| 39 | | We have also had concerns that some of the Magic false positives are caused by fractional errors in the variance. We have found that the GPC1 data processed to the difference level has a higher pixel-to-pixel standard deviation in the background than expected from the noise propagation. The effect is ranges from about The last four images illustrate the impact of the |
| | 39 | We have also had concerns that some of the Magic false positives are caused by fractional errors in the variance. We have found that the GPC1 data processed to the difference level has a higher pixel-to-pixel standard deviation in the background than expected from the noise propagation. In the case of the exposure above, the effect ranges from about 15% to 25% (ie, stdev is 15% to 25% higher than expected). We have shown that this effect does not appear in our simulated data analysis, which seems to suggest it is not caused by the software specifically. The last four images illustrate the impact of an error in the variance level of this scale. |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | || [[Image(http://kiawe.ifa.hawaii.edu/eugene/software/magic/72897.raw.clusters.png)]] |
| | 42 | || [[Image(http://kiawe.ifa.hawaii.edu/eugene/software/magic/72897.raw.streaks.png)]] |
| | 43 | || |
| | 44 | || [[Image(http://kiawe.ifa.hawaii.edu/eugene/software/magic/72897.sig29.clusters.png)]] |
| | 45 | || [[Image(http://kiawe.ifa.hawaii.edu/eugene/software/magic/72897.sig29.streaks.png)]] |
| | 46 | || |