 Channel switching under uncertainty in a combined receiver horizon

Channel switching under uncertainty in a combined receiver horizon occurs when uncertainty changes which receiver has the latest accessible input time. For channel $j$, let $H_j=T_j-d_j$ be its last output time minus its effective input-to-output offset. The combined horizon is $H={\max }_j{H}_j$, as in receiver-latency uncertainty in the inferred input-time horizon. Away from ties a small perturbation may preserve the maximizing channel; near a tie it need not. Propagating only that channel's variance omits the switching operation.

An original two-channel model makes the effect exact. Suppose $H_1$ and $H_2$ are independent normal random variables with common mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $s>0$. Independence giveswhere $\Phi$ is the standard normal distribution cumulative distribution function. This square is already enough to show that $H$ is not normal: $\mathrm{Pr}(H\le \mu )=1/4$.

To calculate the resulting bias relative to the common nominal horizon, write $H=(H_1+H_2+|H_1-H_2|)/2$. The difference has normal distribution with variance $2s^2$, hence $E|H_1-H_2|=2s/\sqrt{\pi }$. The sum and difference are independent in this model, givingFor $\mu =100\mathrm{ns}$ and $s=1\mathrm{ns}$, the combined mean is about $100.564\mathrm{ns}$ and its standard deviation is about $0.826\mathrm{ns}$. The formulas concern the uncertainty distribution of the horizon, not a promise of extra observable future illumination. The normal cdf/ppf routines provide direct evaluation of the probabilities.^[ref]

Shared clock or calibration errors invalidate the independence product. The distribution of the maximum of correlated receiver horizons must retain the joint timing model; NIST's general uncertainty guidance retains input covariance and requires distributional justification for coverage.^[ref] For hard bounds instead, $H_1\in [99,101]\mathrm{ns}$ and $H_2\in [100,102]\mathrm{ns}$ imply $H\in [100,102]\mathrm{ns}$ without selecting a fixed winning channel. Neither calculation establishes invertibility of the physical receiver.