The outcome of a pathway calculation for an atomic system will generally be a set of intermediate geometries, and the corresponding energies, for points along the two unique steepest-descent paths that link a transition state to two local minima. This discrete representation is a convenient starting point for our analysis of localisation and cooperativity. We number the structures along the path 
  starting from one of the two minima and reversing the other steepest-descent path, so that structure 
 corresponds to the other minimum. The transition state then lies somewhere between frames 
 and 
. We define the three-dimensional vector 
  to contain the Cartesian coordinates of atom 
 for structure 
, i.e.  
, where 
 is the 
 coordinate of atom 
 in structure 
, etc. 
 For each atom 
 we also define the displacement between structures 
 and 
 as 
![]()  |  (5.1) | 
![]()  |  (5.3) | 
 The set 
 containing all 
 values of 
 will be denoted 
, and analogous notation will be used for other sets below. We will also refer to the frequency distribution function, which can provide an alternative representation of such data [179]. For example, the frequency distribution function 
 for a given continuous variable, 
, tells us that 
 occurs in a certain interval 
 times. 
 Our objective in the present analysis is to provide a more detailed description of the degree of `localisation' and `cooperativity' corresponding to a given pathway. The first index we consider is 
, which is designed to provide an estimate of how many atoms participate in the rearrangement. We will refer to a rearrangement as localised if a small fraction of the atoms participate in the rearrangement, and as delocalised in the opposite limit. The second index we define, 
,is intended to characterise the number of atoms that move simultaneously, i.e. cooperatively. We will refer to a rearrangement as cooperative if most of the atoms that participate in the rearrangement move simultaneously, and as uncooperative otherwise. 
 The 
th moment about the mean for a data set 
 is the expectation value of 
, where 
 and 
 is the number of elements in the set. Hence for the set 
 defined above we define the moments, 
, as 
![]()  |  (5.4) | 
| (5.5) | 
![]()  | 
 The above results show that the kurtosis 
 can be used to quantify the degree of localisation or delocalisation of a given rearrangement. However, it has the serious disadvantage that highly localised and delocalised mechanisms both have large values of 
. Since we are interested in estimating the number of atoms that move relative to the number with small or zero displacements, a better approach is to use moments taken about the origin, rather than about the mean, i.e.
![]()  |  (5.6) | 
![]()  |  (5.8) | 
 A similar index to 
 has been employed in previous work [9,180,19] using only the displacements between the two local minima, which corresponds to taking 
 in Equation 3.2. Using 
 values based upon a sum of displacements that approximates the integrated path length for atom 
, rather than the overall displacement between the two minima, better reflects the character of the rearrangement, as it can account for the nonlinearity of the pathway. To describe this property more precisely we introduce a pathway nonlinearity index defined by 
![]()  |  (5.9) | 
![]()  |  (5.10) | 
 We calculated the 
 values for a database of 31,342 single transition state pathways of LJ
 (hereafter referred to as the LJ
 database). The average value of 
 was 
 with a standard deviation of 
, and, hence, there is a significant loss of information if 
 is calculated only from the endpoints using 
. Comparison of the two indices for the LJ
 database revealed many examples where neglect of intermediate structures produces a misleading impression of the number of atoms that move. The definition in Equation 3.7 is therefore suggested as an improvement on previous indices of localisation [9,152,180,19].