Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST1

Update on Rome Results

Agenda

• Aeff Fall-off past 10 GeV• V3R3P7 Classification Trees • Covariance Scaled PSFs• Pair Energies

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST2

Aeff Fall-off

After "GoodEnergy" Cut

No Cuts - Not "NoCal"

After PSF("CORE") Cut

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST3

After "GoodEnergy" Cut

No Cuts - Not "NoCal"

After PSF("CORE") Cut

Aeff Post New Cts

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST4

NoCal: < 2 r.l. or < 5 MeVLowCal: < 350 MeVMedCal: < 3500 MeVHighCal: > 3500 MeV

CAL Energy Def's and Good/Bad Breakdown

Energy Cts

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST5

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST6

Energy Cts Summary Plot

SR Cut ForV3R3P7

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST7

Thin VTX/1Tkr Tree

Energy Selection: GoodE.Prob > .20 + Standard Cleaning (See Rome Talk)

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST8

Thin VTX Core

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST9

Thin VTX Regression - Prediction

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST10

Rome: Thin PSF's - Integrated over FoV 4 Combinations of Cuts (CORE/Pred)

Cuts: 1/1

Ratio 95/68 > 3

Meets SREvents Eff.: 94.5%

Cuts: 2/1

Cuts: 3/2

Events Eff.: 52.3%

Cuts: 3/4

Events Eff.: 19.1%

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST11

Post-Rome: Thin PSF's - Integrated over FoV 4 Combinations of Cuts (1-CORE/4-Pred)

Cuts: 2/1 Cuts: 2/2

Cuts: 2/3 Cuts: 2/4

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST12

Definitions:

22 Tkr1PhiErrrrTkr1ThetaE

McDirErrSFEvtScaledP

Where all the variables come from the Merit-ntuple.(See my covariance ppt for details on Tkr1ThetaErr and Tkr1PhiErr - these are derived from the covariance matrix elements event-by-event)

Covariance Scaled PSF's

A bit of math then shows that:

yyxyxx CCC )(sin)cos()sin(2)(cos)(cos 2242

yyxyxx CCC )(cos)cos()sin(2)(sin)(tan

1 222

2

and

(from Covariance.ppt presentation to Analysis Group, July, 2003)

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST13

18 < E < 56 56 < E < 180 180 < E < 560

560 < E < 1800 1800 < E < 5600

Comment: Works well except in regionswhere energies fed to KalmanFilter are in-accurate. Specificallybelow 50 MeV and above 10 GeV

5600 < E < 18000

18000 < E < 56000 56000 < E < 180000

Scaled PSFs: Energy Dependence

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST14

-1<cos()<-.8 -.8<cos()<-.6

-.6<cos()<-.4 -.4<cos()<-.2

McEnergy < 10000 MeV

Scaled PSFs: Angle Dependence

On Axis

Edge of FoV

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST15

1) Scale Factors adjusted to 2.38 & 3.36 Thin / Thick respectively

2) IMcoreProb > .2 & IMpsfErrPred < 3. (SR cuts)

3) Energy cut: .5 <Tkr1ConEne/EvtEnergySumOpt

< 1.Note: This cuts out almost 1/2 the data !!!! (44.4%)

Universal PSF Curve???

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST16

Pair Energies: The Missing Half

Only Valid Region: [.5, 1.)

Optimization done in

Kinks

EN

1

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST17

Pair Energies: The Missing Half (2)

Optimization done in

KinksE N

11

&

Consraint to QED

Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLASTGLAST18

Post Rome: Next Steps

1) Use EvtEnergySumOpt for constraint energy

2) Try 1/E optimization - shouldn't be worse then the present situation.

3) Fit Shower Model Leakage parameters out past 180 GeV.