CHICOS Analysiscut2

I have added a cut on core location to autoFit5. It now requires that the core of the shower be within 2 km of at least one site in the array.

Data file

Showers which are affected by this cut:

11-05-03 New. Energy quite high. Off edge of the array.
01-16-04 New. Messy and high-energy.
05-31-04 New.
06-01-04 Best Candidate.
07-31-04 New.
01-13-05 New. Core off edge of the array. Highest energy.
05-04-05 New. Core off edge of the array.
06-01-05 Best Candidate.
09-14-05 New.
12-14-05 Other Possible.
05-13-06 Other Possible. High-energy, off edge of the array.
05-25-06 Other Possible
08-21-06 Best Candidate.

This cut more showers than I intended. Also, looking at the area included in a 2km cutoff, I think a larger number would be better. Next up: 3km.

With a 3km cutoff, only 5 showers are excluded:

11-05-03 New. Energy quite high. Off edge of the array.
01-16-04 New. Messy and high-energy.
01-13-05 New. Core off edge of the array. Highest energy.
05-04-05 New. Core off edge of the array.
05-13-06 Other Possible. High-energy, off edge of the array.

Data file

This seems like a better set, as it agrees with showers visually identified as being outside the array.

Oddly, one additional shower passed in both of these trials (06-15-07). Not sure why.

I looked at the showers with -Log(likelihood)>200 and most of them had afterpulses or sites with multiple spread-out hits. 07-09-05 was one of these but is a very nice (large) shower. I don't think it would be helpful to put a cut on this number.

Distribution of core locations by energy bin: