GLAST Standard Analysis Environment (SAE) Evaluation Questionnaire
Checkup 1
October 12, 2004 - October 29, 2004


Reviewer: David Band
Software Component: rspgen
Summary of Tests Performed:
1. Point source, PHA1
2. Point source, PHA2
3. Point source, LC

User Interface


1. What, if anything, about the choice and meaning of parameters
could be improved? Are there new parameters which need to be
added? Are the current parameters sensible?

The cutoff angle used by rspgen should be the same as used to select
the photons. Perhaps this can be propagated through the FT1 to the
PHA file. The use of any other angle is not scientifically sound.

The radius of the circle used by rspgen must be the same as that used
to select the photons.

Whether the IRFs are from the back, the front or both must be the same
for both rspgen and the photon selection. As with the cutoff angle and
the radius, perhaps this information should be propagated through the
FT1 and PHA files?


2. Are there any prompts you would suggest rewording?


3. Are there any hidden parameters which you think should be
prompted for or vice versa?


4. Would you like the prompts to appear in a different order?


5. Would you suggest changes to the default values of any
parameters? Changes to min, max fields?



Tool Behavior


6. In what way, if any, did the tool perform unexpectedly?

When a lightcurve rather than a PHA file is input, rspgen dies
with a message that a parameter can't be found, NOT that the
wrong filetype was input.

7. Were there any aspects of the tool's output which seem
scientifically suspicious to you? (e.g. fluxes too large,
number of events selected too small, etc.)

JIRA GRB-7--RSP matrix created by rspgen has weak second diagonal
The RSP matrix created by rspgen should have nonzero entries
in a band diagonally across the matrix. There is a second
diagonal band; this second band is much smaller than the
primary one by a factor of 1e-10. Thus this will not cause
significant errors, but may be indicative of a deeper error.


8. Was there information (i.e. output) the tool did not provide
which you think it should?


9. Was there information (i.e. output) the tool provided which
you think it should not?



Future Development


10. List new features you would like to see implemented, in
descending order of importance. Please flag any which you
think are critical for DC2.

respgen should produce RSP2 files (once these are defined...).


11. Are there any aspects of this tool you would change in order
for it to work more smoothly with other parts of the SAE?



JIRA Summary


Please list the identifiers of any/all JIRA issues which were filed
in connection with this evaluation.

GRB-7


General Notes


Please include here any comments about this tool which do not
fit into one of the categories above.