# CPU-side crystallographic data analysis (Jungfraujoch) This document describes the crystallographic algorithms implemented in Jungfraujoch for **CPU**- and **GPU**-side real‑time and near‑real‑time data analysis. **Scope.** The pipeline covered here comprises: 1. geometry mapping and corrections, 2. azimuthal integration (powder/radial profiles), 3. Bragg spot finding (strong pixels → connected components → spot descriptors), 4. indexing (still and rotation modes), 5. Bravais lattice / centering inference, 6. geometry and lattice refinement, 7. reflection prediction (still and rotation), 8. Bragg integration by either 2D box summation or profile fitting (Kabsch, reference-free), 9. scaling and merging, 10. merge-level error modelling and outlier rejection, 11. auxiliary statistics (Wilson plot, ⟨I/σ(I)⟩, CC1/2, CCref), 12. amplitude estimation (French–Wilson) and R-free test-set flagging, 13. optional model-based validation: R-free against a supplied model and 2Fo−Fc / Fo−Fc electron-density maps. ## References The methods are inspired and reuising solutions implemented in: - W. Kabsch, “XDS”, *Acta Cryst.* **D66** (2010), 125–132 and related XDS papers (rotation geometry, partiality, scaling concepts). - W. Kabsch, “Integration, scaling, space-group assignment and post-refinement”, *Acta Cryst.* **D66** (2010), 133–144 (mosaicity/partiality likelihood treatment; notation such as ζ and rotation factors). - T. A. White et al., CrystFEL method papers (spot finding, three‑ring integration, serial/still diffraction processing concepts). - J. Kieffer & J. P. Wright, "PyFAI: a Python library for high performance azimuthal integration on GPU", *Powder Diffraction* **28** (2013), S339-S350 (detector geometry definition, azimuthal integration) - H. Powell, "The Rossmann Fourier autoindexing algorithm in MOSFLM", *Acta Cryst.* **D55** (1999), 1690-1695 (FFT indexing) - S. French & K. Wilson, "On the treatment of negative intensity observations", *Acta Cryst.* **A34** (1978), 517-525 (Bayesian amplitude estimation from intensities). - A. T. Brünger, "Free R value: a novel statistical quantity for assessing the accuracy of crystal structures", *Nature* **355** (1992), 472-475 (R-free cross-validation). - M. Wojdyr, "GEMMI: A library for structural biology", *J. Open Source Softw.* **7** (2022), 4200 (model / structure-factor / map machinery used in §14). (list is not exhaustive) ## 1. Geometry, reciprocal-space mapping, and basic quantities ### 1.1 Coordinate conventions For a pixel coordinate $(x,y)$ (in pixels), Jungfraujoch converts to a laboratory direction vector via: 1. shift by direct-beam position $(x_\mathrm{beam}, y_\mathrm{beam})$, 2. scale by pixel size $p$ (mm), 3. set detector distance $D$ (mm), 4. apply detector orientation rotation $R_\mathrm{det}$ (PyFAI-like parameterization). The unnormalized detector coordinate (mm) is: $ \mathbf{r}_\mathrm{det}(x,y) = \begin{pmatrix} (x-x_\mathrm{beam})p\\ (y-y_\mathrm{beam})p\\ D \end{pmatrix}. $ The lab-frame vector is: $ \mathbf{r}_\mathrm{lab} = R_\mathrm{det}\,\mathbf{r}_\mathrm{det}. $ Let the incident wavevector magnitude be $k = 1/\lambda$ in Å$^{-1}$, and define: $ \mathbf{S}_0 = (0,0,k). $ The **reciprocal-space scattering vector** associated with pixel $(x,y)$ is: $ \mathbf{s}(x,y) = k\,\frac{\mathbf{r}_\mathrm{lab}}{\lVert \mathbf{r}_\mathrm{lab}\rVert} - \mathbf{S}_0. $ This $\mathbf{s}$ is the fundamental quantity used for spot finding (resolution filters), indexing, and refinement. ### 1.2 Two-theta, azimuth, resolution and $q$ The scattering angle $2\theta$ is computed from $\mathbf{r}_\mathrm{lab}$ via: $ 2\theta = \arctan\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{x_\mathrm{lab}^2 + y_\mathrm{lab}^2}}{z_\mathrm{lab}}\right). $ Resolution (Å) at a pixel is: $ d = \frac{\lambda}{2\sin(\theta)} = \frac{\lambda}{2\sin(2\theta/2)}. $ The magnitude $q = 2\pi/d$ is used for radial binning and ice-ring handling. ### 1.3 Distance from the Ewald sphere For a reciprocal lattice point $\mathbf{p}$ (Å$^{-1}$), define: $ \Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}(\mathbf{p}) = \lVert \mathbf{p} + \mathbf{S}_0\rVert - k. $ Jungfraujoch uses $|\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}|$ as an operational proxy for excitation error. This appears in: - still prediction (accept if $|\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}|\le \Delta_\mathrm{cut}$), - profile radius estimation (see §11.1), - still partiality option in scaling/merging (§10.2). --- ## 2. Azimuthal integration (radial profiles) Azimuthal integration produces a radial profile $I(q)$ or $I(d)$ by histogramming pixels into radial bins. Pixels are **not split** across bins; each pixel contributes wholly to a single bin. By default the profile is purely radial (a single azimuthal bin), but the azimuth can optionally be split into up to 512 $\phi$ sectors (`azim_bins`, `--azim-phi-bins`), giving a **2D $q\times\phi$ profile** that exposes azimuthal anisotropy such as detector shadowing or sample texture. ### 2.1 Histogram estimator Let bin index $b(x,y)$ be precomputed from $q(x,y)$ (or equivalently from $d(x,y)$) and, when $\phi$ sectors are enabled, the azimuth $\phi(x,y)$ — so $b = b_q + b_\phi B_q$. For each bin $b$: - accumulate corrected intensity and its square: $ S_b = \sum_{(x,y):\,b(x,y)=b} I(x,y)\,C(x,y),\qquad S^{(2)}_b = \sum I(x,y)^2\,C(x,y)^2, $ - and count: $ N_b = \#\{(x,y):\,b(x,y)=b \text{ and pixel is valid}\}. $ The profile reports both the mean $\bar{I}_b = S_b / N_b$ (when $N_b>0$) and a per-bin sample standard deviation $\sigma_b = \sqrt{(S^{(2)}_b - S_b^2/N_b)/(N_b-1)}$ (a spread/error estimate for each radial point). Invalid pixels (masked, saturated, detector error codes) are excluded. ### 2.2 Corrections applied Two standard corrections are available: **(i) Solid angle / geometric correction.** A flat pixel's solid angle falls off with the **incidence angle $\alpha$ between the scattered ray and the detector normal**. With the in-plane detector offsets $u=(x-x_\mathrm{beam})p$ and $v=(y-y_\mathrm{beam})p$ (§1.1) and detector distance $D$, $ \cos\alpha = \frac{D}{\sqrt{u^2+v^2+D^2}},\qquad C_\Omega = \cos^3\alpha, $ applied — like the polarization term below — as a **divisor** (intensities are scaled by $1/\cos^3\alpha$), so pixels at oblique incidence, which subtend a smaller solid angle, are boosted. Because $\alpha$ is evaluated in the detector's own frame it is **invariant under detector tilt** ($\mathrm{rot1}/\mathrm{rot2}/\mathrm{rot3}$), matching PyFAI's `solidAngleArray` and MAX IV azint. It reduces to the commonly quoted $\cos^3(2\theta)$ form only for an untilted detector, where the incidence angle coincides with the scattering angle. **(ii) Polarization correction.** With polarization coefficient $P$ (beamline dependent) and azimuth $\phi$: $ C_\mathrm{pol}(2\theta,\phi) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\cos^2(2\theta) - P\cos(2\phi)\left(1-\cos^2(2\theta)\right)\right), $ applied as a divisor to intensities (i.e. scale by $1/C_\mathrm{pol}$) when enabled. ### 2.3 Background estimate for profiles A background estimate is derived from the profile as its mean intensity over a fixed low-to-mid $Q$ window (default $2\pi/5$ to $2\pi/3$ Å$^{-1}$). This background is used for monitoring and diagnostics; it is **not** the same as the local Bragg-spot background used in summation integration (§9.2). --- ## 3. Spot finding (strong pixels → Bragg spots) Spot finding is a two-stage process: 1. **Strong-pixel selection** using intensity and/or local signal-to-noise criteria. 2. **Connected-component labeling (CCL)** to group strong pixels into candidate spots, followed by spot-level filtering and feature extraction. ### 3.1 Strong-pixel detection by local statistics For each pixel $i$ with value $v_i$, consider a square window (nominally $31\times 31$ pixels) around it. Let the window contain $n$ valid pixels (excluding masked/bad/saturated), and define: $ \Sigma = \sum v,\qquad \Sigma_2 = \sum v^2. $ To avoid biasing the local statistics by the test pixel itself, Jungfraujoch evaluates the pixel against the window with the pixel removed: $ \Sigma' = \Sigma - v_i,\quad \Sigma_2' = \Sigma_2 - v_i^2,\quad n' = n-1. $ A variance-like quantity proportional to $n'^2$ is formed: $ V = n'\Sigma_2' - (\Sigma')^2, $ and the deviation-from-mean quantity: $ \Delta = v_i n' - \Sigma'. $ A pixel is considered strong if: - it is above a photon/count threshold, and - its window contains enough valid neighbours (more than 100), so the local statistics are meaningful, and - $\Delta>0$, and - the squared deviation exceeds a scaled variance: $ \Delta^2 > V\cdot T^2, $ where $T$ is the configured signal-to-noise threshold. This is equivalent to a local z-score criterion but implemented in integer arithmetic to be robust and fast. Special cases: - saturated pixels can be forced to “strong” (useful for detecting overloaded Bragg spots), - invalid pixels are never strong. ### 3.2 Resolution and ice-ring handling Spot finding can be restricted to a resolution range $[d_\mathrm{high}, d_\mathrm{low}]$ by masking pixels outside the range. Optionally, spots in identified ice-ring regions can be tagged so that subsequent indexing/refinement may include or exclude them (see §4 and §6). A single per-image **ice-ring score** is derived from the azimuthally-integrated radial profile: for each hexagonal-ice powder ring (positions $d$ from Moreau *et al.*, Acta Cryst D77, 2021), the profile intensity at the ring is divided by a smooth background estimated from the *whole* profile — a running median of the non-ice bins, interpolated under each ring — and the strongest ring's ratio is reported (1 = no ice, $>1$ = ice above background). A whole-profile background is used rather than a couple of adjacent shoulder bins so the estimate is robust to the radial binning: at a coarse Q-spacing a local shoulder can be only ~1 bin and would double-count the ring's own edge (offline processing defaults to a fine 0.01 1/Å spacing, `--azim-q-spacing`, so the rings are well resolved). (A significance/z-score was considered but is uninformative here: with many photons any real ice ring is highly significant, so the discriminating quantity is the ice *magnitude*, i.e. this ratio.) It is stored per image (`ice_ring_score`, HDF5 `/entry/MX/iceRingScore`) as a monitoring quantity, distinct from the merge-time ice masking, which is data-driven from the per-ring merged CC1/2. A further optional safeguard removes isolated high-resolution “spur” spots by detecting large gaps in $1/d$ (or $q$) space and discarding spots beyond the gap. This is intended for macromolecular diffraction where edge-of-detector backgrounds can be extremely low. ### 3.3 Connected-component labeling (CCL) Strong pixels are grouped into connected components (adjacent strong pixels) using a CCL algorithm. Each component yields a candidate spot with: - centroid $(x,y)$ (often intensity-weighted), - pixel count (spot size), - integrated spot intensity proxy (sum of pixel values), - resolution $d$ at the centroid (or mean over pixels), - and quality flags (e.g. ice-ring classification). Spot-level filters include minimum/maximum pixel count and resolution limits. --- ## 4. Indexing overview Indexing maps observed reciprocal-space vectors $\mathbf{s}_i$ to a lattice such that: $ \mathbf{s}_i \approx h_i\mathbf{a}^* + k_i\mathbf{b}^* + l_i\mathbf{c}^*, $ with integer $(h_i,k_i,l_i)$. Jungfraujoch supports two complementary indexing strategies: 1. **FFT-based indexing** (Rossmann-type): does not require an a priori unit cell; suitable for unknown samples. 2. **Fast-feedback indexing** (TORO-like): requires an approximate unit cell; optimized for speed and feedback. Both feed into a common robust refinement/selection stage which maximizes the number of inliers under an indexing tolerance, and which can return **more than one lattice** per image (multi-lattice indexing; see §5.4). ### 4.1 Indexed-spot decision (inlier test) Given a trial lattice with direct basis vectors $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b},\mathbf{c}$ (used here as reciprocal-space dot-test vectors), fractional indices are estimated by: $ h_f = \mathbf{s}\cdot\mathbf{a},\quad k_f = \mathbf{s}\cdot\mathbf{b},\quad l_f = \mathbf{s}\cdot\mathbf{c}. $ Let $(h,k,l)=(\mathrm{round}(h_f),\mathrm{round}(k_f),\mathrm{round}(l_f))$ and define the fractional residual: $ \delta^2 = (h_f-h)^2 + (k_f-k)^2 + (l_f-l)^2. $ A spot is indexed if $\delta^2 < \tau^2$, where $\tau$ is the configured tolerance. For indexed spots, the reciprocal lattice point $\mathbf{p} = h\mathbf{a}^*+k\mathbf{b}^*+l\mathbf{c}^*$ is used to compute $\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}(\mathbf{p})$ (stored as a diagnostic and later used in profile-radius estimation). --- ## 5. FFT indexing (unknown unit cell) FFT indexing follows a classical approach: detect dominant periodicities by projecting reciprocal-space points onto many directions and Fourier transforming the resulting 1D histograms. ### 5.1 Directional projections and histograms Choose a set of unit vectors $\{\mathbf{u}_d\}$ on a half-sphere (a near-uniform distribution generated via a golden-angle construction). For each direction $d$, form a histogram in the scalar projection: $ t_{id} = \left|\mathbf{u}_d\cdot \mathbf{s}_i\right|. $ Bin width is chosen approximately as: $ \Delta t \approx \frac{1}{2 L_\mathrm{max}}, $ where $L_\mathrm{max}$ is the maximum expected real-space unit-cell edge (Å). The histogram extent is tied to the maximum $q$ used (set by a high-resolution cutoff for indexing). ### 5.2 FFT peak picking and candidate vectors For each direction, the FFT magnitude spectrum is computed; peaks correspond to periodicities along $\mathbf{u}_d$. Each direction yields a candidate real-space length $L$ chosen **not** by raw magnitude but by **maximum prominence above a running-mean local background** (subtracting the broad low-frequency envelope that otherwise dominates on weak or pink-beam frames), subject to $L\ge L_\mathrm{min}$. Candidate vectors are $\mathbf{v}_d = L_d\,\mathbf{u}_d$. A collinearity filter removes nearly parallel vectors (e.g. within 5°) and attempts to resolve harmonic ambiguity: shorter “fundamental” vectors may be preferred over longer harmonics if their peak magnitude is sufficiently strong relative to the dominant peak. ### 5.3 Lattice reduction and cell candidates Triples of candidate vectors are combined to form candidate bases $(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B},\mathbf{C})$, each reduced to its **Niggli-reduced cell** (Gruber-vector reduction) before comparison, and filtered by allowed length and angle ranges. Two passes are run: a standard pass forms shortest-vector triples from the ~30 strongest filtered directions; if the best cell then indexes fewer than half the spots, a **widened fallback** anchors the two shortest axes and lets the third range over up to ~60 candidate vectors (deduplicated by Niggli cell), catching large, elongated or superstructure cells the first pass misses. ### 5.4 Robust refinement and best-cell selection Candidate bases are refined against observed spots using an iterative inlier‑focused least‑squares procedure (trimmed/contracting threshold). Candidates are then ranked: 1. more indexed spots wins — **unless** two candidates index within ~10 % of each other, in which case 2. the **smaller-volume** cell is preferred (when the volumes differ by more than ~5 %), avoiding a doubled supercell, then 3. the smaller refinement score, then the spot count again. Selection is **not limited to a single lattice**: after the best cell is accepted, further lattices are added as separate crystals provided fewer than ~40 % of their indexed spots overlap an already-accepted lattice (up to two extra by default), so split or multi-lattice crystals are indexed rather than discarded. An optional reference unit cell (if supplied) restricts acceptance to cells within a relative distance tolerance in edge lengths (permutation-invariant). --- ## 6. Bravais lattice / centering inference (“lattice search”) If the space group is supplied by the user, its lattice constraints are assumed for refinement and subsequent processing. If not, Jungfraujoch attempts to infer the most plausible Bravais lattice type from the metric tensor after Niggli reduction: 1. **Niggli reduction** is performed to obtain a reduced cell in $G^6$ representation (Gruber vector). 2. The reduced cell is compared against a list of Niggli classes corresponding to Bravais lattices and centerings. 3. The highest-symmetry class that matches within tolerances is selected (relative metric tolerance and angular tolerance). The output includes: - a conventional cell, - crystal system (triclinic, monoclinic, …), - centering symbol (one of $P, C, I, F, R$; the $A/B$ variants are not emitted here — they are handled only later as prediction absences, §8.4). This stage provides centering information used for systematic absences in prediction (§8.4) and for reporting. **Note.** In ambiguous or special cases, forcing space group to $P1$ (no symmetry assumptions) is recommended. --- ## 7. Geometry and lattice refinement Refinement adjusts experimental geometry and crystal parameters to minimize discrepancies between observed spot reciprocal vectors and those predicted by a lattice model with integer indices. ### 7.1 Parameterization The refinement jointly optimizes, depending on mode and constraints: - beam center $(x_\mathrm{beam}, y_\mathrm{beam})$, - detector distance $D$, - detector tilt angles (two-angle model; third rotation often held at 0), - rotation axis direction (for rotation datasets), - crystal orientation (a global rotation), - unit-cell parameters, with constraints determined by inferred crystal system. By default only the beam center, unit cell and crystal orientation are refined; the detector distance, tilt angles and rotation-axis direction are held fixed unless explicitly enabled. A lighter **orientation-only** mode refines just the crystal orientation (with a weak small-rotation prior on the poorly-determined out-of-plane component), for stills whose geometry is already trusted. For higher symmetries, constraints are enforced, e.g. - cubic: $a=b=c,\ \alpha=\beta=\gamma=90^\circ$, - tetragonal: $a=b$, - hexagonal: $a=b,\ \gamma=120^\circ$, - monoclinic (unique axis $b$): $\alpha=\gamma=90^\circ$, $\beta$ refined. ### 7.2 Residuals and objective For each indexed spot assigned integer $(h,k,l)$, compute: - observed reciprocal vector $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{obs}$ from its detector position and current geometry, - predicted reciprocal vector $\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{pred}(h,k,l;\ \text{lattice params})$. Residual is: $ \mathbf{r} = \mathbf{s}_\mathrm{obs} - \mathbf{s}_\mathrm{pred}. $ A non-linear least squares solver minimizes $\sum \|\mathbf{r}\|^2$ over all selected inlier spots. ### 7.3 Rotation datasets: bringing observations to a common reference frame For oscillation/rotation data, each image corresponds to a rotation angle $\phi$ about an axis $\mathbf{m}_2$. Observed reciprocal vectors are rotated “back to start” so that all images are refined in a single reference crystal frame: $ \mathbf{s}_\mathrm{obs,ref} = R(\phi)\,\mathbf{s}_\mathrm{obs}, $ with $R(\phi)$ constructed from the axis-angle representation of the goniometer model. The angle $\phi$ is taken at the centre of each frame's oscillation (the frame angle plus half the oscillation width). ### 7.4 Multi-stage tightening of inlier tolerance Refinement is performed in stages with decreasing acceptance tolerance for including reflections (three stages, indexing tolerance $0.3\to0.2\to0.1$), which stabilizes convergence when starting from imperfect indexing and approximate geometry. --- ## 8. Reflection prediction Jungfraujoch predicts reflection positions for integration by enumerating Miller indices within a resolution cutoff and accepting those that satisfy a diffraction condition model. ### 8.1 Enumerating reciprocal lattice points For a maximum resolution $d_\mathrm{min}$, accept $(h,k,l)$ such that: $ \lVert \mathbf{p}(h,k,l)\rVert^2 = \lVert h\mathbf{a}^* + k\mathbf{b}^* + l\mathbf{c}^*\rVert^2 \le \left(\frac{1}{d_\mathrm{min}}\right)^2. $ ### 8.2 Still prediction (excitation-error cutoff) For still images, the diffracting condition is approximated by an excitation-error cutoff: $ \left|\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}(\mathbf{p})\right| \le \Delta_\mathrm{cut}. $ Accepted reflections are projected to the detector by intersecting the diffracted direction $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{S}_0+\mathbf{p}$ with the detector plane, using the current geometry. When the beam has a finite energy bandwidth, this window is **broadened radially per reflection**: the cutoff is combined in quadrature with a bandwidth smear, $\sqrt{\Delta_\mathrm{cut}^2 + (3\,\sigma_\mathrm{bw})^2}$, where $\sigma_\mathrm{bw}\propto|p_z|$ (the reciprocal-space depth along the beam, growing as $\sim 1/d^2$). This keeps high-resolution reflections — smeared by the bandwidth into radial streaks — from being clipped. The same $\sigma_\mathrm{bw}$ is deconvolved from the measured profile radius (§11.1), so it is not double-counted. ### 8.3 Rotation prediction (Laue equation + partiality model) For rotation/oscillation datasets, Jungfraujoch solves for rotation angles $\phi$ where the rotated reciprocal lattice point satisfies the Ewald-sphere condition. In an XDS-like notation, define: - rotation axis unit vector $\mathbf{m}_2$, - $\mathbf{S}_0$ incident vector, - $\mathbf{S}(\phi)=\mathbf{S}_0+\mathbf{p}(\phi)$. A key quantity is: $ \zeta = \left|\mathbf{m}_2\cdot \mathbf{e}_1\right|,\quad \mathbf{e}_1 = \frac{\mathbf{S}\times \mathbf{S}_0}{\lVert \mathbf{S}\times \mathbf{S}_0\rVert}, $ which also appears in XDS as the Lorentz component linked to the rotation axis. A Gaussian mosaicity model yields a partiality fraction over an oscillation width $\Delta\phi$: $ P(\phi;\sigma_M,\zeta,\Delta\phi) = \frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{erf}\!\left(\frac{\phi+\Delta\phi/2}{\sqrt{2}\,\sigma_M/\zeta}\right) - \mathrm{erf}\!\left(\frac{\phi-\Delta\phi/2}{\sqrt{2}\,\sigma_M/\zeta}\right)\right], $ with mosaicity $\sigma_M$ in radians. Reflections are predicted if they meet minimum $\zeta$ and mosaicity-window criteria, and their predicted detector coordinates fall on the active detector area. ### 8.4 Systematic absences (centering) Systematic absences are applied at least at the centering level (prior to full space-group symmetry). For centering symbol $C$: - $I$: absent if $h+k+l$ odd, - $A$: absent if $k+l$ odd, - $B$: absent if $h+l$ odd, - $C$: absent if $h+k$ odd, - $F$: absent if any of $h+k, h+l, k+l$ is odd, - $R$: absent if $(-h+k+l)\bmod 3 \ne 0$, - $P$: no centering absences. --- ## 9. 2D Bragg integration (profile fitting over a three-ring ROI) Jungfraujoch integrates each predicted reflection in the detector plane over a CrystFEL-inspired “three-ring” region of interest (§9.1). The **default** extraction is **profile fitting** (Kabsch; §9.3), which weights each pixel by a fitted spot profile and so recovers weak reflections far better than plain summation; plain box summation (§9.2) is retained as the seed for the profile and as a fallback. Both methods share the same ROI and background model, and emit the same per-reflection $(I,\sigma,\text{partiality},d)$, so scaling, the rotation combine (§10.6) and merging consume either unchanged. ### 9.1 Regions of interest For each predicted reflection at $(x_p,y_p)$, define three radii: - $r_1$: inner signal radius, - $r_2$: inner background radius, - $r_3$: outer background radius. Pixels are classified by their squared distance $r^2=(x-x_p)^2+(y-y_p)^2$: - **signal region:** $r^2 < r_1^2$, - **background annulus:** $r_2^2 \le r^2 < r_3^2$. Invalid pixels (masked/bad/saturated) are excluded from both sums. In addition, pixels lying inside the signal disk ($r4\sigma$) short-circuit to $|F|=\sqrt{I}$, where the French–Wilson bias is negligible; a reflection with an unusable $I/\sigma$ falls back to $\sqrt{\max(I,0)}$. The integral is evaluated numerically with a log-shift for stability. Amplitudes are written as MTZ `F`/`SIGF`, mmCIF `_refln.F_meas_au`/`F_meas_sigma_au`, and appended to the text HKL, alongside the intensity columns. The **same** $|F|$ feed the model-validation step (§14), so the reflection file and the maps use one consistent set of amplitudes. ### 10.9 Reference data: fixing the space group and resolving the indexing ambiguity A reference dataset (`--reference-mtz`) supplies known intensities for the same crystal form, and is used in two ways. **Fix the space group and cell.** Unless overridden on the command line (`-S` for the space group, `-C` for the cell), the reference's space group is adopted and its cell is used as the soft reference cell — indexing may still drift the cell within tolerance, so a small mismatch between reference and data is absorbed rather than rejected. This applies to both stills and rotation data. **Resolve the indexing (merohedral) ambiguity.** When the lattice symmetry is higher than the crystal's Laue symmetry (e.g. $P3$, $P4$, $P6$, $C2$), more than one indexing of the same lattice is geometrically valid, and the two solutions produce *different* merged intensities that a self-consistent scale cannot tell apart — only an external reference can. The candidate reindexings are the identity together with the twin-law cosets of the metric symmetry (from the unit-cell metric and the Laue group); each is scored by the intensity correlation $\mathrm{CC}_\mathrm{ref}$ of the reindexed merge against the reference, and the data are re-merged in the best-correlating indexing. The reindex is **metric-preserving** — only the $hkl$ labels change, the cell is unchanged — and it is a no-op for a holohedral crystal, which has no twin laws (the lattice and Laue symmetry coincide). For rotation data this is done once, after the space group is determined; the reference is *not* used to scale the rotation merge, which stays self-consistent (its $\mathrm{ISa}$ comes from the data alone). For stills the reference is the per-image scale target of the on-the-fly scaling (§10.2). --- ## 11. Mosaicity and “profile radius” monitoring ### 11.1 Profile radius (intrinsic excitation-error width) The “profile radius” is the intrinsic angular width of a reflection — crystal mosaicity plus beam divergence — estimated from the spread of $\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}$ over indexed spots, $ R \approx \sqrt{\tfrac{1}{N}\sum_i \Delta_{\mathrm{Ewald},i}^2}. $ When the beam has a finite energy bandwidth, that bandwidth smears each reflection radially by $\sigma_\mathrm{bw}\approx \mathrm{bandwidth}\cdot\lambda/2d^2$ (largest at high resolution), which also broadens the measured $\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}$ spread. Since prediction re-applies the bandwidth term per reflection (§8.2), this contribution is deconvolved from the estimate — $R^2 = \langle\Delta_\mathrm{Ewald}^2\rangle - \langle\sigma_\mathrm{bw}^2\rangle$ — so that $R$ is the intrinsic width and bandwidth is not double-counted. Still predictions use an excitation-error cutoff proportional to $R$. ### 11.2 Mosaicity from rotation data For rotation data the mosaicity $\sigma_M$ is estimated by maximum likelihood from the rocking offsets $\tau$ of indexed spots, using the XDS reflection-fraction model $R(\tau;\sigma_M/\zeta)$ (Kabsch 2010): each spot's exact Bragg angle is located near its frame, $\zeta$ (the rotation-axis Lorentz component) is computed, and $\sigma_M$ is chosen to maximize $\sum_i \log R(\tau_i;\sigma_M/\zeta_i)$. The $\phi$ search window for the Bragg angle is set **wider than the oscillation**, so that reflections recorded at large rocking offset are included. These tail reflections carry most of the information about the mosaic width; a window limited to the oscillation range would truncate the $\tau$ distribution and bias $\sigma_M$ low. The estimated mosaicity feeds the rotation prediction (how many frames each reflection spans, §8.3) and the rotation partiality (§10.2). It is **held fixed during scaling**: in the per-image scale fit the mosaicity is degenerate with the scale $G$ (both rescale the predicted intensity), so refining it there is unstable. A correct mosaicity matters because it controls both how much of each rocking curve is captured and the partiality used to form fulls (§10.6); too small a value truncates the captured curve and over-peaks the partiality, degrading the combined fulls. --- ## 12. Auxiliary statistics: ⟨I/σ(I)⟩ and Wilson plot ### 12.1 Per-shell ⟨I/σ(I)⟩ For monitoring integration quality, Jungfraujoch reports mean $\langle I/\sigma(I)\rangle$ in a fixed number of resolution shells. Shelling is performed in $1/d^2$ space (typical of crystallographic practice). ### 12.2 Wilson plot (B-factor proxy) A Wilson-type analysis is computed by binning intensities by resolution and fitting: $ \langle I\rangle \propto \exp\!\left(-\frac{B}{2}\frac{1}{d^2}\right), $ i.e. $ \log \langle I\rangle = \mathrm{const} - \frac{B}{2}\left(\frac{1}{d^2}\right). $ A linear regression of $\log\langle I\rangle$ vs $1/d^2$ provides an estimate of $B$, subject to basic quality checks (e.g. $R^2$ threshold). --- ## 13. Practical notes and limitations - **Bragg integration is profile-fitted by default** (per-shell Gaussian profile, Kabsch extraction; §9.3), with plain box summation available as a fallback (`--integrator boxsum`). The profiles are built per frame from that frame's strong spots, which suits fast-feedback and serial/streaming use; a profile shared across many frames (as in full offline workflows) is not currently formed. - **Space-group symmetry** beyond centering absences is not necessarily enforced during prediction/integration unless the space group is supplied and used downstream. - **Resolution masking and ice rings** are controllable; including ice-ring spots in indexing can improve robustness for some samples but may bias refinement in others. - **Rotation vs still modes** differ substantially in prediction and scaling: partiality is angle-driven in rotation data, while stills are predicted (within an excitation-error window) and scaled with unit partiality. - **Space-group determination.** When no space group is supplied, a POINTLESS-like search scores Laue-group symmetry (CC of $I(h)$ vs $I(Rh)$ plus merge self-consistency) and detects screw/centering absences from the $P1$-merged intensities. The self-consistency test is calibrated so a merohedral twin — whose twin law forces non-equivalent reflections together and inflates the merged $\chi^2$ — stays in its true lower symmetry rather than being over-promoted to the holohedral group. - **Twinning check.** A Padilla–Yeates $L$-test ($\langle|L|\rangle$, $\langle L^2\rangle$) and the second moment $\langle I^2\rangle/\langle I\rangle^2$ (taken per resolution shell with noise-only shells skipped and Wilson outliers rejected, so a single strong reflection in a collapsed-mean shell cannot skew it) are written to the merged mmCIF as a twinning diagnostic. Twinning is only flagged in Laue classes where a merohedral twin law can exist; the holohedral high-symmetry classes ($4/mmm$, $6/mmm$, $m\bar{3}m$, and $\bar{3}m$ on a rhombohedral lattice) are exempt, so a low $\langle|L|\rangle$ there is reported as a statistical artefact rather than twinning. - **Outlier rejection.** Merging applies an optional per-observation median-based $N\sigma$ cut (default 6σ for `rot3d`) and an optional per-crystal $\Delta\mathrm{CC}_{1/2}$ image rejection (`--reject-delta-cchalf`, CrystFEL-style, off by default). The same $N\sigma$ cut is fed back into the error model: after an initial $a,b$ fit the parameters are re-fit once on the reflections that survive rejection (dropping any whose squared deviation exceeds $N\sigma^2\,[a\,\sigma^2 + (b\,\langle I\rangle)^2]$), so the calibrated errors describe the reflections that actually enter the merge rather than the pre-rejection pool. - **Automatic resolution cutoff.** By default the reported/written high-resolution limit is trimmed where $\mathrm{CC}_{1/2}$ falls off (logistic, target 0.30); `--scaling-high-resolution` overrides it and `--resolution-cutoff off` disables it. - **Amplitudes and intensities.