![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cad35f4dd77b3ab8e60ede4e3d54c6f4.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Alexander Batyuk
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