From 20a9a974474d0c620604a851e680f628f2b61aa6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas White Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 22:03:51 +0200 Subject: partialator: Relax rejection criterion for profile radius The previous cutoff of 0.2*reflection_separation seems to have been too conservative. It cuts out over 1000 crystals from the 8000 crystals in one of the regression tests. Examining the values shows that 0.5 is better value. It's also a realistic physical limit - more than this, and the reflections should be overlapping. --- src/partialator.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'src/partialator.c') diff --git a/src/partialator.c b/src/partialator.c index 35d1ff95..7d2cfd7b 100644 --- a/src/partialator.c +++ b/src/partialator.c @@ -1530,7 +1530,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) if ( crystal_get_resolution_limit(image->crystals[i]) < min_res ) continue; lowest_r = lowest_reflection(crystal_get_cell(image->crystals[i])); - if ( crystal_get_profile_radius(image->crystals[i]) > 0.2*lowest_r ) { + if ( crystal_get_profile_radius(image->crystals[i]) > 0.5*lowest_r ) { ERROR("Rejecting %s %s crystal %i because " "profile radius is obviously too big (%e %e).\n", image->filename, image->ev, i, -- cgit v1.2.3