1. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 1 Update on Rome Results Agenda A eff Fall-off past 10 GeV V3R3P7 Classification Trees Covariance Scaled PSFs Pair Energies

2. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 2 A eff Fall-off After "GoodEnergy" Cut No Cuts - Not "NoCal" After PSF("CORE") Cut

3. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 3 After "GoodEnergy" Cut No Cuts - Not "NoCal" After PSF("CORE") Cut A eff Post New Cts

4. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 4 NoCal: < 2 r.l. or < 5 MeV LowCal: < 350 MeV MedCal: < 3500 MeV HighCal: > 3500 MeV CAL Energy Def's and Good/Bad Breakdown Energy Cts

5. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 5

6. GLAST 6 Energy Cts Summary Plot SR Cut ForV3R3P7

7. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 7 Thin VTX/1Tkr Tree Energy Selection: GoodE.Prob >.20 + Standard Cleaning (See Rome Talk)

8. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 8 Thin VTX Core

9. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 9 Thin VTX Regression - Prediction

10. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 10 Rome: Thin PSF's - Integrated over FoV 4 Combinations of Cuts (CORE/Pred) Cuts: 1/1 Ratio 95/68 > 3 Meets SR Events Eff.: 94.5% Cuts: 2/1 Cuts: 3/2 Events Eff.: 52.3% Cuts: 3/4 Events Eff.: 19.1%

11. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 11 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

12. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 12 Definitions: 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: and (from Covariance.ppt presentation to Analysis Group, July, 2003)

13. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 13 18 < E < 56 56 < E < 180 180 < E < 560 560 < E < 1800 1800 < E < 5600 Comment: Works well except in regions where energies fed to Kalman Filter are in-accurate. Specifically below 50 MeV and above 10 GeV 5600 < E < 18000 18000 < E < 56000 56000 < E < 180000 Scaled PSFs: Energy Dependence

14. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 14 -1<cos(  )<-.8 -.8<cos(  )<-.6 -.6<cos(  )<-.4 -.4<cos(  )<-.2 McEnergy < 10000 MeV Scaled PSFs: Angle Dependence On Axis Edge of FoV

15. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 15 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???

16. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 16 Pair Energies: The Missing Half Only Valid Region: [.5, 1.) Optimization done in

17. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 17 Pair Energies: The Missing Half (2) Optimization done in & Consraint to QED

18. Bill Atwood, SCIPP/UCSC, Nov, 2003 GLAST 18 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.