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.