** The merged output carries both intensities (mmCIF `intensity_meas`, MTZ `IMEAN`/`SIGIMEAN`) and French–Wilson amplitudes (mmCIF `F_meas_au`, MTZ `F`/`SIGF`; §10.8), so a downstream program can refine against either. --- ## 14. Model-based validation: R-free against a model and electron-density maps Offline (`rugnux --model model.pdb`) the merged data can be scored against a supplied atomic model and **initial** electron-density maps computed — enough to confirm that a model fits the data and to inspect the density, not a substitute for refinement. **The structure itself is not refined**; the model is only re-fractionalized into the data unit cell (a rigid cell adjustment, so a deposited model with a slightly different cell still lines up), and the observed amplitudes are the French–Wilson $|F|$ from §10.8, so the R-free and the maps use exactly the same amplitudes as the written reflection file. The model, structure-factor, bulk-solvent and FFT machinery is provided by GEMMI. ### 14.1 Model structure factors The model electron density is sampled on a grid (IT92 X-ray form factors, with a Refmac-compatible Gaussian blur chosen for the grid spacing) and Fourier-transformed to structure factors $F_\mathrm{calc}(hkl)$ up to the data resolution. ### 14.2 Bulk solvent and scaling A flat bulk-solvent mask around the model is transformed to $F_\mathrm{mask}$, and the model is scaled to the observed amplitudes by an overall least-squares fit of a scale $k$, an anisotropic $B$, and the flat-solvent parameters $k_\mathrm{sol}, B_\mathrm{sol}$: $ F_\mathrm{model} = k\,e^{-\mathbf{h}^\top \mathbf{B}\,\mathbf{h}/4}\left(F_\mathrm{calc} + k_\mathrm{sol}\,e^{-B_\mathrm{sol}\,s^2}\,F_\mathrm{mask}\right),\quad s^2 = 1/4d^2. $ This is the standard, few-parameter scaling model used by refinement programs. A dataset-specific free-form per-resolution-shell rescale would lower this dataset's R a little, but it reshapes each map's radial amplitude profile differently, so a batch of maps would no longer be directly comparable — for a fragment-screening / PanDDA campaign, comparable maps across datasets matter more than the last bit of per-dataset R, so it is deliberately not applied. ### 14.3 R-work and R-free Crystallographic R-factors are reported over the work and free sets (the §10.7 flags): $ R = \frac{\sum \big|\,|F_o| - |F_\mathrm{model}|\,\big|}{\sum |F_o|}, $ with R-free the same sum restricted to the free set — an unbiased measure of how well the model explains data it was not scaled against. ### 14.4 Electron-density maps Two maps are formed with the model phases $\varphi_\mathrm{model}$: a $2F_o-F_c$ map, coefficients $(2|F_o|-|F_\mathrm{model}|)\,e^{i\varphi_\mathrm{model}}$, and an $F_o-F_c$ difference map, $(|F_o|-|F_\mathrm{model}|)\,e^{i\varphi_\mathrm{model}}$, each inverse-Fourier-transformed to a real-space CCP4 map (`_2fofc.ccp4`, `_fofc.ccp4`). A map-coefficient MTZ (`_maps.mtz`: `FP`, `FC`, `PHIC`, `FWT`/`PHWT`, `DELFWT`/`PHDELWT`, `FREE`) is written alongside so the maps can be reopened or rebuilt in Coot / PyMOL. These are unweighted difference coefficients (no $\sigma_A$ / figure-of-merit weighting), which is why they are described as *initial* maps. ### 14.5 Aligning the data to the model: enantiomorph and indexing ambiguity The model fixes a definite hand and indexing, but the merged data need not share them, so before comparison the observed reflections are brought into the model's frame. - **Enantiomorph / screw.** When the data space group is the enantiomorph of the model's (e.g. data $P4_12_12$, model $P4_32_12$; or $P3_1/P3_2$), the two are **indistinguishable from merged intensities** — $|F_\mathrm{calc}|$ is invariant under the change of hand, so R-free cannot choose between them and probing would be meaningless. The hand is therefore taken from the model: the observed reflections are reindexed by the change-of-hand operator into the model's enantiomorph. Only the map phases (the density's hand) depend on this choice. - **Indexing (merohedral) ambiguity.** When the crystal has a merohedral ambiguity (§10.9), the observed intensities *do* differ between indexings, and the right one is chosen against the best available reference. **If a reference MTZ was supplied, the data were already reindexed to agree with it** (§10.9 — by the reference-intensity correlation, at the merge stage for rotation data or per image in stills scaling), and model validation keeps that authoritative choice. **Only with a model and no reference** does validation resolve the ambiguity itself, as a fallback: the scaled model is fit to each reindexing of the data (identity plus the twin-law cosets) and the one giving the **lowest R-free** is kept. This matters for a multi-dataset campaign — a single shared reference fixes one indexing convention for every dataset, whereas an independent per-dataset lowest-R-free choice could send borderline datasets to different conventions. A no-op either way for a holohedral crystal (no twin laws).