when the runner-up leaves at least twice as much variance unexplained; otherwise the magnitude is reported and the cause is not. Note what is not in that basis: a \(\tan\theta\) deviation is a cell error, and offering it to a shift screen would let the screen explain a shift by changing the answer indexing is about to produce.
10.3.2. The shift is measurable before the cell is¶
Fitting those templates needs reference positions, and before indexing there is no cell to deviate from. It is tempting to conclude that the shift is therefore unknowable until afterwards; that conclusion is false, and correcting it is what lets a search widen its window by a measurement rather than by an assumption.
Two reflections form a reflection pair when their planes are harmonics of one another, \((h'k'l') = m\,(hkl)\) with \(m\) integer, so that \(d_{hkl} = m\,d_{h'k'l'}\) exactly. Bragg’s law then relates their angles with no reference to the cell, the crystal system or the indices — the relation follows from the lattice being self-consistent, not from which lattice it is:
Source: rietx.indexing.pairs.pair_shift
Writing \(2\theta_B = 2\theta_\mathrm{obs} + 2\theta_z\) for a constant shift and solving [DWC99]:
Source: rietx.indexing.pairs.pair_shift
Each pair is thus one equation in the shift and none in the cell. Substituting a general \(2\theta_B = 2\theta_\mathrm{obs} - c\,T(2\theta_\mathrm{obs})\) instead of a constant leaves a scalar equation in the amplitude \(c\) of any of the three templates, solved by Newton.
Two cautions govern how the result may be read. Real harmonic pairs agree on \(c\) while accidental ones — any two lines whose sine ratio happens to fall near an integer — scatter, so a shift is reported only when the agreement is significant against a structureless null of the same size; on a bare twenty-line list the supply of pairs collapses and the honest answer is to decline. And the pair evidence measures a magnitude, not a cause: the constant and \(\cos\theta\) templates concentrate equally well on real data, so a pair screen may refute \(\sin 2\theta\) and may not choose between the other two.
10.4. Volume from one line¶
An estimate of the cell volume follows from the number of distinct lines a lattice of that volume can show above a given \(d\) [Smi77]:
Source: rietx.indexing.quality.volume_envelope
which at \(N = 20\) is \(V \approx 13.39\, d_{20}^3\) for a primitive triclinic lattice. Two scalings are needed before it can bound a search in another system, and both are about the same thing — the published form counts distinct lines: a high-symmetry lattice merges reflections into orbits, and a centred one extinguishes them. A cubic \(F\) lattice of a given volume shows some 96 times fewer distinct lines than a primitive triclinic one, so applying the printed constant to a cubic search bounds the volume 96-fold too tightly and excludes the true cell. Since the centring is part of the answer, the bound uses the loosest centring each system admits.
It is a mean line, not an envelope, and the distinction is a live one. Smith fits equation (10.7) by least squares to some forty well-determined triclinic patterns and reports an average discrepancy of 10.6 %, with deviations running from 32 % too high to 29 % too low — the low side being the ordinary case, since it is what missing weak lines produce. Writing \(p\) for the fraction of possible lines actually detected, the bound stands in ratio \(1.40\,p\) to the truth, so it excludes the true cell below \(p = 0.71\) — and \(1 - 0.71\) is Smith’s own worst case. Used as a hard search ceiling the relation therefore has no margin at all against the worst pattern in its own calibration set, and the slack that makes it safe is this package’s to supply, not the paper’s.
10.5. Figures of merit, in both directions¶
The classical figures are de Wolff’s [dW68]
Source: rietx.indexing.fom.m20
and Smith & Snyder’s [SS79]
Source: rietx.indexing.fom.f_n
where \(N_{\mathrm{poss}}\) counts the lines the lattice allows up to the \(N\)-th observed one, and both means run over every one of those \(N\) lines assigned to its nearest calculated line. Each mean is floored at the measured precision, which is this package’s addition and not the papers’: the figures divide by a discrepancy, so on data a lattice fits to within floating-point noise they diverge, and a naive zero-guard then ranks a perfect cell last. A discrepancy smaller than \(\sigma\) is not knowable, and per-line \(\sigma\) is what a fitted peak list has and 1968 did not.
