[phenixbb] completeness in table1

[Nathaniel Echols]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Alexander Batyuk <batyuk at bioc.uzh.ch> wrote:
> What could be the reason for discrepancy in completeness reported in XSCALE.LP (94.5% - 100.0%) vs from Table1: 89.57% (37.49%)?

I don't know the explanation offhand, but I would check whether XSCALE
is reporting the completeness relative to *merged* Friedel pairs.  If
you have anomalous data, Phenix will always report the completeness
with F+ and F- counted separately.  But if you can send me the files I
will take a look.  Of course since I have absolutely no clue what
XSCALE is doing internally and no way of finding out, it will still be
somewhat of a guessing game.

PS. I should mention, after playing around with the Table 1 code quite
a bit, I do not trust log files for anything at this point - with the
possible exception of SCALA's logs, which seem to be reasonably
sensible and consistent with how we report statistics.  I am strongly
tempted to remove the logfile harvesting feature entirely and force
users to enter unmerged data instead if they want the merging
statistics.

-Nat