Both figures share a blind spot with the fraction of observed lines indexed: a large enough cell has a line near everything. The measured case that fixes the design is in this project’s own prior art — a wrong phase ranked first on share of observed intensity indexed, 83.7 %, with 390 predicted lines of which 9.0 % were present, above the truth’s 79.2 % with 56.5 % of its own 23 lines seen. So coverage is scored in both directions, the reverse direction being the fraction of a candidate’s predicted lines that are actually present [OT13], and the ranking is a Borda count over the whole panel rather than a sort on any member. Every figure of merit is reported with the blind spot attached to the number, because a value read without it is one step from a confident wrong answer.
Two of the panel’s inputs are deliberately different quantities that a casual reading merges. The matching window — how far an observed and a calculated line may sit and still be the same line — is a statement about the systematics the search had to open its tolerance for, while the measurement \(\sigma\) that floors the two mean discrepancies is a statement about what the data resolve. On a laboratory pattern with an uncorrected specimen displacement the two differ by an order of magnitude, and scoring coverage at the tighter one makes every candidate look as though it explains nothing. A candidate that carries a fitted shift is likewise scored against the corrected positions it claims, not the raw ones: the alternative marks a candidate down for the very correction it declared, which on a certified pattern demoted the true lattice below cells that had merely been corrected less.
10.6. Ambiguity, which is reported and not resolved¶
Distinct lattices can give identical calculated line positions [MS75]. The pattern carries \(\lvert \mathbf{h} \rvert\) only, so no counting statistics separate them: the information is absent from the measurement rather than buried in its noise. Candidate partners are the derivative lattices, enumerated exactly as the integer matrices in Hermite normal form of index up to 4,
Source: rietx.indexing.ambiguity.hnf_matrices
whose closed sets have 7, 13 and 35 members at \(n = 2, 3, 4\) — a count the implementation is checked against. Each partner’s metric follows from \(G' = H\,G\,H^\top\); those that Niggli-reduce back to the parent are setting changes and are dropped, which is what keeps ambiguity distinct from de-duplication. What makes the surviving report actionable rather than merely honest is the list of discriminating reflections: the \(hkl\), and the \(2\theta\), where the partner and the parent differ — the structural twin of a fit report saying “extend the range”.
De-duplication itself is a \(\chi^2\) test on the Niggli-reduced \((A \ldots F)\) against \(\chi^2_6\) at 99 %, using the two candidates’ joint covariance, rather than a fixed percentage: a percentage merges distinct synchrotron cells and splits noisy laboratory ones.
That test presumes the reduction is canonical, and in floating point it is not so by default. The Křivý–Gruber algorithm [KvrivyG76] decides its normalisation on exact equalities — when \(B = C\) the tie is broken on \(\lvert \eta \rvert \le \lvert \zeta \rvert\) — and those equalities cannot be tested with finite precision. Every comparison therefore carries a relative tolerance \(\varepsilon = \varepsilon_{\mathrm{rel}} V^{1/3}\) with \(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{rel}} =\) 1e-05, the same value in the reduction and in the predicate that checks it [GKSA04]. Without it a lattice with two equal reduced axes reduces to \(\beta\) and \(\gamma\) swapped depending on the setting it arrived in, so two descriptions of one lattice are declared two lattices.
Lattice symmetry is decided by two independent opinions — a Le Page 2-fold search [LP82] with a tolerance in degrees of obliquity, and a distance-tolerance standardisation [TST24] — swept over their tolerances, with the answer taken as the symmetry stable across the sweep and anything appearing only at the loosest tolerance reported as ambiguous. Agreement between independent methods is the confidence; disagreement is reported rather than averaged.